On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Tobias Oelgarte < [email protected]> wrote:
> Am 18.10.2011 23:20, schrieb Andreas K.: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Tobias Oelgarte< > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> You said that we should learn from Google and other top websites, but at > >> the same time you want to introduce objective criteria, which neither of > >> this websites did? > > > > > > > > What I mean is that we should not classify media as offensive, but in > terms > > such as "photographic depictions of real-life sex and masturbation", > "images > > of Muhammad". If someone feels strongly that they do not want to see > these > > by default, they should not have to. In terms of what areas to cover, we > can > > look at what people like Google do (e.g. by comparing "moderate safe > search" > > and "safe search off" results), and at what our readers request. > > > > > The problem is, that we never asked our readers, before the whole thing > was running wild already. It would be really the time to question the > feelings of the readers. That would mean to ask the readers in very > different regions to get an good overview about this topic. I agree with you here, and in fact said so months ago. We should have surveyed our readership (as well), rather than (just) our editorship. > What Google > and other commercial groups do shouldn't be a reference to us. They > serve their core audience and ignore the rest, since their aim is > profit, and only profit, no matter what "good reasons" they represent. > We are quite an exception from them. Not in popularity, but in concept. > If we put to the example of "futanari", then we surely agree that there > could be quite a lot of people that would be surprised. Especially if > "safe-search" is on. But now we have to ask why it is that way? Why does > it work so well for other, more common terms in a western audience? > I think we addressed this example previously. > I do not see this as the majority winning, and a minority losing. I see it > > as everyone winning -- those who do not want to be confronted with > whatever > > media don't have to be, and those who want to see them can. > > > I guess you missed the point that a minority of offended people would > just be ignored. Looking at the goal and Tings examples, then we would > just strengthen the current position (western majority and point of > view) but doing little to nothing in the areas that where the main > concern, or at least the strong argument to start the progress. If it > really comes down to the point that a majority does not find Muhammad > caricatures offensive and it "wins", then we have no solution. > I am all in favour of taking minority concerns on board. Specifically that Muhammad images should be filterable; no question. The point is that the more disparate filter wishes we accommodate, the more filter attributes will be necessary, which is something that worries other editors. I haven't really made my mind up on this one. > > My mind is not made up; we are still in a brainstorming phase. Of the > > alternatives presented so far, I like the opt-in version of Neitram's > > proposal best: > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#thumb.2Fhidden > > > > If something better were proposed, my views might change. > > > > > > Best, > > Andreas > > > I read this proposal and can't see a real difference in a second > thought. At first it is good that the decision stays related to the > topic and is not separated as in the first proposals. But it also has a > bad taste in itself. We directly deliver the tags needed to remove > content by third parties (SPI, Local Network, Institutions), no matter > if the reader chooses to view the image or not, and we are still in > charge to declare what might be or is offensive to others, forcing our > judgment onto the users of the feature. > > Overall it follows a good intention, but I'm very concerned about the > side effects, which just let me say "no way" to this proposal as it is. > The community will always be in charge, one way or the other. I think that's unavoidable. And to many people, this is the exact opposite of a bad thing: it's an absolute *must* that the community should be in charge, and understandably so, as they are the ones doing the work. I disagree though that it necessarily must mean that the community declares what is offensive to others. We, as a community, can *listen* to what people are telling us, and take their concerns on board. I have no problem adding a filter attribute to a file that a reader tells me offends him, and which he wishes to be able to filter out, even if I think it is a perfectly fine image. Nor would I feel the need to impose my view on them the other way round, telling them they should just grow a thicker skin and get used to the image. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
