Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular. The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void FBI threats, the patriarch complex of Mr. Wales, if they're real, should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes about what images we like and which we don't should be of little weigh compared to what is at stake. Wikipedia and its sister projects are making history. They're forging a century-lasting [[Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity]]. For the first time in its existence, humanity has a tool to break free from ignorance and manipulation. These projects are giving freedom of choice for every human. (but ok, it may take centuries) We should remember the big picture from time to time. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL9j/vAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LX1YH/2ba5+ka5DfeuvXvweBoS4Cd h8Kk59GmEAAbguXOTCg6kiCbgH6nO5r62WAcBo7PnInmbOo0Zi75SAmdsUMPdb6e 6dnFzQxO4jb1GHmVY7xuAaDYl96bo0DIlFmmyQdFhSn04QTNGXbvDjaMkF5oB2xV i0uyTSP5MiNs8NbqWqgItcUqq+GZNrKyhJeDzP9MAJFojj7mDau0CxIjpkrVxeh9 g2uvTxS/p1PSSLFL4l+7qSJQtX3ZCNMwqCHdw7OiUXPYfgXwGckW4nimdhjHuwtC v+QF1kTLvRZVTA/ZOm2CdEysx0iif4/tOl8neKC9ePz1W4OCAYEPLAbkInE1GZE= =S6Zj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Samuel Klein wrote: To Robert's point below, I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model release policy? How does one prove that one really is the photographer / the person in a photograph? There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't seen further discussion recently: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity is no reason to accept such images. Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult groups, sometimes with contact data. A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license, which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5442 Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that A magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was 15 because the images had already been widely circulated online. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/ So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images. Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
I recall personally deleting and asking for oversight of an identifiable picture of a clearly underage person in a similar context, where the images were the basis of an internet meme. The picture was oversighted; the article on the meme itself was almost unanimously deleted from WP. The courts may be fools. We are not. (at least not as often). David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Samuel Klein wrote: To Robert's point below, I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model release policy? How does one prove that one really is the photographer / the person in a photograph? There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't seen further discussion recently: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification Do you not avoid the problem by simply not accepting photographs from unapproved sources? Just because someone genuinely could upload a photograph of themselves and/or partner engaged in some sexual activity is no reason to accept such images. Flickr delete accounts all the time for revenge postings. Where private photos of ex-partners are uploaded to flickr and posted into the adult groups, sometimes with contact data. A problem with images on wikimedia is that they have a free license, which gives them a life outside of wikimedia. I'm reminded of the 14 yo that had a self portrait used as the art work for a porn DVD, the distributor saying that it was found on a PD image site. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Flickr-user-Lara-Jade-has-images-stolen-5442 Also last week in the UK a Press Complaint Commission said that A magazine did not intrude into a young woman's privacy when it published photos that she had uploaded to social networking site Bebo when she was 15 because the images had already been widely circulated online. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/13/bebo_loaded/ So one may find that once an image is widely circulated on the internet the person featured losses any rights to privacy over such images. Surely one could source representative images from the porn industry. ___ 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] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
To Robert's point below, I would appreciate a serious discussion on Commons, grounded in this sort of precedent, about what a special concern and stronger justification for inclusion might look like. An OTRS-based model release policy? How does one prove that one really is the photographer / the person in a photograph? There was the start of a discussion about this here, but I haven't seen further discussion recently: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Consent_clarification Sam. -- user:sj +1 617 529 4266 On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: [...] However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. This is essentially a consent issue. If the model is a well-known porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no problem. However, many of the sexual images we receive depict non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct. If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine too. However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have no idea how their image is being used. Even if the person pictured consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by millions. At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image are often very lax. With regards to self-made images, we often take a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible. In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue of biographies of living persons. For a long time we treated those articles more or less the same as all other articles. However, eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards, especially in the case of negative or private information. I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content. (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential for embarrassment or other harm.) Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which would require no special treatment. Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget the potential to harm the people in the images. I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely inclusionist in the larger debate here. I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate). The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses of her privacy and property. This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth keeping in mind. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: 2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com: Samuel Klein wrote: I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or embarrassing photos. Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. Why just amateur photos? Professional should respect model rights as much as amateur photos. I think my unwritten assumption was that amateurs might not in all cases know what is required, but professionals do -- as a default; the professionals who don't, not deserving the name. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. Interesting. Why do you think so? I think deep down it comes down to the profit motive. Enthusiasts rarely are governed by it, so they give freely. I would imagine that if some amateur photographer in the process of donating their images learned more about model releases and all that jazz, they would infact be grateful, and more motivated than ever to pay forward for the learning experience. Certainly it has been my personal experience writing on wikipedia, that as I learn more, the more I feel an obligation to pay forward, for what I have recieved. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
2010/5/13 Delirium delir...@hackish.org: On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links, or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You don't hide any information from people who actually want it (you require an extra click at most), and you don't force people to view images that they don't want to view. This allows as many people as possible to get what they want: people who want to see the images can see them, and those who don't can choose not to. The status quo forces people to view the images whether or not they want to. And a lot of people don't want to look at naked people without warning, for whatever reason. I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to list two kinds of images I would want hidden by default, it'd be: 1. spiders; and 2. gory medical conditions. Do I get that option? Do I get that option if more than x% of readers agree? (At a first read, I thought your response as a statement you found this proposal amusing) I might risk restating some points I already mentioned on other emails (and, worse, being a complete stranger, to not 'fit' on the discussions here), but I'm not disturbed by sexual content at all. I feel torture images disturbing, however. In fact, I remember not sleeping well after reading some random Wikipedia articles on the subject. To paraphrase Sharon Stone, blocking/blurring porn by default and failing to do this with torture images is an indecency. [ Actually I would find ok if a parent didn't liked his or her small children to view this (not just images, but text included - the richness of some wikipedians' prose is frightening..). But I find misguided any attempts by WMF sites to cooperate with any kind of parental control. That is, I think that building a place where everyone has access to the sum of human knowledge does not include or permit provisions for parental control. ] Other than that, I find that browsing the web at random might be embarrassing, if there are strangers at the room - like at an university lab or cybercafe (it's not a Wikipedia-specific problem actually). It's only a matter of chance if the next clicked link will have this kind of stuff or not. (Random example, many sites have porn ads, many forum links contains embedded pictures, etc). So I might disable image loading with a browser feature (I wouldn't trust the site to do this filtering - or, worse, IM friend links, with a lot of 4chan-like stuff: those memes will often spread porn to blogs and forums that wouldn't otherwise have it). This makes loading faster, plus if I the content I want to see require image loading, I may just click a button. Some browsers support this by default (such as opera), and others through an extension. (I don't usually do this btw, because I'm generally ok with it) Anyway, I am not proposing here to just include torture depictions in the (maybe long) of images censored for casual, unregistered readers. I disagree with any kind of opt-out censoring, for any purpose or pretext, even if to evade the censor it just requires a sign up. (Also, I think any poll for selecting the targets of the block would be biased towards supposing the majority of the voters supports some kind of censoring - even if 'nothing at all' is an option) But, to think about this a bit, it's a lot harder to block torture images than explicit porn, because of the political component here. For example: blocking recent Iraq american explicit torture images and failing to block detailed depictions of historical torture devices is unreasonable, since the shocking component - for me, at least - is often centered on it happening to some human being. The issue here would be where to draw the line, and the exact place might be interpreted as a form of political pushing. Wouldn't it be awesome if some pro-america editor managed to clean some articles for the casual reader? :) [ You might replace pro-america to anti-pornography as well - that's how I would see it ] -- Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Delirium wrote: I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to list two kinds of images I would want hidden by default, it'd be: 1. spiders; and 2. gory medical conditions. Do I get that option? Do I get that option if more than x% of readers agree? Ooh! Can I play? Beside those two, 3. people with perfect teeth smiling, 4. charred bodies, 5. decomposing bodies, 6. women with Double-D breasts -- or above, whether fully clothed or not, 7. any women with silicone implants, 8. tele-evangelists, 9. big hair, 10. Disco, including people dressed Disco-style, 11. Ku Kux Klansmen, 12. images of any foods made from liver, 13. sauerkraut, 14. suet, 15. lard, 16. skinned animals that haven't been fully butchered yet (including humans), ... Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Samuel Klein wrote: I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or embarrassing photos. Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. It might however have a chilling effect on those people sharing images that don't really require model releases, such as photographs shot in public spaces, especially where the person in the frame can't even be recognized. Another question is, if such a stance on model rights were taken, would it be reasonable to just retroactively apply it to images already on the site, or should there be a reasonable attempt to inform the uploaders to let them secure a model release and add it to the media information. I think something like that was done when we went to town on images that didn't have a specified rationale of use. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. It still might be worth doing just for its own sake. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com: Samuel Klein wrote: I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or embarrassing photos. Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. Why just amateur photos? Professional should respect model rights as much as amateur photos. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. Interesting. Why do you think so? -- Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva tolkiend...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote: [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? Primarily because of copyright issues, at least with regard to the latter, I believe. I used to joke about what's next, a photo on Goatse.cx? when arguing with the when you look up X you expect a photo of X crowd, but then, for a while it actually came true. This is a standard fair-use case: it's a notable image, and our informative article about it is not complete without a copy of the image. It's the same reason we can put an image on, I don't know, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Maar_au_Chat. Except we don't, because it's revolting. On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Each such issue will have its own spectrum of supporters and detractors. It should not be our role to decide for them; we can only make it easier for them to make decisions consistent with their own beliefs. Okay, fine. Currently, people have no ability to decide whether they want to view a particular image. They get to see it with no warning whether they like it or not. I propose that if we think it's reasonably likely they wouldn't actually want to view it, they should be asked first, so they can decide not to see it if they prefer not to see it. Do you disagree? Not necessarily. Supermarket tabloids still sell well. Sometimes it's the advertisers, and not the readers who determine this. Because tabloids aim to provide entertainment more than information. If your goal is entertainment, then yes, more titillating content will scare away some readers; but it will attract others, because that sort of content does entertain people. So if you're a tabloid, the balance tilts more heavily toward prurient content (as well as exaggerated content, content based on shoddy evidence or rumor, . . .). If your goal is to provide information, on the other hand, you don't care so much if people are more entertained, and the balance leans more heavily in favor of the socially conservative. We should take our cues from reputable publications, not tabloids. (That said, I'm pretty sure tabloids in America don't routinely contain even topless pictures, let alone full-frontal nudity as at [[Human]].) Each project will be left to determine its own standards. When dealing with Commons relevant language is a meaning less term. I'm not talking about Commons. I'm talking about the Wikipedias, mainly, particularly the English Wikipedia. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to list two kinds of images I would want hidden by default, it'd be: 1. spiders; and 2. gory medical conditions. Do I get that option? Do I get that option if more than x% of readers agree? We have a perfectly good categorization system already, so any implementation would likely permit you to blacklist any category you like. Of course, this depends on someone maintaining an accurate [[Category:Spiders]] . . . this scheme doesn't work well if people remove redundant categories from images. It's also pretty ugly if every image has fifty categories, on the other hand. I'd hope that if people widely blacklist particular categories (especially if some projects do so by default), that would create the right incentives for people to categorize things in a way that's useful for the system. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com simetrical%252bwikil...@gmail.com wrote: [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? Primarily because of copyright issues, at least with regard to the latter, I believe. I used to joke about what's next, a photo on Goatse.cx? when arguing with the when you look up X you expect a photo of X crowd, but then, for a while it actually came true. This is a standard fair-use case: it's a notable image, and our informative article about it is not complete without a copy of the image. It's the same reason we can put an image on, I don't know, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Maar_au_Chat. Except we don't, because it's revolting. It's at this moments that I'm really thankful that spanish wikipedia has committed to actually be a free-content encyclopedia and only use Commons material (which, as we know, doesn't allow fairuse). I can only hope all this shaking won't change that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links, or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You don't hide any information from people who actually want it (you require an extra click at most), and you don't force people to view images that they don't want to view. This allows as many people as possible to get what they want: people who want to see the images can see them, and those who don't can choose not to. The status quo forces people to view the images whether or not they want to. And a lot of people don't want to look at naked people without warning, for whatever reason. A similar method is used by the Chinese Wikipedia article on masturbation. It hides its gallery of images in an expandable box: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%84%E7%B2%BE Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Tim Starling wrote: Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly offensive images from the site. Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would be wrong for us to stop them. Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering. Standard answer 2: This could potentially enable censorship which is wrong as per answer 1. Also, we cannot determine what set of content is right for a given audience. By encouraging people to filter, say, R-rated content, we risk inadvertently witholding information that they would have consented to see, had they been fully informed about its nature. Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to filter. Standard answer 3: This also enables censorship, which is wrong as per answer 1. Also, tagging images with morally-relevant descriptors involves a value judgement by us, when we determine which descriptors to use. It is wrong for us to impose our moral values on readers in this way. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. I've attempted to structure the standard answers above in a way that shows how they are connected to this principle. Those who rely on standard answers don't really exercise freedom of thought, only an absence of thought. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent, and I count myself among them. Conservatives have no direct voice here, but they are conceptually represented by Fox News and its audience. There are some people here who exactly fit your description of conservatives, such as me. But we're forced by the overwhelming libertarian majority to play the part of moderates as a compromise. Regardless, more people than just religious conservatives would prefer not to see naked people without warning. At the very least, few people would be happy in unexpected nudity showing up while they're browsing at work, with children watching them, etc. -- it's embarrassing. You're probably correct that this is *historically* due to religious conservatism, but the preference remains even for completely irreligious people. This is an important point, and I say this as one who considers himself to be somewhere on the irreverently liberal (not libertarian) end of the spectrum. Even as one who considers some measure of these illustrations as acceptable, but who regards an excess of them to be tiresome, especially when they start to appear in unexpected circumstances. Perhaps a parallel might be drawn with a deeply religious conservative beset by proselytizers intent on converting him to the beliefs he already has with arguments far below the quality of his own theological experience. The standard objection here is But then we have to hide Muhammad images too! This is, of course, a non sequitur. A large percentage of English speakers prefer not to see nude images without warning, but only a tiny percentage prefer not to see pictures of Muhammad, so the English Wikipedia should cater to the former group but not the latter. The Arabic Wikipedia might also cater to the latter group -- indeed, I see no pictures of Muhammad at http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/محمد. But we only need to look at large groups of viewers, not small minorities. If the minority is small enough, their benefit from not having to see the images is outweighed by the majority's benefit in the aesthetic appeal of the images. Each such issue will have its own spectrum of supporters and detractors. It should not be our role to decide for them; we can only make it easier for them to make decisions consistent with their own beliefs. It's really very easy to determine where to draw the line. There are a multitude of English-language informative publications (encyclopedias, newspapers, news shows, etc.) published by many independent companies, and the major ones all follow quite similar standards on what sorts of images they publish. Since news reporting, for instance, is very competitive, we can surmise that they avoid showing images only because their viewers don't want to see them. Or if it's because of regulations, those are instituted democratically, so a similar conclusion follows. Not necessarily. Supermarket tabloids still sell well. Sometimes it's the advertisers, and not the readers who determine this. The solution is very simple. Keep all the images if you like. Determine, by policy, what sorts of images should not be shown by default, based on the policies of major publications in the relevant language. If an image is informative but falls afoul of the policy, then include it as a link, or a blurred-out version, or something like that. This way people can see the images only if they actually want to see them, and not be forced to see them regardless. Each project will be left to determine its own standards. When dealing with Commons relevant language is a meaning less term. It would hardly be any great burden when compared to the innumerable byzantine policies that already encumber everything on Wikipedia. That speaks to keeping things simple, avoiding the compulsion to overexplain everything. Excessive explanation tends to make laws and policies more obscure. The reason that this isn't the status quo has nothing to do with libertarianism. As I argue above, the properly libertarian solution would be to give people a choice of which images they view if there's doubt whether they'd like to view them. Rather, quite simply, we have sexual images in articles without warning because Wikipedia editors tend to be sexually liberal as a matter of demographics, and have a lot more tolerance for nudity than the average person. With no effective means of gathering input from non-editors, they decide on an image policy that's much more liberal than what their viewers would actually like. This is a gratuitous disservice to Wikipedia's viewers, and should be rectified. I have no problem with a liberal
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they do it. I would suggest a child-safe approach to Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a moderate filter setting. Try it, it works. It doesn't work if you enter Commons through the main page, or an image page, and then search through its categories. The best-thumbed pages of library books are usually the ones that have nude images; it's human nature. Commons is no different if you look at the top-1000. With respect to minors, the libertarian position that anyone should be able to see whatever they want to see is simply a fringe position. Every country legally defines some things as harmful to minors* and expects providers to behave in a way that prevents that harm. Arguing about whether the harm is real is an idle debate that's of no interest to teachers, say, who are legally bound by these standards and can experience professional repercussions if they fail in their duty of care. I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their young children as one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable material. The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that issue. It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms in place. And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*. So this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. As I see it, a working filter system for adult content would relieve teachers and librarians of the headache involved in making Commons or WP available to minors. Do we have figures on how many schools or libraries in various countries block access to Wikimedia sites over concerns related to content harmful to minors? Is this a frequently-voiced concern, or are we making more of it than it is? The most sensible access control system would be one that can be set up on a physical computer used by minors. (Linking it to user account data would not work, as IP users should have normal access.) And if the same child is allowed to surf the net freely by their parents at home, then that is perfect. It is the parents' choice, and every parent handles this differently. If an outside developer were to create such a filter product, that would be great too. I just wonder how they would cope with categories and images being renamed, new categories being created, etc. And does anyone actually know how Google manages to filter out images in safe search?Andreas * See the Miller test for minors reproduced at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Pornography ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice appreciated). I'll try this again. --- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they do it. I would suggest a child-safe approach to Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a moderate filter setting. Try it, it works. It doesn't work if you enter Commons through the main page, or an image page, and then search through its categories. The best-thumbed pages of library books are usually the ones that have nude images; it's human nature. Commons is no different if you look at the top-1000. With respect to minors, the libertarian position that anyone should be able to see whatever they want to see is simply a fringe position. Every country legally defines some things as harmful to minors* and expects providers to behave in a way that prevents that harm. Arguing about whether the harm is real is an idle debate that's of no interest to teachers, say, who are legally bound by these standards and can experience professional repercussions if they fail in their duty of care. I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their young children as one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable material. The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that issue. It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms in place. And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*. So this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. As I see it, a working filter system for adult content would relieve teachers and librarians of the headache involved in making Commons or WP available to minors. Do we have figures on how many schools or libraries in various countries block access to Wikimedia sites over concerns related to content harmful to minors? Is this a frequently-voiced concern, or are we making more of it than it is? The most sensible access control system would be one that can be set up on a physical computer used by minors. (Linking it to user account data would not work, as IP users should have normal access.) And if the same child is allowed to surf the net freely by their parents at home, then that is perfect. It is the parents' choice, and every parent handles this differently. If an outside developer were to create such a filter product, that would be great too. I just wonder how they would cope with categories and images being renamed, new categories being created, etc. And does anyone actually know how Google manages to filter out images in safe search? Andreas * See the Miller test for minors reproduced at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Pornography ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. Sexually explicit photographs are only one of many classes of photograph which pose the risk of embarrassment. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Childhood_Obesity.JPG (the original was not anonymized, and this image was subject to a lengthy argument as the photographer was strongly opposed to concealing the identity of the involuntary model) Or people who might show up here without their knoweldge, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_HIV/AIDS (Not even getting into all the photographs of people performing activities which are illegal in some-place or another, simply being gay will get you executed in some places, no explicit photographs required, and using some drugs can get you long sentences in many others...) So please don't make it out like there is a unique risk there. Commons has a policy related to identifiable images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people (and why do people on foundation-l keep insisting on discussing these things without even bothering to link to the existing policy pages?) I'm all for strengthening it up further, but I hope an hysterical reaction to sexual images isn't abused to make a mess of the policy and convert it into something which will be less practically enforceable than the current policy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I would suggest a child-safe approach to Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a moderate filter setting. Try it, it works. Actually, it doesn't. For example, if you search for masturbation site:commons.wikimedia.org you get explicit photographs, both with Strict and Moderate safe search. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: [...] However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. This is essentially a consent issue. If the model is a well-known porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no problem. However, many of the sexual images we receive depict non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct. If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine too. However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have no idea how their image is being used. Even if the person pictured consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by millions. At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image are often very lax. With regards to self-made images, we often take a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible. In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue of biographies of living persons. For a long time we treated those articles more or less the same as all other articles. However, eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards, especially in the case of negative or private information. I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content. (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential for embarrassment or other harm.) Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which would require no special treatment. Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget the potential to harm the people in the images. I would like to second this particular point, though I am largely inclusionist in the larger debate here. I handled an OTRS case in which exactly this happened; a ex-boyfriend stole a camera which a female college student had taken private nude pictures, posted them to Flickr, then someone copied them to Wikipedia to illustrate one of our sex-related articles (for which, the specific picture was reasonably educational/on topic/appropriate). The student was extremely upset and angry about each of these abuses of her privacy and property. This is probably the exception rather than the rule, but it is worth keeping in mind. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: The obvious solution is not to display images by default that a large number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead, provide links, or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur them. You don't hide any information from people who actually want it (you require an extra click at most), and you don't force people to view images that they don't want to view. This allows as many people as possible to get what they want: people who want to see the images can see them, and those who don't can choose not to. The status quo forces people to view the images whether or not they want to. And a lot of people don't want to look at naked people without warning, for whatever reason. I don't actually mind this proposal, and would like it myself for a lot of pages. But I'm not sure naked people are actually at the top of the list (perhaps someone should try to determine it empirically via some sort of research on our readers?). If I personally were to list two kinds of images I would want hidden by default, it'd be: 1. spiders; and 2. gory medical conditions. Do I get that option? Do I get that option if more than x% of readers agree? -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Tim Starling wrote: Libertarians want all information to be available to everyone. Some say all adults, some say children too should be included. Their principles allow for individuals to choose for themselves to avoid seeing that which offends them, which leaves the problem of how the reader is meant to tell in advance whether a given picture might offend them, before they have actually seen it. Their ideology does not allow them to consider any solution which involves one person making a decision on behalf of another, and all the reasonable solutions seem to involve some element of this. So they are left with no option but to downplay the impact of seeing offensive content. Plainly put, my view is this. An individual should be able to make this choice. An individuals proxy should be able to make this choice for them. I may have different ideas about when in a natural justice sense such proxying of choice should happen, but in law parents often do, and some places schools do (in loco parentis), and there are other special cases. What I do object to is any solution that facilitates one person or a group of persons for making that choice for another group, without them being their proxies. That is to say, parents or schools making those choices, I find defensible, though not ideal (I do think those choises often have unintended consequences, including the retardation of their pupils education and developement as human beings). However, whatever gloss you put on it, I am not comfortable with the state, or a religious community doing it, or helping the state or religious community do it. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote: I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another, but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm including: Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly offensive images from the site. Standard answer 1: Some people may wish to see that content, it would be wrong for us to stop them. Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering. Standard answer 2: This could potentially enable censorship which is wrong as per answer 1. Also, we cannot determine what set of content is right for a given audience. By encouraging people to filter, say, R-rated content, we risk inadvertently witholding information that they would have consented to see, had they been fully informed about its nature. Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to filter. Standard answer 3: This also enables censorship, which is wrong as per answer 1. Also, tagging images with morally-relevant descriptors involves a value judgement by us, when we determine which descriptors to use. It is wrong for us to impose our moral values on readers in this way. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. I've attempted to structure the standard answers above in a way that shows how they are connected to this principle. Religious conservatives think that seeing certain images, or reading certain text, is morally dangerous. Seeing these images, they believe, may lead the person into sin, and thus jeopardise their eternal soul. I think you've overstated that position. Would you include Larry Sanger in this category? He doesn't seem to be in either of the other two. I think it's difficult to distinguish Larry's own views from the show he puts on for the media. But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike wider society, religious conservatives can give a detailed, consistent and complete justification for their views. In terms of history and influence, the religious connection is plain. But I'll admit that not every anti-pornography campaigner today is a religious conservative. [...] I wouldn't call them moderates. They are most certainly not moral relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other two/three terrible positions. Let's add a fourth faction, the educators. Suit yourself. But I think it's more worthwhile to classify the ideologues than it is to classify the pragmatists. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote: That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that pleases some factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it? The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at least upsets both equally. In particular, I think there is potential for some very shaky and tentative common ground, in the area of parental control over young children. Libertarians might be convinced to make an exception to their principles for that case, which would open up room for small but valuable concessions to conservatives. -- Tim Starling ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: [snip] But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike wider society, religious conservatives can give a detailed, consistent and complete justification for their views. And one which inevitably has apparently unresolvable conflicts with one of our core organizing principles, NPOV. Hundreds of millions of viewers a month visit Wikipedia, many of them religious conservatives. But our structure is not one that produces articles on sexuality or religion (and sometimes on politics, and science...) that are found to be acceptable by, at least, the most hard-line among them. Even the most widely acceptable initiative must eventually accept that it can't please everyone. This is probably just one of the limits of our model, and it's OKAY to have limits, everything does. Consider, for a moment, the ALA list of most frequently challenged books: http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcenturychallenged/2009/index.cfm I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive and not at all compatible with ideas which must be suppressed. This fact gets a lot of names, some call it a liberal bias though I don't think that is quite accurate. But there very much is a bias— a pro-flow-of-information bias. We don't always realize we have it, but I don't think we deny it when we do. Jimmy brought this up in his keynote at Wikiconference New York in 2009: http://www.archive.org/download/NYwikiconf_wales_keynote_25july2009/NYwikiconf_wales_keynote_25july2009.ogv There are other resources which address these subject areas in a manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as conservapedia. It is a beneficial that there are alternative information sources, no one wants a world where all reference works are Wikipedia, so to the extent that our inability to cover some areas to some people's satisfaction creates more room for alternatives it is a good thing. I'd like to address an idea that underlies a lot of this discussion which I think is patently ridiculous: That our inability to please _everyone_ on _all_ articles is actually something to worry about. It's not something that can actually be done, all we can hope to choose is decide who we'll please, and by our core principles it appears that we've chosen to error towards the libertarians. In terms of overall popularity we would have better off not to, but then again I doubt we could have built something so useful another way. There is no existence proof yet, at least. The internet is chock full of things that hard-line religious conservatives would believe imperil the soul of anyone who views it. Even the most aggressive government censorship short of a total internet ban only suppresses are relatively small amount of this material. ... and yet people with these concerns continue to use the internet happily and productively. The impossibility of total censorship means that don't look if you don't like is a reality for everyone and not just libertarians. (English) Wikipedia stopped being an encyclopedia about 3 million articles ago. Today it is a collection of specialist encyclopaedias, or really— a federation of 3.2 million separate articles sharing a common set of principles and other infrastructure. It is expected and acceptable that some people may strongly approve some parts and strongly oppose others. Wikipedia, in the aggregate, is an excellent resource even for the staunchest religious conservative. But due to our core principles, some parts of Wikipedia will _never_ be acceptable to that audience. In at least a few cases, no amount of careful handling can satisfy a hard factional information which must be suppressed to protect your soul at the same time as fulfilling the effective direction from NPOV to factually express all major viewpoints. As with any of our other limitations— I would recommend that people find other resources that meet their needs when Wikipedia doesn't, just as do for millions of other webpages. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: There are other resources which address these subject areas in a manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as conservapedia. Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its activity rate is marginally higher than Citizendium.) Even the American Christian right-wing conservatives have no use for it. I'd like to address an idea that underlies a lot of this discussion which I think is patently ridiculous: That our inability to please _everyone_ on _all_ articles is actually something to worry about. It's not something that can actually be done, all we can hope to choose is decide who we'll please, and by our core principles it appears that we've chosen to error towards the libertarians. In terms of overall popularity we would have better off not to, but then again I doubt we could have built something so useful another way. There is no existence proof yet, at least. By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts. This is *entirely false*. Else this wonderful template would not exist: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Nopenis See every other teplate starting no in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Message_templates . (And yes, someone already did a version of the icon for [[m:DICK]].) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
*The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at least upsets both equally. * If we generalize the situation we could state the following: The *Libertarians *point of view could be worded as: Allow everyone to view all content The *Conservative *point of view could be worded as: Disallow everyone to view objectionable content The difference here is that the *Libertarian *side would allow everyone a choice in the matter (Don't want to see? Don't search), while the *Conservative *side denies everyone access (Want to see? You cannot). As a result i would say that the conversative opinion is the weaker one, as it would intend to force its point of view on another group while the libertarian view allows the conservative group to make a choice whether or not they want to view content. The only middle ground i can see would be allowing the conservative user to block images they do not wish to see, as that only influences their own experience, and not the experience of others. *In particular, I think there is potential for some very shaky and tentative common ground, in the area of parental control over young children. Libertarians might be convinced to make an exception to their principles for that case, which would open up room for small but valuable concessions to conservatives. * How would you wish to create or control such a system? How can we *Know* what users are young children? Any IP might represent someone under the age of 18, and any IP could actually be a child that qualifies as very young. The only indication we might have are school IP's. I would point out that i have heard of no school that allows unsupervised and unfiltered Internet access to very young children. Furthermore i would (again) point out that i would have to search for an explicit term in order to find one. Even if we block Wiki access to such content there are a million other sides providing the exact same thing. What other options do we have? We could of course create a censor system that allows network administrators to choose what content they refuse to display, but such a system would only encourage true censorship as it might be employed by ISP's and governments as well for very different reasons then protecting children. And what difference would it make in the first place? It would still fail to work for non school IP's such as home connections, and not every school has an outbound address they can easily control. Sure, the US and Europe generally connect schools trough dedicated IP's, but not every country or school does so. The effect of such a system would be trivial at best. The last option we have is a per-user controlled settings that will hide certain content. While i see some advantages with such a system (Eg: It would hit no one besides a particular user), it would not solve the issue at hand. Children are unlikely to create accounts to merely view wikipedia, which would mean that parent would have to control settings on an IP basis. And surprise - IP's are often dynamic which renders those changes void. Don't get me wrong. I am not entirely adverse to your statement that parent should be able to control what young children see, but i see no reasonable way to implement that. *To summarize:* - We cannot reliably filter young users, as every IP might be a child. Therefor we can not possibly create a catch-all system - There are other technical and social factors that make such a system undesirable in the first place. - Don't search, don't find. And even if we hide wikipedia's content there are plenty of other results that don't care who looks at them - Removing content altogether would prevent anyone from seeing it, while keeping content would allow people who wish to see it to look. A side that enforces it opinion over anotheris par definition the weaker side in a debate. ~Excirial On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 11/05/10 23:56, Mike Godwin wrote: That's a feature, not a bug. If there is a compromise that pleases some factions but not others, it's not exactly a compromise, is it? The trick is to find a compromise which pleases both factions, or at least upsets both equally. In particular, I think there is potential for some very shaky and tentative common ground, in the area of parental control over young children. Libertarians might be convinced to make an exception to their principles for that case, which would open up room for small but valuable concessions to conservatives. -- Tim Starling ___ 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] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle, we are still left with a very large number of people who would simply prefer not to see it. Or would at least *sometimes* prefer not to see it (at work, when kids are around, etc.). If these people want to look at even totally innocuous articles like [[Human]], they will be forced to look at images they don't want to see, with no warning. You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're the target market, after all. (If that isn't enough and you insist it has to be something for default, then I fear you are unlikely to gain consensus on this.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
I agree with David Gerard's suggestion above: this is a solution that will meet a variety of needs, and is therefore value-neutral. It can be applied to more than categories--someone with a moderately slow connection might wish to disable images in articles above a certain size, or articles containing many images. Personally, I sometimes disable image loading in my browser selectively in looking at certain sites where the images interfere with use of the material I actually want. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle, we are still left with a very large number of people who would simply prefer not to see it. Or would at least *sometimes* prefer not to see it (at work, when kids are around, etc.). If these people want to look at even totally innocuous articles like [[Human]], they will be forced to look at images they don't want to see, with no warning. You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're the target market, after all. (If that isn't enough and you insist it has to be something for default, then I fear you are unlikely to gain consensus on this.) - 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] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive and not at all compatible with ideas which must be suppressed. This fact gets a lot of names, some call it a liberal bias though I don't think that is quite accurate. But there very much is a bias— a pro-flow-of-information bias. We don't always realize we have it, but I don't think we deny it when we do. And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views? I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not natural, but generates hatred. I never could talk about libertarian ideas outside of one or two family members and two or three friends. Here, it seems the norm, and I simply can't believe it. As I said before, Wikipedia acted like a magnet on me. I'm wondering if it's uniting all the (internet connected) libertarian of the world. In this case I'm surprised that it didn't receive more serious attacks from the establishment. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6ajnAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LxQEIAOkmwi+7o3PyBbxOXDHrfTyT 5+OemY+gw4AEejtDq/ZV6jI3ngD/APehLY/slGWsiwxbOlhH3YPy1ELPdwOQdX75 YKyjprccvuLPgY+vkUTD4osn12hZWH0g83kPRjjvx4CeBiGL1kvxKDpU1qXDyhNX sboxxSwXqMI9gVH787Wd03TWP7EXxdwPkt7TEc6M1oMXug4RhpUB9jdUr1ikO5Ni 09ws/S0zIHiVCd88BTfYxaG0JJYbt/vmSG0232Sz5w+CjXtVfigch6KHYVKrYxAV XdXTPwvd0D63tXNBJ/lsZ9AjGk28Ktdyum9T7RROFXlQckBk3Fi7m9o57F0Fomk= =IP4R -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Hi, 2010/5/11 Noein prono...@gmail.com: On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive and not at all compatible with ideas which must be suppressed. This fact gets a lot of names, some call it a liberal bias though I don't think that is quite accurate. But there very much is a bias— a pro-flow-of-information bias. We don't always realize we have it, but I don't think we deny it when we do. And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views? I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not natural, but generates hatred. I never could talk about libertarian ideas outside of one or two family members and two or three friends. Here, it seems the norm, and I simply can't believe it. As I said before, Wikipedia acted like a magnet on me. I'm wondering if it's uniting all the (internet connected) libertarian of the world. In this case I'm surprised that it didn't receive more serious attacks from the establishment. I think that, world wide, people from conservative or traditional cultures don't have as much Internet access as people with libertarian views. This is specially true outside of the Western world. That may explain why there are not so much opposition to the libertarian position of Wikimedia. Internet access helps to get a larger view, better understanding of other cultures, and a more open opinion on sensitive subjects. Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're the target market, after all. I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful. I've been thinking about how best to do it, on and off, for some time. However, I don't think it's reasonable to require opt-out for images that a large percentage of viewers don't want to see without warning. If the people who want to see it can see it with just a click anyway, they aren't losing anything if it's hidden by default. Especially if it's just blurred out. (If that isn't enough and you insist it has to be something for default, then I fear you are unlikely to gain consensus on this.) Does that mean you disagree with me but aren't saying why, or that you agree but aren't bothering to say so because you're sure it won't happen? The latter is where self-fulfilling prophecies come from. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they do it. I would suggest a child-safe approach to Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a moderate filter setting. Try it, it works. I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their young children as one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable material. The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that issue. It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms in place. And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*. So this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're the target market, after all. I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful. I've been thinking about how best to do it, on and off, for some time. However, I don't think it's reasonable to require opt-out for images that a large percentage of viewers don't want to see without warning. If the people who want to see it can see it with just a click anyway, they aren't losing anything if it's hidden by default. Especially if it's just blurred out. You're making an assumption there on no evidence: a large percentage wanting to be opted out by default. If you write it, then logged-in users could give you numbers. (e.g. a Western World worksafe filter set will undoubtedly be popular.) Commons admins are in fact *painstaking* in accurate categorisation; the filter sets should be stable. (If that isn't enough and you insist it has to be something for default, then I fear you are unlikely to gain consensus on this.) Does that mean you disagree with me but aren't saying why, or that you agree but aren't bothering to say so because you're sure it won't happen? The latter is where self-fulfilling prophecies come from. I think it's a bad idea *and* you are unlikely to obtain consensus. Because filtering for people who *haven't* asked is quite a different proposition from filtering for people who *have* asked, in what I'd hope are fairly obvious ways. wjohn...@aol.com wrote: I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their young children as one message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable material. The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue. And Commons cannot solve that issue. It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate self-selected mechanisms in place. And I propose that all parents who care, already *do*. So this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. Indeed. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote: And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views? I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not natural, but generates hatred. I never could talk about libertarian ideas outside of one or two family members and two or three friends. Here, it seems the norm, and I simply can't believe it. As I said before, Wikipedia acted like a magnet on me. I'm wondering if it's uniting all the (internet connected) libertarian of the world. In this case I'm surprised that it didn't receive more serious attacks from the establishment. I'm not sure how strong the consensus is, but I'd be careful about reading anything too wide into the fairly narrow set of issues we discuss here. The libertarians on this issue are taking a narrow position on availability of materials deemed offensive, and aren't necessarily political libertarians in the wider sense of low-tax, free-market, small-government sort of libertarianism. (Some are, but I'd guess that plenty of people with libertarian views as to Wikipedia content policies are politically on the left.) -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Tim's post is excellent. However there is a viewpoint on this issue that is important to me personally that I feel is not well represented by his spectrum. To the extent that Tim's spectrum does represent me, I am probably moderate. I recognize that some people (e.g. the conservatives) find certain content undesirable and I would gladly give them the tools to self-filter that content if they wished. Since conservatives are a major segment of the population, I also think it is pragmatic for public relations reasons to avoid collecting large numbers of redundant and/or unused images that have the potential to offend such people. However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. This is essentially a consent issue. If the model is a well-known porn star and wants to be shown nude to the world, then there is no problem. However, many of the sexual images we receive depict non-notable individuals who appear to be engaged in private conduct. If the uploader is being honest and responsible, then this may be fine too. However, if the uploader is malicious, then the subject may have no idea how their image is being used. Even if the person pictured consented to having the photographs made, they may still be horrified at the idea that their image would be used in an encyclopedia seen by millions. At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image are often very lax. With regards to self-made images, we often take a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible. In a sense, this way of looking at things is very similar to the issue of biographies of living persons. For a long time we treated those articles more or less the same as all other articles. However, eventually we came to accept that the potential to do harm to living persons was a special concern which warranted special safeguards, especially in the case of negative or private information. I would say that publishing photos of living persons in potentially embarrassing or exploitative situations should be another area where we should show special concern for the potential harm, and require a stronger justification for inclusion and use than typical content. (Sexual images are an easy example of a place where harm might be done, but I'd say using identifiable photos of non-notable people should be done cautiously in any situation where there is potential for embarrassment or other harm.) Obviously, from this point of view, I consider recent photos of living people to be rather different from illustrations or artwork, which would require no special treatment. Much of the discussion has focused on the potential to harm (or at least offend) the viewer of an image, but I think we should not forget the potential to harm the people in the images. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 11/05/10 23:06, Anthony wrote: I assume here you're talking about choosing what images to allow on the websites. I wouldn't call that making a decision on behalf of another, but I assume that's what you're referring to. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I'm including: Solution 1: Exercise editorial control to remove particularly offensive images from the site. Solution 2: Tag images with an audience-specific rating system, like movie classifications. Then enable client-side filtering. Solution 3: Tag images with objective descriptors, chosen to be useful for the purposes of determining offensive character by the reader. The reader may then choose a policy for what kinds of images they wish to filter. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. Well, I fully agree with that fundamental principle, and yet I wouldn't categorize any of those solutions as violating that principle, nor would I characterize them as making decisions on behalf of another. And really, I don't see how you could possibly characterize these actions that way. You say Some people may wish to see that content, it would be wrong for us to stop them. I would think the libertarian response to that is that a desire to have something does not constitute a right to force others to provide it to you. Now, granted, I don't think the line should be drawn at particularly offensive images. I'd say the primary, if not sole criterion (besides the obvious legality and free license), would be the bona fide educational value of the image. I'd say the image of Saint Terese, while obviously highly offensive to some, would be acceptable if (and, in my opinion, only if) some text was included right on the image page which explained such things as who created it, what he was trying to say with it, what historical impact it had, etc. I think such a task, applied to any and all questionable images, would also be something that could be pointed to should the media come by and cry pornography. The explanation should be right there on the image page justifying the educational nature of the image. Yes, there will be some people who will remain opposed to such images regardless of the explanation, but at that point (and not before it) I think we can properly treat such people as obviously irrational. Of course, the explanations would need to be good ones. I can think of a lot of bad explanations that would likely be offered for the inclusion of certain images, and I don't at all trust the community to recognize them as such. I wouldn't call them moderates. They are most certainly not moral relativist, and they have no desire to find compromises between the other two/three terrible positions. Let's add a fourth faction, the educators. Suit yourself. But I think it's more worthwhile to classify the ideologues than it is to classify the pragmatists. I think you should consider that some of the educators aren't pragmatists at all. I look at your three categories, and I like some of each, and dislike some of each. I fully agree with the principle you ascribe to the libertarians that the individual should have freedom of thought and action, and that it is wrong for some other party to infringe that freedom. But a freedom is just that, a freedom, not an entitlement. People who want to view porn should (and do) have the freedom to view porn. But that doesn't mean the WMF has a duty to host it for them. The religious conservatives are probably right that seeing certain images, at least for people at a certain age, and especially without the proper context, is dangerous. I'm not quite sure what you mean by morally dangerous, but hard core pornography, especially certain forms of hard core pornography, is probably not very healthy. I certainly don't want my son or daughter viewing porn videos as he's learning about sex. Finally, there's what you call the moderates. Actually I don't see much value in that position at all, at least as you describe it. But to the extent the moderates advocate taking some ideas from both of the other two positions, I guess I can agree with that. As you describe them, the moderates are the pragmatists, and that's a big part of what they've gotten wrong. I would advocate that the WMF adopt a principled position with respect to pornography, and then let people decide whether or not they wish to use an encyclopedia built on those principles. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote: [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and [[Goatse.cx]] does not contain an image of its subject matter. Why? Primarily because of copyright
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, there appears to be an assumption - on the part of board members, the WMF and some contributors to this thread - that Commons has been somehow indiscriminate in what it accepts. I don't read that. What I see is a debate about whether Commons discriminates in the right ways, not a belief that it is indiscriminate. The most frequent censorship on the Projects is done in the name of notability -- and it is done all the time. As an eventualist myself, I think that we are generally *too discriminate* in what we accept -- Commons and English Wikipedia are quite ready to delete media and articles simply because one group of established editors disagrees with the notability standards or writing style of a younger, less wiki-savvy group. For instance, professional artist, animator, and free culture activist Nina Paley had quite a difficult time contributing artwork to Commons without having it (and her userpage!) deleted. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nina_Paley As to whether we have the right policies for discriminating between good and bad images of human sexuality, I think the worst issue is simply the lack of a standard for model releases. When it comes to assessing quality and appropriateness, I don't think the Commons standards in that category are much worse than in other categories. (Of course it may be true that the impact of standards in that category is much greater than in other cats, because of its disproportionate popularity). SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Tim, thank you for this excellent post. A few comments: Tim Starling writes: it's only the libertarians who value educational value above moral hazard I don't really agree with this. Contributors from across your spectrum consider whether potentially-harmful information about a person is educational enough to be in their biography. The tension between educational value and various hazards is something regularly assessed by editors. It's just that in areas of contentious sexual, religious, racist, or violent content, there is a wide variation in assessment of moral hazard. In areas of an admittedly-embarrassing verifiable fact about a person, there is (often) much less variation, and communities often come to an agreement about whether the value outweighs the hazard. Yann writes: I think that, world wide, people from conservative or traditional cultures don't have as much Internet access as people with libertarian views. This is true, and worth considering. Wikipedia is sometimes pointed to as a reason for such communities to use the Internet. Aryeh Gregor writes: First of all, the images rarely add much value. Different audiences disagree widely on this point - for any controversial image, groups opposed to it will find it valueless. Keep all the images if you like. Determine, by policy, [how to show them] It's true that policies for what is kept in Commons are different from policies about what Projects show. My view is, the latter should be determined by individual Projects - though they may need help in implementing what they want. On the other hand, Commons is a project unto itself, and has its own content policies (such as the prohibition on fair use). there's been edit-warring about [[Daniel Pearl]], but probably out of respect for his family Largely true. And we need to improve our standards of respect for images of people. Robert Rohde writes: Sexual photographs, especially those of easily recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the people in them. I place a high value on not doing harm to the models pictured. At present, our controls regarding the publication of a person image are often very lax. With regards to self-made images, we often take a lot of things on faith, and personally I see that as irresponsible I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or embarrassing photos. Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
