subject:"\[Foundation\-l\] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters"

On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
 He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
 manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
 need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
 any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.

 For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
 make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
 notwithstanding)...


The worst? The very worst? You're quite sure about that, and not being
hyperbolic?


I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read
 the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the
 author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to
 put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be
 traced to a single person).


Sue was going on and on about [[:de:vulva]] and the poll surrounding
it and saying those things about her opponents (while claiming her
opponents were of low tone). He seemed to take it that way, and I see
a pile of commenters from de:wp taking it that way. She would have to
have been much less aware of her own words than she is to assume it
would *not* be.

Saying *after* the fact oh, I don't mean *you*, I mean all those
*other* (unnamed) people - a variation of the tone argument - doesn't
take away from the thrust of her article: that those opposed to her
have awful tone and should therefore be ignored.

I've been bending over backwards to try to contribute with substance,
but the staff and board attitude, and finally this post from Sue,
really make me wonder why I fucking bother.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread church.of.emacs.ml

On 09/29/2011 04:37 PM, Dirk Franke wrote:
 For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)
 
 http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html

So basically, we find that there are two different, somewhat
incompatible definitions of Wikipedia:

* A project of pure enlightenment, which ignores the biased/prejudiced
reader and accepts the resulting limited distribution.

* A project of praxis, which seeks a balance between the goals of
enlightenment and the reader's interests, aiming at a high distribution.


-- Tobias



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Erik Moeller

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*.

The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is
not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image
hiding feature

She also wrote in the comments: What I talk about in this post is
completely independent of the filter, and it’s worth discussing (IMO)
on its own merits

So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter.
;-)

Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the
elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be
implemented and how. And it's understandable that lots of people are
responding accordingly. But I think it's pretty clear that Sue was
trying to start a broader conversation in good faith. I know that
she's done lots of thinking about the conversations so far including
the de.wp poll, and she's also summarized some of this in her report
to the Board:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_the_board/en#What_has_happened_since_the_referendum

The broader conversation she's seeking to kick off in her blog post
_can_, IMO, usefully inform the filter conversation.

What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and
expectations of our readers fully into account. Whether you agree with
her specific examples or not, this is certainly generally true in a
community where decisions are generally made by whoever happens to
show up, and sometimes the people who show up are biased, stupid or
wrong. And even when the people who show up are thoughtful,
intelligent and wise, the existing systems, processes and expectations
may lead them to only be able to make imperfect decisions.

Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article,
which was one of the first examples of an article with a highly
disputed explicit image on the English Wikipedia (cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_1 ).

If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll
notice that there are two big banners: Wikipedia is not censored and
If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to
mask them, with further instructions.

Often, these kinds of banners come into being because people (readers
and active editors) find their way to the talk page and complain about
an image being offensive. They are intended to do two things: Explain
our philosophy, but also give people support in making more informed
choices.

This is, in other words, the result of reasonable discussion by
thoughtful, intelligent and wise people about how to deal with
offensive images (and in some cases, text).

And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution. The autofellatio page has
been viewed 85,000 times in September. The associated discussion page
has been viewed 400 times. The options not to see an image page,
which is linked from many many of these pages, has been viewed 750
times.

We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the
data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by
images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we
can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have
conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing
so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think
these are reasonable hypotheses.

The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been
discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one.
Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system
based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of
editorial control.

An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of
wiki syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on
specific articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and
seeing small print at the top that says:

This article contains explicit images that some readers may find
objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]].

As requested by the Board resolution, it could then be trivial to
selectively unhide specific images.

If desired, it could be made easy to browse articles with that setting
on-by-default, which would be similar to the way the Arabic Wikipedia
handles some types of controversial content ( cf.
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%B9_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A
).

This could possibly be entirely implemented in JS and templates
without any complex additional software support, but it would probably
be nice to create a standardized tag for it and design the feature
itself for maximum usability.

Solutions of this type would have the advantage of giving
Wiki[mp]edians full editorial judgment and responsibility to use them
as they see fit, as opposed to being

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Béria Lima

I'll go by pieces in your mail Erik.

*The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is not to
talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding feature
(...) So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-)
*

It is quite surprise yes, since she gave half of the post to de.wiki main
page issue[1]. And also, if we decide to
ABFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABFof the other side (like
that post pretty much does) I would say that she
doesn't mention because would not help her case.

*Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant
in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how.
*

You forgot the *IF*: IF the elephant will be or not implemented.

*What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and
expectations of our readers fully into account
*

Well, if we consider the referendum a good place to go see results[2] we
can say that our readers are in doubt about that issue, pretty much 50%-50%
in doubt - with the difference that our germans readers are not: They DON'T
WANT it.

*Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article (...) If
you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll
notice that there are two big banners: Wikipedia is not censored and If
you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them,
with further instructions. (...) And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution.
The autofellatio page has been viewed 85,000 times in September. The
associated discussion page has been viewed 400 times. The options not to
see an image page, which is linked from many many of these pages, has been
viewed 750 times. We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further
into the data that there's a significant number of people who are offended
by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond.
*

No we can not. With 85,000 views, would be childish to imagine that only 400
people could see the Discussion tab over the article. If they got to the
article (and the article is not on MP) we need to assume that:
1. They looked for *autofellatio* in Google - thefore they knew what they
would might find.
2. They placed that into the search box - thefore they know at least a bit
how wikipedia works and know what is a discussion page and how to get there.
3. They got to the article by the links in another article. And by the links
of What Links
herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Autofellationamespace=0limit=250
feature there are no article no related with sex and sexuality that links to
this one, so that reader would know what they would find - like the 1. - and
knows how wikipedia works - like 2.

In any of the cases, I can only imagine that 1 has any reason to be offended
and don't know how to find the talk page. Even in that case - if we divide
by 3 the number of viewers (assuming here that 1, 2 and 3 has exactly the
same contribution to the number, that is 28,333 people. Which means that -
from the other 56,667 people - only 400 decided to check what is the talk
page. Which is 0,7% of the readers. From those, I can only see 3 people
complaining, which is 0,75% of everyone who goes in the talk page. Can you
see the idea? Only ~0,7% of all people who say that article is offended by
it. So, no, we can't assume that people get offended.

*An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of wiki
syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on specific
articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and seeing small print
at the top that says:

This article contains explicit images that some readers may find
objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]].*

That would indeed be a better idea - to be implemented as a gadget to log in
users. - and to be implemented in a way that prevents any kind of
censorship categories

*Our core community is 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception
biases (and yes, occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and discussions
in our community are typically not only dominated by that core group,
they're sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting
sufficient edit count criteria, etc.*

Yes it is. That does not mean girls get more offend by that. The 9% of the
girls are not screaming to tire apart all images, are they? In the opposite,
we can see the same 50%-50% pro-oppose in the female community as well. (As
example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
opposite sides. Have a vagina don't make us more or less offend for see one
in the main page.

[1]: Note there a page who was elected featured article be in the main page
is not a issue, whatever the subject is.
[2]: I don't, for the very simple reason that was badly written, as several
people already

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread WereSpielChequers

Re David's point that The trouble with responding on the blog is that
responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered. I can relate to that, it
isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
I've now posted my blog response in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where
really it should have gone in the first place.

Regards

WereSpielChequers
--


 Message: 3
 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:56:02 -0700
 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
judgement, and image filters
 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Message-ID:
caai3vqfkvi6_-8gc-9yrpkecfxaghztctt-trb4anxkbahd...@mail.gmail.com
 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
  Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. ?Naturally, please
  discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
  conversation about the image filter.
 
 
  The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
  being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.
 
  So here's one that's particularly apposite:
 
 
 http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
 
  He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
  manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
  need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
  any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.
 
 
  - d.

 For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
 make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
 notwithstanding)... I can't speak for Sue, of course, but when I read
 the blog post I see nothing in there that says she is referring to the
 author of this particular article (she refers only to the decision to
 put the article on the mainpage, presumably not something that can be
 traced to a single person).

 The quotation you have made stands as a separate point, and is
 unrelated to the discussion of the de main page above. She simply
 says: Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and
 agitators need to stop. -- not identifying particular people, or even
 particular topics. When I read this, what comes to *my* mind is some
 of the recent dialog on Foundation-l -- some of which was certainly
 intentionally provocative, and some of which did get very personal and
 personally hurtful, to myself and others.

 Sue's post is *not about the image filter*. It's about the dialog
 around the image filter, some of which has been great and some of
 which has sucked. It is, indeed, hard to talk to people when they
 attack you for it. But I don't think there was any attacking in Sue's
 post.

 -- phoebe




___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
 away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
 it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do.
 I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have
 been collected at:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en

 IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look
 for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the
 resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused
 attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring
 new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible
 versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each
 other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in
 a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing
 their own useful perspective.

 Erik



Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
and roles aside.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread MZMcBride

Erik Moeller wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
 any imposed filter is just *weird*.
 
 The intro and footer of Sue's post say: The purpose of this post is
 not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image
 hiding feature

When you cherry-pick, I don't think it's very unreasonable (or at least not
very unexpected) to be called a cherry-picker. Selectively choosing examples
that bolster your argument isn't really problematic, but in context, it came
off as ill-informed or ignorant at best, and as dishonest and disingenuous
at worst. Whether there are disclaimers or not, Sue speaks as the Executive
Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. And this issue is quite obviously
contentious. Bear-poking is bear-poking, whether intentional or not.

 So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll
 regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter.
 ;-)

I think what's sorely lacking right now is a broader overview of the issue.
I think a timeline would help, and I don't think one exists already.
Controversial content issue timeline on Meta-Wiki or something. It would
lay out when certain events happened, what their result was, and in what
order. Larry Sanger's comments about child pornography, the controversial
content resolution, the polls at the German Wikipedia, the cartoon
controversy from 2005, the vulva on the German Wikipedia Main Page more
recently, the image filter referendum, etc. all make less sense when thrown
into a jumble. Maybe I'll have some time this weekend to work on such a
timeline.

 We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the
 data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by
 images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we
 can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have
 conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing
 so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think
 these are reasonable hypotheses.

I think we can reasonably hypothesize that the majority of readers know how
to close a browser window. Or hit the back button. Or click a link to a
different page. The ones who are so deeply concerned about seeing
autofellatio on a page about autofellatio can implement their own solutions
to the problem (necessity is the mother of invention, right?). Can you
explain why you feel Wikimedia needs to be involved?

 The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been
 discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one.
 Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system
 based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of
 editorial control.

When you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an
organization other than Wikimedia that spearheaded a referendum that made
this image filter (and this particular implementation) a fait accompli. When
you make comments like this, it makes it sound as though it was an
organization other than Wikimedia that proposed specific design plans,
created by one of its employees. People have been discussing a particular
implementation because Wikimedia put one forward. Why does your post make it
sound as though this is surprising or unexpected?

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation
 away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as
 it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do.
 I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have
 been collected at:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en

 IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look
 for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the
 resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused
 attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring
 new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible
 versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each
 other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in
 a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing
 their own useful perspective.

 Erik



 Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
 Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
 won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
 the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
 convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
 and roles aside.

 Nathan


Hear, hear!


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread MZMcBride

Nathan wrote:
 Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
 Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
 won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
 the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
 convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
 and roles aside.

While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather
dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to
set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement
that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy
policy?

Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The
solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it
can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a
Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up
its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).

As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting
forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

Sorry if this is *too* condensed, but here is one summary of this issue...

First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging
articles.

Then we had Toby . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was
too ridiculous for words.

After that, numerous variations and formulations of filtering or
tagging content have been floated, and have pretty much earned their
status of the  most  perennial suggestion to always burn and crash.

And now we have a board/executive that wants to do an end run around
all that nasty history and create a fact on the ground. No, I don't
think that will fly.,
'

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 Nathan wrote:
 Erik, if you really want to change the focus of the debate, suggest to
 Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
 won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
 the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
 convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
 and roles aside.

 While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather
 dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to
 set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement
 that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy
 policy?

 Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The
 solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it
 can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a
 Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up
 its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).

 As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting
 forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.

 MZMcBride



Your examples are not similar to an image filter. No current core
principles are at stake, no major legal threats to the projects, etc.
More importantly, your board resolutions need to be enforceable
principle is not at odds with my suggestion: the board can state a
desire for, and an intention to work towards, an image filter while at
the same time directly disclaiming the intention to unilaterally
impose one.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Sumana Harihareswara


 (As  example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
 opposite sides. ...)
-*B?ria Lima*

Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
at least 4 women, not just 2.

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:54, Sumana Harihareswara
suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 (As  example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
 opposite sides. ...)
 -*B?ria Lima*

 Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
 at least 4 women, not just 2.

One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.

Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
(Brazil/Portugal) is against.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Bishakha Datta

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.

 Hope we're not going to call this a poll. :)

Cheers
Bishakha
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:



 One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
 in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.

 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.


Oh yes, I'm so tactical! (LOL) Regardless, you'll be delighted to know that
after mulling about the image filter and getting all bent out of shape about
it, I've come to this conclusion:

I don't give a shit about the image filter.

And it's an extremely freeing feeling.

-Sarah


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural  artistic research  advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 snip



 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.



Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the
US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
posts in the future.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 snip



 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.



 Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
 in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
 others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
 the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the
 US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
 the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
 discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
 posts in the future.

 Risker
 ___


I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two
other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question
of what do women think about the image filter? What about women in
different regions? is of some relevance - it's useful to try to
understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue
differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why
he said tactically re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I
think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
 The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
 the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
 discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
 posts in the future.
Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some 
numbers. Don't you
think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications?

Regards,
Oliver

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de wrote:

 Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
  The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
  the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
  discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
  posts in the future.
 Weird. I've only seen a post where Milos has been crunching some
 numbers. Don't you
 think you're assuming a bit too much to make such implications?

 My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their
geographic location rather than their input.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Oliver Koslowski

Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
 My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
 where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their
 geographic location rather than their input.

There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of the 
US-American female
contributors prefer the filter while only 30% of the non-US-American 
female contributors
do. Just like there is no harm in stating that 86% of the core 
contributors to de-WP do not
want to see the filter in their project.

It really depends on what you do with these numbers. If you use them and 
try to understand
why the two groups feel in such a drastically different way and how you 
wan to deal with that,
then there can't be anything wrong with that, can there?

You claim that Milos implied that if you're a woman from the US, your 
opinion is invalid, and
I have not seen anything like that.  It strikes me as funny that you 
would complain about  his
post being aggressive and alienating when your post could be construed 
as exactly that.

Regards,
Oliver

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
   On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  snip
 
 
 
  Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
  (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
  (Brazil/Portugal) is against.
 
 
 
  Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
 about
  in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
 to
  others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
 seeing
  the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
 the
  US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
 from
  the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
  discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
  posts in the future.
 
  Risker
  ___


 I think you're reading too much into this - he was replying to two
 other posts on the subject purely by adding information. The question
 of what do women think about the image filter? What about women in
 different regions? is of some relevance - it's useful to try to
 understand both the ways in which men and women see this issue
 differently, and the impact of cultural origins on views. Not sure why
 he said tactically re Sarah, but he probably has a reason, and I
 think Millosh is entitled to the benefit of doubt.



I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
post was about two basic issues:

*How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and

*The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most
educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic
in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in
our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational
information and media to the entire world.

There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and
belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as
importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of,
and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of
an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from
effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not
help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence
on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.

As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any
of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus
exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that
they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent
vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors
in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances.
Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting
editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present
it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key
information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or
eliminated.

Wikipedia is not censored is not a reason to include or exclude
information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it
clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on
subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces.
That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the
Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed.  Our
job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles
could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information,
however, is a matter of editorial judgment.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Nathan. The blog
 post was about two basic issues:

 *How Wiki[mp]edians are interacting with each other , and

 *The role of editorial judgment in selecting which content is most
 educational, informative, appropriate and (in the case of images) aesthetic
 in the content that the various projects present to the world at large in
 our shared, collaborative quest to provide useful and educational
 information and media to the entire world.

 There has been a fair amount of nastiness aimed at specific individuals and
 belittling of the opinions of others throughout this discussion. Just as
 importantly, there has been a fair amount of unjustified categorization of,
 and assumptions about, people's opinions (both pro and con) on the issue of
 an image filter. We all are aware that this sort of behaviour detracts from
 effective resolution of disputes. Xenophobia, sexism, and elitism do not
 help us to meet our collective goals, nor does an insistence
 on the discussion encompassing only very narrow parameters.

 As to editorial judgment, we all know that just about every edit made to any
 of our projects requires some degree of judgment. Even editors who focus
 exclusively on vandal control have to exercise such judgment to ensure that
 they do not reinsert inappropriate information when reverting an apparent
 vandal. Projects have countless policies and guidelines that direct editors
 in their selection of material to be included, and under what circumstances.
 Article improvement processes on each Wikipedia are geared toward assisting
 editors to select the best and most subject-appropriate content, to present
 it in a well-written and visually attractive way, and to ensure that key
 information on the topic is included, while trivia is limited or
 eliminated.

 Wikipedia is not censored is not a reason to include or exclude
 information within a specific article: it is the philosophy that makes it
 clear that Wikipedia provides educational and informative articles on
 subjects whether or not that subject may be censored by external forces.
 That is why we have articles about the Tiananmen Square protests, and the
 Dalai Lama, and Aung San Suu Kyi and frottage and vulva and Mohammed.  Our
 job is to present the information, regardless of whether these articles
 could be censored somewhere in the world. How we present that information,
 however, is a matter of editorial judgment.

 Risker


We may be misunderstanding each other, because I don't disagree with
anything you've written. Where we might part ways is in classifying
certain things as, in this case, sexism; I don't believe Millosh was
being sexist at all. Understanding gender differences, and using data
(even basically anecdotal data, in this case) is not the same as being
sexist, and I think its likely that this is an example of unjustified
categorization of, and assumptions about, people's opinions. We
should keep in mind that there are language and culture barriers even
on this list, and that these influence not just word choice and
grammar but also the context in which ideas are articulated and
understood.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:

 First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
 of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
 tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
 accomodation was made wherein they promised to not continue tagging
 articles.
 Then we had Toby . Again, by acclamation, that was squashed. It was
 too ridiculous for words.


Dates for all of these will be useful for the timeline.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:

From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28

On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.

Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with 
nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems 
quite valid.

Ryan Kaldari
Quite. 
I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a rape 
(perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include it in 
the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. 
That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it should 
be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not 
censored. 
That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED requires 
us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently beheaded. 
That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of 
men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images of 
naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
And so on.
Andreas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

I must confess I completely fail to understand how the discussions in this
thread, especially the last several dozens or so posts, advance our
mission.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
 One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
 in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.

 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.

 Oh yes, I'm so tactical! (LOL) Regardless, you'll be delighted to know that
 after mulling about the image filter and getting all bent out of shape about
 it, I've come to this conclusion:

 I don't give a shit about the image filter.

 And it's an extremely freeing feeling.

As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
(thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women
abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it.
Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to
the LGBT movement and identity theory.

Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every
nudity is seen as pornography, general position of American
feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position,
including inside of your last post: In principle yes because it looks
like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure
what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it.

In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image
filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and
questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

I was on Commons and stumbled across a photograph of a man cumming onto a
cracker and then eating it. Turns out this is called a soggy biscuit. You
learn something new everyday.

In the heat of annoyance about WP:NOTCENSORED cries, I decided to add the
image of the guy eating his cum drenched biscuit on the [[Soggy biscuit]]
article.

Well it was quickly taken down!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soggy_biscuit#Removing_the_article_image

But at least we have plenty of other images of people in sexually deviant
situations with their faces shown. :P

-Sarah You can't always get what you want, Stierch


On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:

 --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
 judgement, and image filters
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28


 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
  This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
 
  http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
 
  - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
  be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
  that they should therefore be ignored.

 Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
 nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
 quite valid.

 Ryan Kaldari
 Quite.
 I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a
 rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include
 it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
 That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it
 should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is
 not censored.
 That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED
 requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently
 beheaded.
 That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none
 of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the
 images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
 And so on.
 Andreas
 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural  artistic research  advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
 --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org  wrote:

 From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
 judgement, and image filters
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28

 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.
 Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
 nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
 quite valid.

 Ryan Kaldari
 Quite. 
 I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a 
 rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include 
 it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. 
 That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it 
 should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not 
 censored. 
 That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED 
 requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently 
 beheaded. 
 That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of 
 men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images 
 of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
 And so on.
 Andreas

I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that 
there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate 
Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some 
other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be 
illustrative as well as educational?

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:


 As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
 position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
 (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
 pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women
 abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it.
 Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to
 the LGBT movement and identity theory.




 Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every
 nudity is seen as pornography, general position of American
 feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position,
 including inside of your last post: In principle yes because it looks
 like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure
 what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it.


Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe
in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people want
to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the
power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really
need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.

Being called names and being lumped into a oh all Americans are pro filter,
blahblahblah, think nudity is bad is really tiresome.

That quote also isn't mine.

In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
 not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image
 filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
 much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
 even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
 sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and
 questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.


I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think girls should not be
educated about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
sexual content by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's SEX. Knowing how I
was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I
wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for some
juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia (because
we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).

And I'm sure there are plenty of other people, regardless of gender,
nationality, sexuality or other demographics that probably would feel the
same way.

It's funny that you just turned this into a think about the children
feminism thing.  I guess in your eyes I'm a failed feminist. ;)

-Sarah
Who learned more about sexuality from Madonna then she ever did from school
books or the internet.


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural  artistic research  advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
 in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
 others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
 the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the
 US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
 the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
 discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
 posts in the future.

As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
does it correlate with cultures.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
 about
  in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
 to
  others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
 seeing
  the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
 the
  US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
 from
  the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
  discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
  posts in the future.

 As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
 about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
 does it correlate with cultures.




I'm sorry to tell you, though, that you will not get this answer from this
mailing list.  Only a tiny number of Wiki[mp]edians subscribe to this list,
even fewer women subscribe to it, fewer still post to it, and your message
incorrectly characterized the views of at least two American women based on
their own posts to this list.  Thus, it becomes a disincentive to share
opinions when those opinions are first mischaracterized and secondly broken
down by reported sex and geographic origin.  Simply put, whatever happens on
this list is statistically insignificant and cannot, even in the tiniest
way, be considered representative of the views of either Wiki[mp]edians or
our readership, let alone extrapolated to determine the opinions of a
non-homogeneous country with 300 million residents.

I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
information for any of us to assume that those individual views are
representative of any particular demographic.  The sample size is far too
small.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
 covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
 here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
 information for any of us to assume that those individual views are
 representative of any particular demographic.  The sample size is far too
 small.

Thus, I asked for positions of female editors of German Wikipedia.
And, generally, to try to find the answer available data.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Sue Gardner

On 30 September 2011 03:47, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
 Re David's point that The trouble with responding on the blog is that
 responses seem to be being arbitrarily filtered. I can relate to that, it
 isn't just an annoying delay, there are posts which have gone up with
 timestamps long after my post. I don't know whether that was me not knowing
 how to do blog replies or something else. But the solution is in our hands,
 I've now posted my blog response in
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Your_blog_post where
 really it should have gone in the first place.


http://suegardner.org/comment-policy/

All the comments people posted thus far have been approved. It just
takes some time, since I sometimes sleep, or have meetings and so
forth. I'll check to see if there's a way to note that for commenters
pre-posting: I'm sure most people don't notice the comments policy.

But thanks, WereSpielChequers --- I saw your note on my talkpage :-)

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

Hi Sarah

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 
  As a member of one feminist organization, I understand dominant
  position among feminists toward pornography. It's generally personal
  (thus, not an ideological position), but as the main stream
  pornography is male-centric and historically connected with women
  abuse, they generally oppose it, but without hard stance on it.
  Softening stance has happened especially after widening ideology to
  the LGBT movement and identity theory.
 


 
  Now, if we translate it into the frame of US culture, where every
  nudity is seen as pornography, general position of American
  feminists is more clear. And you showed that ambiguous position,
  including inside of your last post: In principle yes because it looks
  like one of the showings of the society dominated by men, but not sure
  what exactly; would be more happy not to think about it.
 
 
 Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I
 believe
 in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
 because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
 naked woman as the man shot for pregnancy. I also figure that if people
 want
 to censor what the hell goes on in their own home, they should have the
 power to do that. Smart kids learn to get around it anyway, if they really
 need to see a decapitation or a pair of breasts on Wikipedia.


I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong.
Weren't you the one surprised to find an in your face photo
of a vagina on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was
up-front and at the top unlike the article about penis where a big giant
penis in one's face upon opening it ? just in case here it is [1]. Also,
there is no difference between the pictures on the articles on these
anatomical parts, the article you needed to compare it to was [[Human
penis]] where is does have an in you face photo at the exact same place as
the one about Vagina. I have a hard time understanding how you can claim to
have either of those positions and resolve it with your earlier statements,
but to each his own. I would even go as far as to say, that your original
comments didn't appear very feminist at first glance.

You are correct that if people want to censor what the hell goes on in
their own home, they should have the power to do that, The question here
is, who should develop such a way? people here are mostly arguing, if there
is a need, someone would do it.



 Being called names and being lumped into a oh all Americans are pro
 filter,
 blahblahblah, think nudity is bad is really tiresome.

 That quote also isn't mine.

 In other words, my point is that your (and Bishakha's) motivation is
  not the same to the motivation of others who are in favor of the image
  filter. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
  much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
  even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
  sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and
  questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
 
 
 I have never said, *ever*, led on I don't think girls should not be
 educated about sexuality. I also grew up in a time when I had to find
 sexual content by way of a pile of Playboys in my cousins bathroom,
 watching MTV, and stealing my sisters copy of Madonna's SEX. Knowing how
 I
 was as a child (and I had a computer when I was 11, in my bedroom), I
 wouldn't be looking on Wikipedia to learn about sex. I'd be looking for
 some
 juicy image and videos and frankly you can't find that on Wikipedia
 (because
 we all know that Commons porn is really bad quality).


Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version
of yourself to learn about sexual content from Playboys or Madonna's SEX
(both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you
and half the people here edit. It might have a couple of graphic images of
body parts we all have but it has a other things to like important
information, text, statistics, some even consider that educational. Now I
don't know how playboy or Madonna's SEX are looked at by feminists, but I
would always prefer an encyclopedia over it (even with an in your face
picture of a human anatomical part).

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067980.html
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

I do think that one needs to have spent some time in Germany to understand that 
things *are* different there. Nudity is no big deal. To give some examples, 
municipal 
swimming pools may have times set aside for nude bathing. They may have mixed 
saunas, 
or changing rooms used by females, males, and children at the same time. Male 
and 
female full frontal nudity occurs on the covers of mainstream publications. No 
one bats an
eyelid.


At the same time, Germany has some of the most stringent online youth 
protection laws
when it comes to pornography, rather than nudity. Pornographic content on the 
internet is
legal only if technical measures prohibit minors from getting access to the 
object (AVS =
Age Verification System or Adult-Check-System). 

That's typically a credit card-based system. A similar system is used e.g. to 
prevent minors'
access to cigarette vending machines. (The reason this doesn't apply to us 
is that our 
servers are in the US, outside German jurisdiction.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-26/Opinion_essay#German_paradox:_some_of_the_most_stringent_youth_protection_laws_in_the_world.2C_combined_with_cultural_openness_to_nudity


So I never saw the vulva appearance on the de:WP main page as a significant 
problem,
when seen in the German cultural context. German kids look at images like that 
in school.

Andreas


--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de wrote:

From: Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 16:02

Am 30.09.2011 16:46, schrieb Risker:
 My question to you is why anyone would want to participate in a discussion
 where their opinions are going to be classified by their sex or their
 geographic location rather than their input.

There's absolutely no harm in coming to a finding that, say, 80% of the 
US-American female
contributors prefer the filter while only 30% of the non-US-American 
female contributors
do. Just like there is no harm in stating that 86% of the core 
contributors to de-WP do not
want to see the filter in their project.

It really depends on what you do with these numbers. If you use them and 
try to understand
why the two groups feel in such a drastically different way and how you 
wan to deal with that,
then there can't be anything wrong with that, can there?

You claim that Milos implied that if you're a woman from the US, your 
opinion is invalid, and
I have not seen anything like that.  It strikes me as funny that you 
would complain about  his
post being aggressive and alienating when your post could be construed 
as exactly that.

Regards,
Oliver

___
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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
  covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
  here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
  information for any of us to assume that those individual views are
  representative of any particular demographic.  The sample size is far too
  small.

 Thus, I asked for positions of female editors of German Wikipedia.
 And, generally, to try to find the answer available data.




Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number
and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active
participants in this mailing list?

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Bishakha Datta

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
 about
  in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
 to
  others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
 seeing
  the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from
 the
  US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
 from
  the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
  discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
  posts in the future.

 As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
 about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
 does it correlate with cultures.


I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor
all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize
on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
correlation.

Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or
culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.

Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That
doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human.
And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the
filter as proposed as censorship.

The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And just
as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is
it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she
sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.

Cheers
Bishakha
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 12:06, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:

 Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
  --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org  wrote:

  From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial
 judgement, and image filters
  To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28

  On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
  This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

  http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

  - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
  be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
  that they should therefore be ignored.
  Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
  nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
  quite valid.

  Ryan Kaldari
  Quite.
  I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of
 a rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to
 include it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
  That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it
 should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is
 not censored.
  That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED
 requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently
 beheaded.
  That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none
 of men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the
 images of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
  And so on.
  Andreas

 I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that
 there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate
 Illustration for the subject. snip

No, I think he understood it just fine. I have seen similar arguments in
several places on various projects: not just that it could be acceptable,
but that there is a duty to include such information in articles that
overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other
factors.

Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:46, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number
 and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active
 participants in this mailing list?

No, but there are German Wikipedians who could research that issue.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:


 I have no idea about your personal stance, but correct me if I am wrong.
 Weren't you the one surprised to find an in your face photo
 of a vagina on an article about Vagina? You know where you said it was
 up-front and at the top unlike the article about penis where a big giant
 penis in one's face upon opening it ? just in case here it is [1]. Also,
 there is no difference between the pictures on the articles on these
 anatomical parts, the article you needed to compare it to was [[Human
 penis]] where is does have an in you face photo at the exact same place
 as
 the one about Vagina. I have a hard time understanding how you can claim to
 have either of those positions and resolve it with your earlier statements,
 but to each his own. I would even go as far as to say, that your original
 comments didn't appear very feminist at first glance.



I understand that vaginas, penises, breasts, butts, etc need to be visually
shown. I just laughed when I put vagina in the en.Wikipedia search box a
spread vagina is shown with all the much needed descriptors to the part.
When I search in en.Wikipedia penis I get a collection of penises
preserved in jars.

There is a human penis article, again with all of the bits explained and
shown. You just have to search for human penis or follow the links to it
to find it. But frankly, if I'm going to look up penis on Wikipedia, I'm
sure most people are looking for the human penis, not animal penises. I'm
also sure more than a few of them pass over the direct for the human penis
article.

I think it's entertaining. Again, I know that a vagina needs to be shown in
an article about a vagina, but, I was, for 5 seconds, taken aback.
::shrugs::

Now, please inform me, if you would want the kids today or a younger version
 of yourself to learn about sexual content from Playboys or Madonna's
 SEX
 (both are pretty antiquated today) or an Encyclopedia? you know where you


Encyclopedias are boring, is what I would have said as a kid. When I was a
kid I wanted juicy, fun, colorful, exciting content. Not a bunch of writing.
I don't have children, but, I work in museums, and I worked at the world's
largest children's museum, I have a little bit of knowledge about children's
education (but nothing compared to others).  Kids seek things out. They're
sneaky, and parents aren't idiots - you can't hide things from your kids. I
was one of those kids - I was going to to the bookshop in 1989 looking for
Dr. Ruth books, I was sneaking off to the art books to look at Nan Goldin
books.

But, again, that's just my personal experience.

And as a side note (and this goes to a number of people on this list): I
don't need anyone, of any gender, questioning my feminism. It's as insulting
as being called a censor. There are no rule books.

But if there was... ;-)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique

-Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural  artistic research  advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians' 
comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors:

How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a 
rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that 
were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane to 
the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of NOTCENSORED is 
to say We do not exclude things because people are squeamish about them, and 
replacing the word censor with editorial judgment is a simple case 
of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the beheading videos, 
yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of suffering in 
articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the most comfortable 
thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article about another 
horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it with?
I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating on 
appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an OMG THAT'S SO GROSS! 
response, but you won't find it from me.
[me:] The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The 
question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a 
single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person 
defecating to understand how defecation works. If that is your real rationale, 
then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human nose? But 
your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd strongly 
advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) makes me 
lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me remember that 
we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being censored. Censoring 
is the exact opposite of growing up as a culture.
It sounded to me like they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all 
established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable 
e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely 
logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy.
Andreas


--- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

From: Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
judgement, and image filters
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06

Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
 --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org  wrote:

 From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
 judgement, and image filters
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28


 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.
 Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
 nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
 quite valid.

 Ryan Kaldari
 Quite. 
 I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a 
 rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include 
 it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored. 
 That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it 
 should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is not 
 censored. 
 That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED 
 requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently 
 beheaded. 
 That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of 
 men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images 
 of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
 And so on.
 Andreas

I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that 
there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate 
Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some 
other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be 
illustrative as well as educational?

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM

___
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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

I would prefer to read these comments in context and not in snippets. 
Can you point me to the corresponding discussion(s)?

-- Niabot

Am 30.09.2011 19:02, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
 Tobias, you be the judge whether I misunderstood my fellow Wikipedians' 
 comments. Here are some verbatim quotes, from different contributors:

 How exactly would you propose to get an appropriately licensed video of a 
 rape? [...] I suppose, in the unlikely even that we were to get a video that 
 were appropriately licensed, did not raise privacy concerns, and was germane 
 to the subject, we'd use it. Why shouldn't we? The specific role of 
 NOTCENSORED is to say We do not exclude things because people are squeamish 
 about them, and replacing the word censor with editorial judgment is a 
 simple case of euphemism, and does not change what it means. As to the 
 beheading videos, yes, yes, and most certainly yes. We show graphic images of 
 suffering in articles about The Holocaust, even though that may not be the 
 most comfortable thing for some people. Why wouldn't we do so in an article 
 about another horrific act, if the material is under a license we can use it 
 with?
 I would have no issues with videos of animals (including humans) defecating 
 on appropriate articles. I'm sure you were looking for an OMG THAT'S SO 
 GROSS! response, but you won't find it from me.
 [me:] The question is not whether you would be grossed out watching it. The 
 question is, what encyclopedic value would it add? I don't think there is a 
 single human being on the planet who needs to watch a video of a person 
 defecating to understand how defecation works. If that is your real 
 rationale, then why aren't you going to support removal of images from human 
 nose? But your chat about rape and beheading (both subjects for which I'd 
 strongly advocate a video for, if there could be a free, privacy-keeping one) 
 makes me lose WP:AGF a bittle on this grasping at straws of yours. Let me 
 remember that we, as a culture, had to grow up a lot to accept not being 
 censored. Censoring is the exact opposite of growing up as a culture.
 It sounded to me like they meant it. Doesn't it to you? They were all 
 established users; one of them an admin. I had a long, and perfectly amicable 
 e-mail discussion about it with him afterwards. Their position is entirely 
 logical, but it lacks common sense and, indeed, a little empathy.
 Andreas


 --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

 From: Tobias Oelgartetobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
 judgement, and image filters
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 17:06

 Am 30.09.2011 17:49, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
 --- On Fri, 30/9/11, Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org   wrote:

 From: Ryan Kaldarirkald...@wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
 judgement, and image filters
 To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Date: Friday, 30 September, 2011, 0:28


 On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.
 Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
 nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
 quite valid.

 Ryan Kaldari
 Quite.
 I have had editors tell me that if there were a freely licensed video of a 
 rape (perhaps a historical one, say), then we would be duty-bound to include 
 it in the article on [[rape]], because Wikipedia is not censored.
 That if we have a freely licensed video showing a person defecating, it 
 should be included in the article on [[defecation]], because Wikipedia is 
 not censored.
 That if any of the Iraqi beheading videos are CC-licensed, NOTCENSORED 
 requires us to embed them in the biographies of those who were recently 
 beheaded.
 That if we have five images of naked women in a bondage article, and none of 
 men having the same bondage technique applied to them, still all the images 
 of naked women have to be kept, because Wikipedia is not censored.
 And so on.
 Andreas

 I guess you misunderstood those people. Most likely they meant, that
 there should be no rule against such content, if it is an appropriate
 Illustration for the subject. Would you say the same, if this[1] or some
 other documentary film would be put under the CC license? Wouldn't it be
 illustrative as well as educational?

 [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtvuLAZxgOM

 ___
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
   Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
  about
   in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
  to
   others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
  seeing
   the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
 from
  the
   US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
  from
   the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
   discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
 such
   posts in the future.
 
  As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
  about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
  does it correlate with cultures.
 

 I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor
 all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize
 on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
 correlation.

 Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or
 culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.

 Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That
 doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
 that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human.
 And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the
 filter as proposed as censorship.

 The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
 just
 as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is
 it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she
 sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.


Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.

Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian IB ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.

Regards
Theo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Achal Prabhala



On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha 
 Dattabishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com  wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com  wrote:
 Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
 about
 in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
 to
 others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
 seeing
 the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
 from
 the
 US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
 from
 the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
 discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
 such
 posts in the future.
 As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
 about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
 does it correlate with cultures.

 I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter, nor
 all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to generalize
 on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
 correlation.

 Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender or
 culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.

 Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what? That
 doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
 that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser human.
 And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see the
 filter as proposed as censorship.

 The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
 just
 as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why is
 it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or she
 sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.

 Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
 euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
 what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The strongest
 argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
 board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
 graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
 already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use
 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.

 Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
 they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different would
 we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
 all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian IB ministry issues or
 Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.


There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a 
difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or 
deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this 
discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can 
be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the 
case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the 
fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for 
film. (Including Germany, by the way).


 Regards
 Theo
 ___
 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Dattabishakhada...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
  On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com  wrote:
  Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
  about
  in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is
 intimidating
  to
  others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
  seeing
  the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
  from
  the
  US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
  from
  the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
  discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
  such
  posts in the future.
  As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
  about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
  does it correlate with cultures.
 
  I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter,
 nor
  all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to
 generalize
  on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
  correlation.
 
  Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
 or
  culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.
 
  Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
 That
  doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
  that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser
 human.
  And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see
 the
  filter as proposed as censorship.
 
  The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
  just
  as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
 is
  it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or
 she
  sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.
 
  Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
  euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
 and
  what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
 strongest
  argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
  board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
  graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
  already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
 use
  1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
 
  Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
  they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different
 would
  we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
  all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian IB ministry issues
 or
  Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
 me.


 There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a
 difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or
 deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this
 discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can
 be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the
 case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the
 fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for
 film. (Including Germany, by the way).


How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?

Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?

Theo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Sue Gardner

On 30 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
 in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
 others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
 the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or from the
 US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
 the US, your opinion is invalid.



I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.

Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity.
We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are
continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it
means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and
accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our
citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the
Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has
influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.

That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen
to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into
mine.

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Achal Prabhala



On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.comwrote:


 On Friday 30 September 2011 10:54 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Bishakha Dattabishakhada...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com
   wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com   wrote:
 Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
 about
 in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is
 intimidating
 to
 others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly
 seeing
 the opinions of others dismissed because they're women/not women or
 from
 the
 US/not from the US. The implication of your post is if you're a woman
 from
 the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
 discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making
 such
 posts in the future.
 As mentioned by Nathan and Oliver, I want to hear what do women think
 about the filter, how does it correlate with positions of men and how
 does it correlate with cultures.

 I am not convinced that all women feel the same way about the filter,
 nor
 all men - similarly, cultures are not homogenous. It is hard to
 generalize
 on any of these bases (plural of 'basis'), because there is no simple
 correlation.

 Different individuals can have different responses, regardless of gender
 or
 culture. It doesn't tie in so neatly.

 Speaking for myself, no, I can't see myself using the filter. So what?
 That
 doesn't mean I use myself as a proxy for the rest of the world to decide
 that no one else should, or that anyone who does is somehow a lesser
 human.
 And yes, I'm against censorship, but as I've said before, I don't see
 the
 filter as proposed as censorship.

 The world is made up of different folks, whether we like it or not. And
 just
 as we provide for the person who doesn't flinch when seeing a vulva, why
 is
 it so wrong to even think about the person who does flinch when he or
 she
 sees a vulva? That's what I don't get.

 Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
 euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
 and
 what not. It should not be our job to censor our own content. The
 strongest
 argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
 board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
 graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
 already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
 use
 1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.

 Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
 they decide on removing things that make them flinch - how different
 would
 we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
 all the people that do flinch? I can point to Indian IB ministry issues
 or
 Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
 me.


 There is a big difference between *ratings* and *censorship*, a
 difference which the Indian government has routinely ignored or
 deliberately overlooked, as, I suspect is happening here in this
 discussion. Naturally, there are circumstances where ratings systems can
 be used to create effective censorship, but this doesn't have to be the
 case, and indeed isn't in various parts of the world - evidenced by the
 fact that virtually every country in the world has a ratings system for
 film. (Including Germany, by the way).

 How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?

 Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?

No.

I'm suggesting that:

Ratings are different from censorship.

Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.

Often, ratings do just that - rate.

For film.

In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.



 Theo
 ___
 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
 Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
 euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
 what not.

That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
decisions...

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
 position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
 Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.

 Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed national identity.
 We makes jokes about the fact that that IS our identity -- that we are
 continually renegotiating and stretching the boundaries of what it
 means to be Canadian. We believe our culture is the aggregation and
 accumulation of all the views and experiences and attitudes of our
 citizenry. Each wave of immigration --the French and the British, the
 Chinese, the Italians, the Indians, the Jamaicans, and so forth-- has
 influenced what Canada is, and how it understands itself.

 That's what I'm used to, as a Canadian -- it's normal for me to listen
 to minorities and find ways to incorporate their perspectives into
 mine.

Most importantly, you are a manger :P

There is a line between protecting autonomy of particular community
and protecting the whole:
* When community around Arabic Wikipedia doesn't want to show Muhammad
depictions, that's their right.
* When community around Aceh Wikipedia wants to delete all Muhammad
depictions from Commons, that's not their right.
* When a person wants to remove whichever images from his or her
Wikipedia interface, that's his or her right.
* When implementation of that feature affects everybody, that's not
his or her right.

Without solutions like safe.en.wikipedia.org, I confess that I don't
know how that should be solved. However, as successful manager, I am
sure that you'll find a solution.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.comwrote:



 On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
  On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?
 
  Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?

 No.

 I'm suggesting that:

 Ratings are different from censorship.


Actually, it's a matter of perspective if you consider that. If you read the
history Censorship in United States, it has an entire section about Film
censorship[1], also of relevance might be the MPAA crticism section [2] or
Tipper gore led Parent's Music resource center [3]. My question was, has
there been an instance of an encyclopedia being censored or even rated?



 Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.

 Often, ratings do just that - rate.


They actually restrict access, those ratings limit who can see a certain
movie, depending upon the classification. Again, it is a matter of
perspective.



 For film.

 In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.


Theo


[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Film_censorship
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#Criticisms
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Achal Prabhala

On Friday 30 September 2011 11:47 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.comwrote:

On Friday 30 September 2011 11:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Achal Prabhalaaprabh...@gmail.com
wrote:

How about an encyclopedia? Anywhere?

Are you suggesting a rating system for an encyclopedia?
No.

I'm suggesting that:

Ratings are different from censorship.

Actually, it's a matter of perspective if you consider that. If you read the
history Censorship in United States, it has an entire section about Film
censorship[1], also of relevance might be the MPAA crticism section [2] or
Tipper gore led Parent's Music resource center [3]. My question was, has
there been an instance of an encyclopedia being censored or even rated?

Sometimes, ratings can be used to create censorship.

Often, ratings do just that - rate.

They actually restrict access, those ratings limit who can see a certain
movie, depending upon the classification. Again, it is a matter of
perspective.

No. It's a matter of fact. Ratings can sometimes lead to censorship,
often don't, and definitely do not have to. For film. And the same logic
can apply here on Wikipedia or with any other kind of media. Wikipedia
already has extensive internal and external quality ratings; this does
not mean that stubs are being censored.

For film.

In several countries around the world, including India, and Germany.

Theo

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Film_censorship
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system#Criticisms
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
___
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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
  Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
  euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
 and
  what not.

 That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
 choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
 decisions...


Actually, we will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it
will use the editors or categories to find out which images go where and
what is offensive. If you look at the mock-ups used in the referendum
page[1][2], you will see switchable content filters based on categories or
something similar. What picture goes under which content tab, would probably
be decided by the categories.

People won't get to pick what goes under 'sexual content' or 'other
controversial content' - for all we know, those 2 filters can occupy 90% of
commons. I never got the impression that viewers would get a choice to pick
and choose every single image they deem offensive, which brings the
inevitable conundrum what is offensive to you, might not be for me.

Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.

Theo

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromNav-Step2.png
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromNav-Step3.png
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

 Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.


Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls
on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Michael Snow

On 9/30/2011 8:53 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
 As mentioned in some of the previous posts, I think that it is
 much more feminist to defend right of girls to be sexually educated,
 even if it would mean secretly browsing Wikipedia articles on
 sexuality, than to insist on comfort of adult females in offices and
 questionable background of one pseudo-ideological position.
 From a feminist perspective, I would think there's clear reason for 
concern that the kind of sexual education (not just) girls would receive 
while browsing Wikipedia articles is built upon and reinforces many 
social elements connected with the oppression of women, and that the 
selection and presentation of images is a big part of the problem. 
Having divergent approaches starting with such basic topics as penises 
and vaginas suggests that that the difference in treatment is pretty 
pervasive. It's good to support education for girls, but if the kind of 
education provided is just going to perpetuate the problem, it's fair to 
question whether it's being conducted appropriately.

On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of 
our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly 
better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address 
it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated 
community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem, 
and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I 
suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in 
our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around 
the principle of resistance to censorship.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Andre Engels

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

   That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
  choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
  decisions...
 


 Actually, we will be. Depending upon how such a system is implemented, it
 will use the editors or categories to find out which images go where and
 what is offensive. If you look at the mock-ups used in the referendum
 page[1][2], you will see switchable content filters based on categories or
 something similar. What picture goes under which content tab, would
 probably
 be decided by the categories.


No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications
on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or
not they see the tagged images.


 People won't get to pick what goes under 'sexual content' or 'other
 controversial content' - for all we know, those 2 filters can occupy 90% of
 commons. I never got the impression that viewers would get a choice to pick
 and choose every single image they deem offensive, which brings the
 inevitable conundrum what is offensive to you, might not be for me.


There might well be an option to show a certain image even though it's under
the filter. Apart from that, if we were of the opinion that we should do
something perfectly or not at all, we would not have any of our projects.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:

 On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
 our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
 better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
 it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated
 community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem,
 and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I
 suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in
 our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around
 the principle of resistance to censorship.


I have heard *many* laments about the quality of our coverage of
feminist issues from women. This suggests even to my relatively
privileged white male brain that there may be an actual problem here.
Possibly a strike force of feminist academics, armed with print
references out to *here*?q


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 30 September 2011 18:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
 Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
 euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
 what not.

 That is just completely untrue. The image filter will allow people to
 choose what to see and what not to see. We won't be making the
 decisions...


Since the filter doesn't exist yet, nor are there any technical
descriptions of how it might work, it's impossible to make definitive
pronouncements. Even so, readers won't be the ones making the crucial
decisions about categorization - and readers might be at the mercy of
libraries, schools, workplaces, governments, etc. that make use of the
filter non-optional.

We should assume that any system that relies on editor-generated
categories will be a long-term battleground; as we've always seen,
those with the most extreme positions come to dominate the most
contentious areas - requiring the intervention of many others over
extended periods of time to reach incremental compromises. The image
filter will likely be no different.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread David Levy

André Engels wrote:

We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or not
they see the tagged images.

But _we_ will need to determine the categories/tags/classifications to
use and the images to which they're applied.

As previously discussed, unless we implement an unveiled women
category (which is highly unlikely), readers who object to such images
will be discriminated against.

And for a hypothetical nudity category, we'll have to decide what
constitutes nudity. This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
readers.

We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications on images,
There might well be an option to show a certain image even though
it's under the filter. Apart from that, if we were of the opinion
that we should do something perfectly or not at all, we would not
have any of our projects.

As I pointed out to you in a previous reply, an alternative image
filter implementation has been proposed (and is endorsed by WMF
trustee Samuel Klein). It would accommodate everyone and require no
determinations on the part of the community (let alone
analysis/tagging of millions of files, with thousands more uploaded
every day).

Please see the relevant discussion:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en/Categories#general_image_filter_vs._category_system
or
http://goo.gl/t6ly5

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Bishakha Datta

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see and
what not.

Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and
precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments
and censorship are the same.

It should not be our job to censor our own content.

We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
the sites. [1]

The strongest
argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which use
1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.

Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
they decide on removing things that make them flinch -

how different would
we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
all the people that do flinch?

There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it,
it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images -
those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing
goes.

But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or James
Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.[2]

I can point to Indian IB ministry issues or
Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than me.

Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor
Board in 2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by
them. [3]

Cheers
Bishakha

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_India

[3]
http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/the-limits-of-freedom/the-secret-life-of-film-censorship.html
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
 our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
 better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
 it. That will be a challenge as long as we have a male-dominated
 community that lacks much appreciation for the nature of the problem,
 and often fails to recognize how diverse its manifestations are. But I
 suspect that if we were substantially closer to a neutral approach in
 our coverage of these topics, there might be much less pressure around
 the principle of resistance to censorship.

 I have heard *many* laments about the quality of our coverage of
 feminist issues from women. This suggests even to my relatively
 privileged white male brain that there may be an actual problem here.
 Possibly a strike force of feminist academics, armed with print
 references out to *here*?q

I wanted to say the same. Hm. I'll talk with others from my
organization and see is it possible to mobilize a couple of European
feminist organizations to work on those articles.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread David Levy

I wrote:

 And for a hypothetical nudity category, we'll have to decide what
 constitutes nudity.  This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
 definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
 readers.

The above should read jibe _with_ that held by a large number of readers.

David Levy

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

Hiya Bishakha

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

 
  Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
  euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
 and
  what not.


 Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and
 precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments
 and censorship are the same.


I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go
by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is
it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are
independent and it has not editorial control over what the community
decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial
judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different
communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an
already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by
editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial
control? What about editorial independence[1]?




  It should not be our job to censor our own content.


 We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
 the sites. [1]


No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that
can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial
regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the
last one is not us) from its people.

Mediawiki also works in a similar fashion, it hides revisions rather than
delete it outright when an article is deleted - Irony?




  The strongest
  argument I read against this has been - it is not something WMF and the
  board should implement and develop, If there was a need to censor/cleanse
  graphic content, there would a successful mirror or a fork of the project
  already somewhere. Instead, we have small distributions/projects which
 use
  1-2 year old offline dumps to cleanse and then consider safe.
 
  Now, If you were to apply this argument to a government, or a regime and
  they decide on removing things that make them flinch -
 
 how different would
  we be from dictatorial regimes who limit/restrict access to Wikipedia for
  all the people that do flinch?


 There is no proposal to remove anything from the sites; as I understand it,
 it is proposed that users can click on a button to turn off some images -
 those who want to continue to see everything can continue to do so. Nothing
 goes.


I never said there was. I said restrict access to Wikipedia for all the
people that do flinch. There is a big gap on how this system would be
implemented, if we go by the proposed system in the mock-up, it would be
using categories to implement what is deemed offensive. The problem is, when
you click on a filter the decision on what is offensive might not be a users
alone, but a standardized one across the board.


 But when the Indian government bans Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses or
 James
 Lane's book on Shivaji, that is censorship.[2]

 I can point to Indian IB ministry issues or
  Film censor board of India, but you probably know more about them than
 me.
 
  Yes, I know from personal experience - had a huge brush with the Censor
 Board in 2001 and refused to remove any content from my docu as demanded by
 them. [3]


Depending on the perspective, one can argue that they only wanted the
content hidden, not visible to those who do flinch. Would it be different if
they argued that they were only exercising editorial control? for the
children, the general public and all the people who do flinch.


Regards
Theo

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_independence
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Kim Bruning

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:12:37PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
 Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
 (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
 (Brazil/Portugal) is against.

This is not entirely true. At least one other .us female is against.
(To wit, the one who asked me to post on foundation-l on this matter
in the first place. ;-) )

sincerely,
Kim TINC Bruning


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-30 Thread Kim Bruning

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
 
 No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications
 on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or
 not they see the tagged images.

Well, those tags would be public, so *anyone* can decide whether or not
downstream can see the tagged images. 

Semantically and technically there's very little difference between our
current proposed implementation and that of intermediate parties.
The consequences are both obvious and chilling.

We might be just a little too close to the edge on this one. We
need some other options. :)


Fortunately, people like Erik Moeller have been considering other
implementations, where no central categories or lists are used.

Those seem MUCH more sane, and are probably the way forward here. :-)


sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:

From: Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial 
judgement, and image filters
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58

 We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
 the sites. [1]

No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that
can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial
regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the
last one is not us) from its people.

You are aware, aren't you, that content is only hidden if the user specifically 
says they would 
like to hide content in that category? That is why it is an opt-in filter. If 
you don't make a point
of opting in, you won't even know it's there. 

Unless you go into your account set-up and take the trouble to specify that you 
personally 
do not wish to see a particular category of images, you will see everything 
that you see
now. Even if you have switched the filter on, you can still change your mind 
and view any
image. One click on it is enough to show it.  So what you are describing simply 
bears no
relation to reality.

If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some 
censorious 
ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a 
bolt-on 
censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that 
then it 
would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can 
accuse us of 
is that we made it easier for them. We'd still be in good company, as all other 
major
websites, including Google, YouTube and Flickr, use equivalent systems, systems 
that are
widely accepted. If I google for images of cream pies in my office in the lunch 
break,
because I want to bake one, I'm quite happy not to have dozens of images of 
sperm-oozing
rectums and vaginas pop up on my screen. Thanks, Google. 

The point has been made that some people might be too inclusive in 
categorising, adding 
media to controversial categories that others would feel are not 
controversial at all. If this 
happens, the effect will simply be that fewer people will elect to use the 
filter. If a user 
switches the filter on, and finds that 9 out of 10 images the filter greys are 
images that they 
would really like to see, they'll simply get fed up with the filter and switch 
it off again. So it is 
in the interest of those wishing to offer people a useful filter not to go 
overboard in 
assigning media to any of the filter categories. 

Andreas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread MZMcBride

Keegan Peterzell wrote:
 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/

Both the Wikimedia Board and Wikimedia Foundation staff have treated the
image filter as a fait accompli. I think downplaying this reality is
predictable and lamentable in Sue's post.

Individuals and organizations are free to implement their own filters. The
Wikimedia Foundation's goal is to promote and spread free educational
content. Focusing on features like an image filter, when features that are
critical to Wikimedia's goal are left by the wayside, is mind-boggling.
People can't edit wiki pages, but it's a gaping vagina on the front page
that's top priority?

The Wikimedia Board has failed the community in passing its controversial
content resolution. It caved to political and social pressures rather than
defending what Wikimedia is supposed to stand for. The Wikimedia Board knew
that an acceptable filter couldn't be implemented given technical and social
constraints, but chose to pass a resolution as an empty gesture. Board
members have acknowledged as much privately.

The controversial content resolution has done no good, but has done plenty
of harm. I think it's fairly shameful on the part of the Board, a very small
body of individuals whose primary objective is to protect the projects.
Instead, they chose this?

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
 Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally, please
 discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
 conversation about the image filter.


This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

- rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
that they should therefore be ignored.

This is somewhat problematic.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Keegan Peterzell

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
  Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally, please
  discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
  conversation about the image filter.


 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.

 This is somewhat problematic.


 - d.


I read a rock and a hard place.  So yeah, problematic.  By sound, I meant
from her position.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.
 This is somewhat problematic.

 I read a rock and a hard place.  So yeah, problematic.  By sound, I meant
 from her position.


The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.

As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Dirk Franke

For anybody interested: I wrote a blog-post full of disagreement :-)

http://asinliberty.blogspot.com/2011/09/sorry-sue-gardner-but-image-filter.html

regards,
southpark

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

  This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
  http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
  - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
  be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
  that they should therefore be ignored.
  This is somewhat problematic.

  I read a rock and a hard place.  So yeah, problematic.  By sound, I meant
  from her position.


 The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
 any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
 acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.

 As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
 indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
 convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.


 - d.

 ___
 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Nathan

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:


 The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
 any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
 acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.

 As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
 indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
 convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.


 - d.



It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
opposition in favor of the larger audience could then be quite
reasonable.

Nathan

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Fred Bauder


 It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
 constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
 diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
 that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
 homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
 opposition in favor of the larger audience could then be quite
 reasonable.

 Nathan

Why aren't more of us, that very narrow and homogenous slice of that
array, thinking that way, as publishers?

Fred


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Tobias Oelgarte

Am 29.09.2011 17:00, schrieb Nathan:
 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:45 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:

 The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against
 any imposed filter is just *weird*. Not mentioning it, and not
 acknowledging why someone would do that, doesn't make it go away.

 As you say, this blog post reads like someone forced to defend the
 indefensible, hence the glaringly defective arguments. This will
 convince no-one the post claims to be addressing.


 - d.


 It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your
 constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and
 diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude
 that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and
 homogenous slice of that array (i.e. contributors)... Ignoring the
 opposition in favor of the larger audience could then be quite
 reasonable.

 Nathan

If it would be the case, that this is a small minority, then i could 
agree and accept that as consensus, even if reasonable arguments were 
ignored. But what the post does is very simple. It describes liberal 
thinking people as a minority - as an extremist minority - that does not 
care about the readers or the project. That isn't any better then the 
we are not censored, we can do it argument. It's the plain opposite, 
but not better or worse. It's the tale about others that might be offended.

What we really need is the discussion if an image is illustrative for 
the topic. We want to spread knowledge. This does not mean to:
a) to leave out illustrative material because is offensive.
b) to include offensive material if something else has the same 
illustrative value.

The image filter, as a tool, is meant to circumvent this question and 
it's answers. Instead of trying to improve the content or providing 
better alternatives it's just the same as to say: we don't care, you 
have to choose, ignoring all possible negative side effects.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
 Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally, please
 discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
 conversation about the image filter.


The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

So here's one that's particularly apposite:

http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html

He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Anneke Wolf




 On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com  
 wrote:

 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
 Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally,  
 please
 discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
 conversation about the image filter.


 The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
 being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

Yes, Achim and others told me the same. Not a good way to discuss with  
people.


 So here's one that's particularly apposite:

 http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.htm

Read the true story about the vulva men! :-)


 He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
 manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
 need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
 any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.


Achim _was_ a member of the board of WMDE.

Kind regards
Anneke (Kellerkind)

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
 Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally, please
 discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
 conversation about the image filter.


 The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
 being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

Really? What did you say?

 So here's one that's particularly apposite:

 http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html

 He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
 manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
 need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
 any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.

I don't think Sue necessarily meant Achim. For one thing, I don't
think she objects to the article. It's the article (and, in
particular, the picture) being on the front page that she thought
unwise. Was he the one to make that decision? As I understand it, it
was a general consensus of the community. That makes it very difficult
to pick out certain individuals to criticise, so I don't think you can
guess which, if any, individuals Sue had in mind when she wrote that.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
 Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take.  Naturally, please
 discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
 conversation about the image filter.

 The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
 being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

 Really? What did you say?


Same stuff as here (word for word). I asked Sue and she said of course
she'd approve that. I'm sure it'll be on there eventually. But a
discussion where comments get through who knows when isn't a
discussion.


 http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
 He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
 manner of names (who are acting like provocateurs and agitators that
 need to be stopped), but never ... actually ... contacted him to say
 any of this *to* him. Oh, and he's a member of the board of WMDE.

 I don't think Sue necessarily meant Achim. For one thing, I don't
 think she objects to the article. It's the article (and, in


I'm sure she can make any necessary apologies directly. He certainly
feels it was directed at whoever wrote the article.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 29 September 2011 23:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 The trouble with responding on the blog is that responses seem to be
 being arbitrarily filtered, e.g. mine.

 Really? What did you say?


 Same stuff as here (word for word). I asked Sue and she said of course
 she'd approve that. I'm sure it'll be on there eventually. But a
 discussion where comments get through who knows when isn't a
 discussion.

Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
arbitrary filtering to me...

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
 arbitrary filtering to me...


Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Thomas Dalton

On 29 September 2011 23:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
 arbitrary filtering to me...


 Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.

I'm not disputing anyone's experiences. I'm disputing your
characterisation of them.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

2011-09-29 Thread Ryan Kaldari

On 9/28/11 11:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
 This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:

 http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

 - rather than address those opposed to the WMF (the body perceived to
 be abusing its power), Sue frames their arguments as badly-formed and
 that they should therefore be ignored.

Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with 
nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems 
quite valid.

Ryan Kaldari

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters