[Foundation-l] Controversial Content vs Only-Image-Filter
In the last weeks i hold myself back and watched over the comments at multiple places to see what is the current development. At first i have to point out that I'm very disappointed by the current progress. Sue called for a more general discussion. Ting stated again, like in Nürnberg, that it is already decided. That is controversial in itself and can't lead to a constructive discussion. That aside, I looked at the various comments and the brainstorming pages. It is really boring to look at them, since 99% of the comments miss the point. There are a whole lot of comments regarding how the image filter should look like. That are all comments/suggestions not related to the fundamental questions. But they only serve to disrupt the thought progress, ignoring anything aside how it should look like, and even ignoring the basic complaints (non-neutral categorization). The first question should be: Is controversial content a problem for the project? Some might now say yes or no. But I'm not interested in this answers. I'm also not interested in single examples. I'm interested in whole view and sources that speak in general about this question. If we might come to the conclusion that there is a general (not specific) problem, then we might talk about the image filter and if it can be a solution to that problem. nya~ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote: flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense. The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise to ensure that your own information is impeccable first. /flame sincerely, Kim Bruning I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to get the categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the images already that any org that may wish to could block images that are in disapproved categories. The problem, and it is a genuine problem, is that the fucking stupid images leak out across commons in unexpected ways. Lets assuime that an 6th grade class is asked to write a report on Queen Victoria, and a child serach commons for prince albert: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=prince+albertlimit=50offset=0 If you at work you probably do not want to clicking the above link at all. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 11/10/2011 00:47, MZMcBride wrote: Risker wrote: Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not have the same effect. I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed. Personally, from the technical side, I don't think there's any way to make per-category filtering work. What happens when a category is deleted? Or a category is renamed (which is effectively deleting the old category name currently)? And are we really expecting individual users to go through millions of categories and find the ones that may be offensive to them? Surely users don't want to do that. The whole point is that they want to limit their exposure to such images, not dig into the millions of categories that may exist looking for ones that largely contain content they find objectionable. Surely. People that care will filter on broadest categories as those are least likely to change. They may start with category:sex, Category:Depictions of Muhammad, etc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] University project on Wikipedia
[Cross-posting this to Translators-l, WikiEN-l and Foundation-l, because there is a considerable amount of overlap, as you'll see. Volunteers from several Wikipedias may be needed, and the Foundation could eventually be involved if the project becomes an annual one. I apologize in advance to those subscribed all three lists.] Hello everyone, (Note: For those who don't know me, I am [[User:Arria Belli]]. Former admin and arbitrator over at fr:wp, and member of the LangCom. I met some of you at Wikimania 2008 Alexandria, where I did a presentation called Translation in Wikimedia Projects ex-aequo with [[User:Britty]].) I've just started a master's degree at the ESIT (Ecole supérieure d'interprètes et de traducteurs) in Paris, in English/French/Spanish translation. It's quite a good school; a large percentage of the interpreters and translators working in international organizations are graduates of the ESIT. My French-to-English translation professor has asked me to set up a project for all the students in her class, translating Wikipedia articles. We're a small group: there are only about 5 or 6 of us. What we'd be doing is taking articles from fr: and translating them to en:. Students are free to choose the articles they'll translate. Since I'm mostly active over at fr:wp, I will need some help from people on en:. Most notably, I think it would be wise to set up a small group of en:wp volunteers who could guide the students on a one-on-one basis in case they have trouble understanding wiki markup, references, etc. I would be coordinating the project, but I don't think I could field all the students' questions at once! Any volunteers? I want to make this as positive an experience as possible for everyone involved: the students, the professor and the institution. If the project is successful enough, it might happen again next year or even next semester, and become a regular thing. As a very important aside: My professor told me that professors in other language combinations might also be interested in Wikipedia projects of their own. Therefore, there could be an English-to-Russian project, or a French-to-Spanish one, or French-to-Korean, etc. I'll let you know as soon as I'm told whether this could happen. Even if no other language combinations are interested, they might be next year if this one is a success. Thank you, and happy editing. Maria Fanucchi [[User:Arria Belli]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???: On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote: flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense. The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise to ensure that your own information is impeccable first./flame sincerely, Kim Bruning I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to get the categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the images already that any org that may wish to could block images that are in disapproved categories. I have to throw that kind wording back at you. It isn't very difficult to judge what is offensive and what isn't, because it is impossible to do this, if you want to stay neutral and to respect any, even if only any major, opinion out there. Wikipedia and Commons are projects that gather knowledge or media. Wikipedia has an editorial system that watches over the content to be accurate and representative. Commons is a media library with a categorization system that aids the reader to what he want's to find. The category system in itself is (or should be) build upon directional labels. Anything else is contradictory to current practice and unacceptable: * Wikipedia authors do not judge about topics. They also do not claim for themselves that something is controversial, ugly, bad, ... * Commons contributers respect this terms as well. They don't judge about the content. They gather and categorize it. But they will not append prejudicial labels. The problem, and it is a genuine problem, is that the fucking stupid images leak out across commons in unexpected ways. Lets assuime that an 6th grade class is asked to write a report on Queen Victoria, and a child serach commons for prince albert: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=prince+albertlimit=50offset=0 If you at work you probably do not want to clicking the above link at all. Worst case scenarios will always happen. With filter or without filter, you will still and always find such examples. They are seldom, and might happen from time to time. But they aren't the rule. They aren't at the same height as you should use to measure a flood. To give an simple example of the opposite. Enable strict filtering on google and search for images with the term futanari . Don't say that i did not warn you... A last word: Categorizing content rightful as good and evil is impossible for human beings, that we are. But categorizing content as good and evil always led to destructive consequences if human beings are involved, that we are. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] University project on Wikipedia
Ça va être bien! It will be good! Je vais faire du bénévolat pour ceci. I will volunteer. Étienne (Ebe123) On 11-10-16 8:21 AM, Maria Fanucchi marialado...@gmail.com wrote: [Cross-posting this to Translators-l, WikiEN-l and Foundation-l, because there is a considerable amount of overlap, as you'll see. Volunteers from several Wikipedias may be needed, and the Foundation could eventually be involved if the project becomes an annual one. I apologize in advance to those subscribed all three lists.] Hello everyone, (Note: For those who don't know me, I am [[User:Arria Belli]]. Former admin and arbitrator over at fr:wp, and member of the LangCom. I met some of you at Wikimania 2008 Alexandria, where I did a presentation called Translation in Wikimedia Projects ex-aequo with [[User:Britty]].) I've just started a master's degree at the ESIT (Ecole supérieure d'interprètes et de traducteurs) in Paris, in English/French/Spanish translation. It's quite a good school; a large percentage of the interpreters and translators working in international organizations are graduates of the ESIT. My French-to-English translation professor has asked me to set up a project for all the students in her class, translating Wikipedia articles. We're a small group: there are only about 5 or 6 of us. What we'd be doing is taking articles from fr: and translating them to en:. Students are free to choose the articles they'll translate. Since I'm mostly active over at fr:wp, I will need some help from people on en:. Most notably, I think it would be wise to set up a small group of en:wp volunteers who could guide the students on a one-on-one basis in case they have trouble understanding wiki markup, references, etc. I would be coordinating the project, but I don't think I could field all the students' questions at once! Any volunteers? I want to make this as positive an experience as possible for everyone involved: the students, the professor and the institution. If the project is successful enough, it might happen again next year or even next semester, and become a regular thing. As a very important aside: My professor told me that professors in other language combinations might also be interested in Wikipedia projects of their own. Therefore, there could be an English-to-Russian project, or a French-to-Spanish one, or French-to-Korean, etc. I'll let you know as soon as I'm told whether this could happen. Even if no other language combinations are interested, they might be next year if this one is a success. Thank you, and happy editing. Maria Fanucchi [[User:Arria Belli]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 16/10/2011 12:37, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 12:53, schrieb ???: On 11/10/2011 15:33, Kim Bruning wrote: flame on Therefore you cannot claim that I am stating nonsense. The inverse is true: you do not possess the information to support your position, as you now admit. In future, before you set out to make claims of bad faith in others, it would be wise to ensure that your own information is impeccable first./flame sincerely, Kim Bruning I claim that you are talking total crap. It is not *that* difficult to get the categories of an image and reject based on which categories the image is in are. There are enough people out there busily categorizing all the images already that any org that may wish to could block images that are in disapproved categories. I have to throw that kind wording back at you. It isn't very difficult to judge what is offensive and what isn't, because it is impossible to do this, if you want to stay neutral and to respect any, even if only any major, opinion out there. Wikipedia and Commons are projects that gather knowledge or media. Wikipedia has an editorial system that watches over the content to be accurate and representative. Commons is a media library with a categorization system that aids the reader to what he want's to find. The category system in itself is (or should be) build upon directional labels. Anything else is contradictory to current practice and unacceptable: It is incredibly easy. One justs says any image within Category:Sex is not acceptable. Its not hard to do. An organisation can run a script once a week or so to delve down through the category hierachy to pick up any changes. You already categorize the images for any one with enough processing power, or the will to censor the content. I doubt that anyone doing so is going to be too bothered whether they've falsely censored an image that is in Category:Sex that isn't 'controversial' or not. * Wikipedia authors do not judge about topics. They also do not claim for themselves that something is controversial, ugly, bad, ... * Commons contributers respect this terms as well. They don't judge about the content. They gather and categorize it. But they will not append prejudicial labels. Of course they do: they add categories. Some else applies the value judgment as to whether images in that category are controversial or not. The job of WMF editors just to categorise them. If Arachnids are 'controversial' then anything under that category goes. Just label the damn things and shut the fuck up. The problem, and it is a genuine problem, is that the fucking stupid images leak out across commons in unexpected ways. Lets assuime that an 6th grade class is asked to write a report on Queen Victoria, and a child serach commons for prince albert: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=prince+albertlimit=50offset=0 If you at work you probably do not want to clicking the above link at all. Worst case scenarios will always happen. With filter or without filter, you will still and always find such examples. They are seldom, and might happen from time to time. But they aren't the rule. They aren't at the same height as you should use to measure a flood. That are not seldom, they leak all over the place. You can get porn on commons by searching for 'furniture'. Porn images are everywhere on Commons. To give an simple example of the opposite. Enable strict filtering on google and search for images with the term futanari . Don't say that i did not warn you... Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for cumshot. We aren't talking about terms that have primarily a sexual context but phrases like 'furniture' or 'prince albert' which do not. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
I wrote: In this context, you view images as entities independent from the people and things depicted therein (and believe that our use of illustrations not included in other publications constitutes undue weight). Andreas Kolbe replied: I view images as *content*, subject to the same fundamental policies and principles as any other content. You view them as standalone pieces of information, entirely distinct from those conveyed textually. You believe that their inclusion constitutes undue weight unless reliable sources utilize the same or similar illustrations (despite their publication of text establishing the images' accuracy and relevance). The English Wikipedia community disagrees with you. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that we should use the *very same* illustrations that reliable sources use – we can't, for obvious copyright reasons, and there is no need to follow sources that slavishly anyway. I realize that you advocate the use of comparable illustrations, but in my view, slavish is a good description of the extent to which you want us to emulate our sources' presentational styles. I agree by the way that we should never write F*** or s***. Some newspapers do that, but it is not a practice that the best and most reliable sources (scholarly, educational sources as opposed to popular press) use. We should be guided by the best, most encyclopedic sources. YMMV. I previously mentioned Shit My Dad Says. Have you seen the sources cited in the English Wikipedia's article? Time (the world's largest weekly news magazine) refers to it as Sh*t My Dad Says. http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1990838,00.html The New York Times (recipient of more Pulitzer Prizes than any other news organization) uses Stuff My Dad Says. So does the Los Angeles Times, which states that the subject's actual name is unsuitable for a family publication. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/books/review/InsideList-t.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/09/mydadsays-twitter.html You might dismiss those sources as the popular press, but they're the most reputable ones available on the subject. Should we deem their censorship sacrosanct and adopt it as our own? David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] University project on Wikipedia
I think the good people over at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination]] might be able to help you set this up and render assistance. Sounds like a wonderful project, good luck! -kc- - Original Message - From: Maria Fanucchi marialado...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Translators translator...@lists.wikimedia.org; wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org; foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 7:21 AM Subject: [Foundation-l] University project on Wikipedia [Cross-posting this to Translators-l, WikiEN-l and Foundation-l, because there is a considerable amount of overlap, as you'll see. Volunteers from several Wikipedias may be needed, and the Foundation could eventually be involved if the project becomes an annual one. I apologize in advance to those subscribed all three lists.] Hello everyone, (Note: For those who don't know me, I am [[User:Arria Belli]]. Former admin and arbitrator over at fr:wp, and member of the LangCom. I met some of you at Wikimania 2008 Alexandria, where I did a presentation called Translation in Wikimedia Projects ex-aequo with [[User:Britty]].) I've just started a master's degree at the ESIT (Ecole supérieure d'interprètes et de traducteurs) in Paris, in English/French/Spanish translation. It's quite a good school; a large percentage of the interpreters and translators working in international organizations are graduates of the ESIT. My French-to-English translation professor has asked me to set up a project for all the students in her class, translating Wikipedia articles. We're a small group: there are only about 5 or 6 of us. What we'd be doing is taking articles from fr: and translating them to en:. Students are free to choose the articles they'll translate. Since I'm mostly active over at fr:wp, I will need some help from people on en:. Most notably, I think it would be wise to set up a small group of en:wp volunteers who could guide the students on a one-on-one basis in case they have trouble understanding wiki markup, references, etc. I would be coordinating the project, but I don't think I could field all the students' questions at once! Any volunteers? I want to make this as positive an experience as possible for everyone involved: the students, the professor and the institution. If the project is successful enough, it might happen again next year or even next semester, and become a regular thing. As a very important aside: My professor told me that professors in other language combinations might also be interested in Wikipedia projects of their own. Therefore, there could be an English-to-Russian project, or a French-to-Spanish one, or French-to-Korean, etc. I'll let you know as soon as I'm told whether this could happen. Even if no other language combinations are interested, they might be next year if this one is a success. Thank you, and happy editing. Maria Fanucchi [[User:Arria Belli]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this kind of wording, or we are done. nya~ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this kind of wording, or we are done. Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad your email provider added that option for you. Yet another censorship hipocrite. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
If the entire premise of an email comes down to I'm taunting you, that's an indication it probably shouldn't be sent. Dan Rosenthal On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this kind of wording, or we are done. Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad your email provider added that option for you. Yet another censorship hipocrite. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:57 AM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.ukwrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this kind of wording, or we are done. Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad your email provider added that option for you. Yet another censorship hipocrite. I think he meant ignoring you, I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all. Which has also been an argument against the filter, I don't see anything hypocritical in that. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results. I posted some more Commons search terms where this happens on Meta; they include Black, Caucasian, Asian; Male, Female, Teenage, Woman, Man; Vegetables; Drawing, Drawing style; Barbie, Doll; Demonstration, Slideshow; Drinking, Custard, Tan; Hand, Forefinger, Backhand, Hair; Bell tolling, Shower, Furniture, Crate, Scaffold; Galipette – French for somersault; this leads to a collection of 1920s pornographic films which are undoubtedly of significant historical interest, but are also pretty much as explicit as any modern representative of the genre. Andreas From: Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 16 October 2011, 20:31 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content If the entire premise of an email comes down to I'm taunting you, that's an indication it probably shouldn't be sent. Dan Rosenthal On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 16.10.2011 16:17, schrieb ???: On 16/10/2011 14:50, David Gerard wrote: On 16 October 2011 14:40, ???wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in empathy. Trolling much eh David? But thanks for showing once again your incapacity to acknowledge that searching for sexual images and seeing such images, is somewhat different, from searching for non sexual imagary and getting sexual images. I have to agree with David. Your behavior is provocative and unproductive. I don't feel the need to respond to your arguments at all, if you write in this tone. You could either excuse yourself for this kind of wording, or we are done. Now you wouldn't be complainng about seeing content not to your liking would you. What are you going to do filter out the posts? Bet your glad your email provider added that option for you. Yet another censorship hipocrite. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
* Andreas Kolbe wrote: Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results. That is normal and expected with a full text search that does not filter out sexual images. Even if you search for sexual content on Commons it is normal and expected that you get results you would rather not get. It is possible to largely avoid this by using, say, Google Image Search and a site:commons.wikimedia.org constraint and the right SafeSearch setting if you want for the simpler cases, but I would not want to search for, say, penis, on either site when unprepared for shock. I do not think Commons is relevant to the Image Filter discussion, the image filter is for things editors largely agree should be included in context, while on Commons you lack context and editorial control. If there was a MediaWiki extension that is good at emulating Google's SafeSearch, installing that on Commons might be an acceptable idea, but there is not, and making one would be rather expensive. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Commons featured prominently in the Harris study, as well as the board resolution on controversial content. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content Andreas From: Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net To: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:15 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content * Andreas Kolbe wrote: Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results. That is normal and expected with a full text search that does not filter out sexual images. Even if you search for sexual content on Commons it is normal and expected that you get results you would rather not get. It is possible to largely avoid this by using, say, Google Image Search and a site:commons.wikimedia.org constraint and the right SafeSearch setting if you want for the simpler cases, but I would not want to search for, say, penis, on either site when unprepared for shock. I do not think Commons is relevant to the Image Filter discussion, the image filter is for things editors largely agree should be included in context, while on Commons you lack context and editorial control. If there was a MediaWiki extension that is good at emulating Google's SafeSearch, installing that on Commons might be an acceptable idea, but there is not, and making one would be rather expensive. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
For reference, the resolution said: * We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted ***on the projects*** that they do not wish to view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through preference settings. We affirm that no image should be permanently removed because of this feature, only hidden; that the language used in the interface and development of this feature be as neutral and inclusive as possible; that the principle of least astonishment for the reader is applied; and that the feature be visible, clear and usable on ***all Wikimedia projects*** for both logged-in and logged-out readers. This doesn't look like Commons is exempt from that, but perhaps the Board might like to clarify that point. Andreas From: Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com To: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011, 2:59 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content 2011/10/17 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com: Commons featured prominently in the Harris study, as well as the board resolution on controversial content. Indeed, but featured curation on Commons, not filtering Commons. IMHO the filter discussion should concentrate on the other projects and treat Commons differently and separately. Sir48/Thyge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
