Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
The problem are not the European laws. It are the US laws that don't recognize the European FOP. That means it would be perfectly legal to host such images on an European server (in a country that recognizes FOP), but not on US servers, because they are subject to US law. Am 02.03.2013 12:34, schrieb David Gerard: -- Forwarded message -- From: Jane Darnell Date: 2 March 2013 10:59 Subject: [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art? To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, Apologies for cross-posting, but WMNL was recently approached for helping start a photo contest for WWII monuments. Based on this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg We assumed that these photographs could be used on Wikipedia, but the recent discussions about the DMCA takedown notice for this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Houseball_(Oldenburg_and_van_Bruggen) indicate that FOP in Europe is not really FOP. To be careful, we have decided to cancel the photo contest idea, though people are of course terribly disappointed about this. Does anyone know the status of this discussion? Of course, WLM has brought in several thousand of these "possibly-not-FOP" sculptures, as they are often WLM monuments themselves, or are situated directly in front of buildings that are WLM monuments. Thanks in advance for any info you have - we need a short and sweet way to inform the WWII monument committee and WMNL volunteers why we are cancelling. Jane ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation and Saudi Telecom (STC) partner to provide access to Wikipedia free of mobile data charges in the Middle East
Am 15.10.2012 21:19, schrieb Theo10011:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
This announcement is worrying, to say the least.
In other words, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a partnership with
one of the most retrograde government, which is also a regular censor
on Internet content.
How could you justify that?
Hi Yann
It's not a partnership with the government, it's with a telecom company to
allow its subscriber in KSA (MENA region), free and easy access to
Wikipedia. KSA is a big part of the middle-east region, the political
reasons aside this helps the public get better access to Wikipedia. There
is no reason why we should not increase availability for the general public.
I'm not sure about the stance against this either, if a government is
trying to censor and restrict access, we should do what? not help provide
access to their citizens, not increase availability? how would that help
the situation? This is a way of working with the current situation and
perhaps around it, its about providing free access to people in the region,
which is probably the best thing to do at the time.
Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
There is always the doubt that an initiative achieves its goal. After
reading the latest contribution of Saudi Arabia to the World
Telecommunication Policy Forum 2013 [1], I'm really a pessimist. In
short: They claim that it is "absolutely necessary" to tackle the
problem of freedom of expression in the Internet.
After reading that report I'm truly pessimistic in this regard.
Additionally i know about the deep relationship between the Saudi
Telecom Company and Intigral. The later one is well known to provide
efficient censorship solutions. So i have to fear that the subscribers
will get the censored version of WP instead the real one and that such
an cooperation actually helps to keep the people away from accessing the
uncensored version. ("They demand a book of truth? Let's give them the
book of our truth, so that they can be happy, ...")
[1] http://www.itu.int/md/S12-WTPF13PREP-C-0026/en
nya~
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
Your answer would imply that we never ever should try to combine a free image with any of our logos in a single work (not a collection). I wrote the reason in a previous mail already. We would have a copyright violation if the new work is released under a free license since the logo isn't free or we don't release it under a free license which is a copyright violation of the free image. This is a dilemma and the only reasonable/responsible consequence is to not create such an image and to delete all images which are subject to this issue. Given this ugly situation i have to ask: Why? We have hundreds, thousands if not millions of files which have restrictions (de minimis, personal rights, FOP, ...) aside from copyright law. The logos are just the same but are treated entirely differently, despite the fact that it is much more like that one of the other (not so) free images is reused in cases which are against the law. I just don't get your argument. nya~ Am 08.07.2012 22:17, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: The most basic answer (someone form WMF can correct me if I am somehow misled here) is that the logos are not released under a free license because they are trademarks. It seems very harsh, to someone who finds this answer good enough, when you ask again in the way you did. It a debatable point, not an obvious one. None of us who feel either way about this are missing the point, we simply do not agree about an issue that does not have a perfect solution. I would not be happy if they were released under a license that was misleading about the their true availability for reuse. You are not happy that they are in their a category apart that is disallowed for non-WMF owned trademarks. We can never both be happy. You think having all the labels brought into line throughout the project is more important than case-by-case usefulness. I think what works best for each case in practice is more important than whatever labels are applied. There is no way to satisfy both of our concerns equally. In this case, the practical concern won out over the idealistic one. Other situations have turned out otherwise, leaving me the one who is less happy. You mentioned, for one example, the freely-licensed images lacking personality releases which for practical purposes cannot be re-used but are categorized with the standard labels as though they for re-use. I respect that you have different priorities than I do and am happy for us both to explain our most important concerns. I truly believe it is important to always respectfully hear out other points of view, even when I do not necessarily expect that there is a perfect solution. I very much like to understand as well as possible, even when I expect to disagree. But, please, explain to me why, once the arguments have been heard, do idealists like yourself tend to find it appropriate to continue again and again around the same wheel? This I have trouble respecting. This I do not understand at all. Birgitte SB On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: As well as free photos of people, there is only the release of copyright, and no release of personality rights; we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights guaranteed. Again why is not free? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 7971-8884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [OT] ACTA rejected by EU parliament
Am 04.07.2012 20:52, schrieb David Gerard: On 4 July 2012 19:22, Samuel Klein wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18704192 Dunno about OT. The public protests across Europe followed from the SOPA blackout. - d. Not really. The first big protests started at the end of the year 2011, while the blackout was from 18th to 19th January 2012. But in some way it might have helped to strengthen the protests and to prolong the duration. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
The current definition is very protective and incompatible with free licenses. I can't take a free licensed photo and put the Wikipedia logo in the background. It's not because the Logo can't be used, it's because i can't release the the end result under a free license. If i would create such an image and release it with the license from the photo then it would be effectively the same as releasing the logo under this license. If the copyright holder disagrees then i created a copyright violation and could be sued. If i would publish such an image under a free license then it would mean: A) I'm creating a copyright violation since i have not the right to release the image, which includes the logo, under a free license. B) The copyright holder agrees to include the logo and he also agrees with the viral license, which is effectively the same as releasing the logo itself. What now? Am 04.07.2012 11:10, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: I have no time to find the page, but the logo of Wikipedia may be used for no commercial use. So it's not public domain, but has a sufficient freedom of use. The question is to understand what is the feeling of the normal people in internet. So, in this specific case I would really associate copyright law and trademark law because for cases like Wikipedia the difference is a "nuance". The logo of Wikipedia is a symbol not in terms of mark, but it is a symbol because if you use it, the persons associate it with a specific idea of good will and extend this idea to the project or the product using it. Any project or initiative would have the logo of Wikipedia because they would have people associating a good feeling to the project, but are we sure that all projects are useful and good projects ans socially innovative? Wikipedia is an useful project, you use the logo of Wikipedia, so you are useful. And I think that the persons assume that someone supervises that this logo is used appropriately. The current definition of the use of the Wikipedia logo, it is sufficiently protective for a world based on the simple rule that what is in my screen is mine and that anything is free can be used for any purposes. On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Tobias Oelgarte< tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
From my experience the re-users barely read any of the licenses and already expect every of our images to be "free beer". Sometimes i looked where my images and articles are used and i noticed quite a lot of copyright violations. I took my time to mail the re-users and informed them what they have to do to comply with the licenses. As the result i saw two general pattern. The small private pages were users expected that our images would be "free beer" and the bigger (typical copyright violation) pages that didn't respond at all. The first group was usually very surprised and immediately corrected the content of the pages after i informed them about their mistake. From this experience i learned that not many are really aware of the copyright issues or license requirements. So i can't expect that the logos are seen or used any different, despite the missing free license. If i would apply your logic on trademarks to the many other logos we host, then we could upload them without any licensing condition or not at all, since you deny that this images would be useful outside of Wikipedia. But there are cases in which this missing license information is an actual problem. Every of our mirrors by now is a copyright violation and could be sued by the WMF (unlikely, but possible), since they can't comply with the licensing, given the fact that this images have no valid license. Overall i see no real harm to release this images under a free license, because it would not change much. People either read the license text and understand or they ignore it because of the two basic reasons I explained above. The advantage would be that we now could use the logos in collections which are freely licensed itself. Up till now it is impossible to release a collection under CC-BY-SA which contains one of the logos and i also can't incorporate them into other images, just because i can't mix "no license" with "free license". This example is an actual copyright violation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beziehung_zwischen_Wikipedia_und_der_Presse.svg The used press logo is under the LGPL. The Wikipedia ball has no license. Not mentioning the LGPL would be a copyright violation, but putting it on the image is also a copyright violation regarding the logo. So what to do? The logical consequence would be to delete the image, despite its many uses... Am 04.07.2012 05:46, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: That reasoning seems to be begging the question a bit. That we should not make an exception so that there will be no exceptions. I suggested some pragmatic reasons why making an exception for these trademarks more successfully communicates the message for reuse than not doing so. And also how an unsuccessful communication on this point could be harmful. You do not seem to argue that any of my reasoning is inaccurate. Do you really find these practical difficulties to be less important than a perfect record of having no exceptions? What purpose do you see in refusing to make an exception where it seems to make practical sense? Something that can't be used in any context can have no possible purpose for a copyright release. So far as I imagine it, such a release would lead to unnecessary confusion (debatable only to what degree) while offering no practical benefit. I am not at all bothered by the fact that maintaining copyrights on trademarks is inconsistent with the copyrights maintained on non-trademarks. I believe consistency to only be a worthwhile goal so long as it tends to promote clarity, which, in this particular case, it does not. I do not find that consistency is inherently desirable. Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:03 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: I can't disagree with your understan
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
We have special templates for this case which prominently inform the user that the image is free due to reason XYZ but can't be used in any context due to additional trademark restrictions. This concept does not only apply to logos or trademarks, but also for public domain cases. Commons hosts images which are public domain in some countries (needs to include US) but not in other countries due to different copyright laws. The same way some language Wikis host content that is free after local law but not after US law. Another case are personal rights. For example the German "Recht am eigenen Bild" is very restrictive and does not allow any usage of a free image from any person. What i mean is: We already have such restrictions for various images in our collection and the re-user has to be careful to comply with all laws aside the copyright law. Releasing the Logos under a free license and including a template which mentions the restrictions would be common practice. Hosting images with no free license is actual exception. Am 04.07.2012 02:16, schrieb birgitte...@yahoo.com: I can't disagree with your understanding of the different IP laws, however this not a very commonly understood nuance. Many people, when seeing the logo listed as "free" regarding copyright, will assume they can use it the same as any other copyleft or PD image. They will not necessarily understand that trademark protections will interfere with their actually being able to use the symbol as an image. People who mistakenly use the symbol, and receive the required lawyerly letter to stop this, will feel betrayed by the fact it was listed as "free" of copyright. However strictly accurate the plan to treat the two areas of IP law separately might be, it cannot be executed very well. Those people, misled by their poor understanding of how these separate areas of laws achieve very similar results, will feel burned. Their goodwill will be lost. They may even become convinced they had been intentionally tricked with mixed messages. It much more pragmatic to simply reserve the copyright on trademarks. To maintain a consistent message of "Do not use." Birgitte SB On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
You will have to split between trademark laws and copyright laws. Both concepts exist separately from each other. There are a lot of logos that are not copyright protected. For example very simple text logos, depending on country even more complex logos that don't reach the needed threshold of originality or even works that are by now in public domain. Still this logos and it's use is restricted due to trademark laws. So i don't see a true reason why the Wikipedia logos should not be licensed freely, while trademark laws still apply and we promote free content at the same time. Am 04.07.2012 00:06, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: Again, the logo is a symbol, it's not an image. I don't agree with your concept because you can move the Commons content in another website also commercial. So you should split content and repository. The content may be free, the repository may be not free. Following your concept if a newspaper would use the Commons content, it should release under free license his website, his logo, his content. On 03.07.2012 23:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is not free?
I don't know how it is handled after US law, but if i consider German law then logos and trademarks are often even in the public domain, but protected as a trademark itself. But i also think that our logo is something to protect while being free at the same time. If we go strictly after the policies the logos aren't free and should be deleted (especially with Commons in mind, because it is violation of the policies ;-) ). This is somehow contradictory to the mission itself. So i can understand the point that Rodrigo put up as well. Am 03.07.2012 23:37, schrieb Ilario Valdelli: A mark is not a simple image. A mark it's a symbol. On 03.07.2012 23:32, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote: So in your view, free images can be harmful? So why would I release a picture? And you're telling me is more important to believe in the logo, instead of checking the validity of what you are consuming? But we do not talk to our volunteers always check the sources and not to believe blindly in a single source? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 22.06.2012 00:02, schrieb Anthony: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or of "child sexual abuse"? On Wikipedia? On Commons? Anywhere? Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss? Well, I still don't know the answer. Of course Wikimedia related... For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is disputed). You call the Virgin Killer image "child sexual abuse"? Truly? It depicts an instance of child sexual abuse, yes. I see a child, but i don't see sexual abuse. So i can't agree with you that it is an instance for child sexual abuse. Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be shown on Wikipedia or hosted on Commons? I was responding to your request to point you to examples. I should have written this question: Can you point me to examples of any of the previously mentioned abuses on Commons or Wikipedia that have no justification to be there? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or of "child sexual abuse"? On Wikipedia? On Commons? Anywhere? Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss? For "child sexual abuse", I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is disputed). You call the Virgin Killer image "child sexual abuse"? Truly? For "child abuse", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erichsen_Abused_San_or_Nama_child_prisoners_p._52_v2.jpg I don't see any problem with this image. It documents child abuse as a fact without advocating it. For "sexual abuse", a simple search came up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AG-10.jpg (which isn't on the English Wikipedia except through image search, but is on other language Wikipedias. I would be truly shocked if that image or another version of it isn't used. Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be shown on Wikipedia or hosted on Commons? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 21.06.2012 22:24, schrieb Anthony: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy concerns (for example if the persons shown were no longer alive). So would the same argument would apply to child porn, if the child is dead, and if it weren't illegal? The current situation seems to be that photos of child abuse are legal (and are allowed on Wikipedia), and photos of sexual abuse are legal (and are allowed on Wikipedia), but photos of child sexual abuse are illegal (and aren't on Wikipedia except for a few disputed cases). Can you point me to any examples of real "child abuse", "sexual abuse" or of "child sexual abuse"? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 21.06.2012 21:55, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen wrote: This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well as the incident discussion you linked, he is being blocked not for the deletion nominations themselves, but for making them disruptively, both by targeting editors he disagrees with and by being abusive during the process. As a parallel on Wikipedia, if someone has a disagreement with another editor, and proceeds to nominate 10 of their articles for deletion with the deletion rationale "Delete this crap by that moron", that person could be sanctioned even if all 10 articles really -do- need to be deleted. I don't know if that's really the case, nor do I feel like reviewing his contributions in enough detail to find out, but the block discussion is absolutely -not- talking about what you said it was. Notability is different from copyright. Copyright is fundamental. When editors in Wikipedia have pointed out multiple copyright violations or plagiarisms by administrators (we have had examples, up to and including arbitrators), they have not been subject to threats, blocks and bans. I don't think this sort of thing would fly in the English Wikipedia – not with copyright violations. Non-notable articles, perhaps, especially if the nomination were accompanied by abuse. But I am honestly not aware of Pieter ever having nominated a file with the reasoning "Delete this crap by that moron". These are your words. And I *am* aware of admins continuously picking on him and ganging up on him. This is not the first time this situation has arisen. If a file is a copyright violation, it is a copyright violation. I don't tend to interfere with that issue. But from what i noticed you put Pieter in a very different light as i would put him. Knowing that you are unhappy with Commons, even dragging it down to a personal level, it isn't really surprising to me to read a comment like this. I have to agree with Todds view that Pieter used deletion requests against opponents on Commons in a very unconvincing fashion, only hunting for pictures of this users. I also agree on the fact that a (un)justified deletion request is a separate issue from "stalking" opponents and making deletions requests purely to annoy them. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 19.06.2012 01:39, schrieb Anthony: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony: Have you ever tried to do this? It's not as easy as you are making it sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because Mediawiki is tightly coupled to the specific database structure it uses. You don't need to interact with the database of Wikipedia itself. You can use the MediaWiki API which is quite stable and enough for this task. I don't speak about a complete mirror, i speak about a filtered _view_ for Wikipedia. You type in "http://www.mysavewiki.com/Banana"; and the server delivers the recently approved and cached version of the article from Wikipedia if "Banana" is whitelisted. Are you talking about "remote loading" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Remote_loading)? That's a good way to get your IP address banned. No. I don't talk about remote loading. I talk about caching. The server hosts the current version itself and only fetches it for an manual update. To inform the host that a new version of page exists it could listen to the recent changes on the IRC channel. If it would do remote loading then you would also accept temporary vandalism which isn't desired like remote loading itself isn't desired. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 16:31, schrieb Thomas Morton: On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgartewrote: Any tagging by non neutral definitions would interfere with project. It's like to create categories named "bad images", "uninteresting topics" or "not for ethnic minority X". Of course; but that is predicated on a bad process design. Solution; design an appropriate process. So far i have not seen any indication to design an appropriate process. If there is such a design work in progress i would be really interested how the current ideas look like and if they are more convincing then the latest proposals (e.g. referendum) that only touched the surface and ignored many potential issues. Editorial judgment is based on how to wrap up a topic a nice way without making an own judgment about the topic. A hard job to do, but that is the goal. If i would write the article "pornography" then i would have to think about what should be mentioned inside this article because it is important and which parts are not relevant enough or should be but in separate sections to elaborate them in further detail. This is entirely different to say "pornography is good or evil" or "this pornographic practice is good or evil and thats why it should be mentioned or excluded". There is a difference between the relevance of a topic and the attitude toward a topic. The whole image filter idea is based on the latter and not to be confused with editorial judgment. Pornography articles, as it stands, have a community-implemented "filter" as it is. Which is the tradition that articles are illustrated with graphics, not photographs. So the example is a poor one; because we already have a poor man's filter :) Similarly the decision "does this image represent hardcore porn, softcore porn, nudity or none of the above" is an editorial one. Bad design process would introduce POV issues - but we are plagued with them anyway. If anything this gives us an opportunity to design and trial a process without those issues (or at least minimising them). That is already a sad thing, but this does not apply to all language versions. Some only use this illustrations since they are more suitable to illustrate the term or practice, other because of the "community implemented filter" and it might vary from article to article. You make me interested to hear what a good design could look like. I would have nothing against additional work if i would see the benefits. But in this case i see some good points and i also see list of bad points. At best it might be a very tiny improvement which comes along with a huge load of additional work while other parts could be improved with little extra work and be a true improvement. If we had nothing better to do then i would say "yes lets try it". But at the moment it is a plain "No, other things have to come first". Don't confuse opt-in and opt-out if a filter is implemented on an external platform. There is no opt-in or opt-out for Wikipedia as long the WP isn't blocked and the filter is the only access to Wikipedia.We have the long story that parents want their children to visit Wikipedia without coming across controversial content, which they apparently do everytime they search for something entirely unrelated. In this case an opt-in (to view) filter makes actually sense. Otherwise it doesn't. We may be confusing opt in/out between us. The filter I would like to see is optional to enable (and then stays enabled) and gives a robust method of customising the level and type of filtering. While I'm personally not against filtering on personal level someone will still have to deal with it (open design question). We have such discussions. But I'm afraid that most of them do not circle around the benefits of the image for the article, but the latter part that i mentioned above (editorial judgment vs attitude judgment). Filtering images would resolve most of these issues. I think it would just reset the borders, but it won't take long until new lines are drawn and the discussions will continue. Now it is "OMG vs WP:NOT CENSORED" later it will be "OMG vs Use the filter". But at the same time we will have new discussions regarding the filter itself (open design question). Believe me or believe me not. If we introduce such tagging then the discussions will only be about personal attitude towards an image, ignoring the context, it's educational benefits entirely. We successfully tag images as pornographic, apparently without drama, already. So I find this scenario unlikely. No. We don't tag images _as_ pornographic. We tag them _as related to_ pornography. Just take a look at the category pornography at Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornography This applies to terms like violence and other stuff as well. It is a chicken/egg problem. One part of our community (including readers) dislikes tagging/filtering and sees it as (or the tool for) the creation of road blocks that
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton: It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors that aren't interested in such a feature. Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics. Any tagging by non neutral definitions would interfere with project. It's like to create categories named "bad images", "uninteresting topics" or "not for ethnic minority X". If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment onto it, while ignoring or separating it from the context it is used in. And yet you allow that we use editorial judgement in articles. This is no different, it gives a further tool for editorial decisions to be made. Editorial judgment is based on how to wrap up a topic a nice way without making an own judgment about the topic. A hard job to do, but that is the goal. If i would write the article "pornography" then i would have to think about what should be mentioned inside this article because it is important and which parts are not relevant enough or should be but in separate sections to elaborate them in further detail. This is entirely different to say "pornography is good or evil" or "this pornographic practice is good or evil and thats why it should be mentioned or excluded". There is a difference between the relevance of a topic and the attitude toward a topic. The whole image filter idea is based on the latter and not to be confused with editorial judgment. The first proposal (referendum) mentioned various tagging options/categories that would have to be maintained by the community, despite existing and huge backlogs. A reasonable argument; but almost everything adds to our backlog anyway. I would have nothing against additional work if i would see the benefits. But in this case i see some good points and i also see list of bad points. At best it might be a very tiny improvement which comes along with a huge load of additional work while other parts could be improved with little extra work and be a true improvement. If we had nothing better to do then i would say "yes lets try it". But at the moment it is a plain "No, other things have to come first". Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite different view points and which accepts different view points (main difference between Flickr and Co). This is an argument for an opt-in filter. Don't confuse opt-in and opt-out if a filter is implemented on an external platform. There is no opt-in or opt-out for Wikipedia as long the WP isn't blocked and the filter is the only access to Wikipedia. We have the long story that parents want their children to visit Wikipedia without coming across controversial content, which they apparently do everytime they search for something entirely unrelated. In this case an opt-in (to view) filter makes actually sense. Otherwise it doesn't. The result will be huge amount of discussions about whether to tag an image or not. Not if well designed. And at the moment we have big discussions about whether to include images or not. We have such discussions. But I'm afraid that most of them do not circle around the benefits of the image for the article, but the latter part that i mentioned above (editorial judgment vs attitude judgment). Believe me or believe me not. If we introduce such tagging then the discussions will only be about personal attitude towards an image, ignoring the context, it's educational benefits entirely. This leads me to the simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort, especially if the filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for children, while everyone (including children) can disable it at any time. "Think of the children" is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not really one other proponents of the filter, by my observation, ascribe to either. It mostly seems to be brought up by opponents to try and invalidate arguments. I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with various exaggerated examples that can be seen in bold at Jimmys talk page even right at this moment. For example: "Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky content."[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a burden for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or against filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules and could even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal. Please note we define community in significantly different ways. My "community" includes a minority, us, who edit and maintain the project. And also the vast majority who merely read and use the projec
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony: Is there even a way to export an article, including (recursively) all the templates it depends on? Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box" solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this would be minimal compared to anything else. Have you ever tried to do this? It's not as easy as you are making it sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because Mediawiki is tightly coupled to the specific database structure it uses. You don't need to interact with the database of Wikipedia itself. You can use the MediaWiki API which is quite stable and enough for this task. I don't speak about a complete mirror, i speak about a filtered _view_ for Wikipedia. You type in "http://www.mysavewiki.com/Banana"; and the server delivers the recently approved and cached version of the article from Wikipedia if "Banana" is whitelisted. I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic updating. Well, I'm not talking about why Citizendium failed, as that became apparent much later. I'm talking about why they dropped the "progressive fork" parts, which happened pretty early on. The fact of the matter is that forking Wikipedia and cleaning it up is more difficult than just starting from scratch using Wikipedia as a reference (possibly copy/pasting large portions as you go). I'm not speaking about a fork or an improved Wikipedia. I speak about a restricted and checked view. All article work will still be done on Wikipedia itself. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It is not meant to be edited by hand. Yes. This simplifies some things, and it makes other things impossible (e.g. if you want to remove one line from an article, you're stuck with removing the entire article; if you want to remove one link from a template, you're stuck with removing every article which includes that template, or includes a template which includes that template, etc.) And considering the heavy use of templates which are Wikipedia-specific, presumably you're going to allow for *some* hand-editing. That would be something else than i had in mind and would extend the functionality of the filter (the proposed one) by far. I intended flagged revisions together with white listing for a some kind of special audience, and not a fork like Wiki that modifies the content (partially) itself. It is a subset of the current content selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains selected/checked content. That way a "childrens Wiki" could easily be created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of already written articles) Right, well, I thought this too, until I tried to do it. I was thinking about a first step how someone could look at Wikipedia trough a basic filter without the need to interfere with project itself. As far as i can see this is the goal of the filter approach while eliminating the side effects or to keep them minimalistic. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box"
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
would be minimal compared to anything else.
I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic
updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It
is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content
selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is
essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains
selected/checked content. That way a "childrens Wiki" could easily be
created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays
minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of
already written articles)
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution
rather than a filtered mirror is preferable. If a filtered mirror were to
come into existence and become popular, this would mean that people would
just filter all of main Wikipedia, which would prevent people from editing
Wikipedia. A client-side solution means they are still looking at
wikipedia.org just without naughty pics and doesn't interfere with
editing. It also reduces the need for any servers.
The technical solution is a fairly trivial part of the problem; a
client-side filter could probably be put together in a few days IMO.
The *hard* problem is convincing the "not censored" abusers that it's a
useful feature for our community.
Tom
It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
that aren't interested in such a feature. If we tag images inside the
project itself then we impose our judgment onto it, while ignoring or
separating it from the context it is used in. The first proposal
(referendum) mentioned various tagging options/categories that would
have to be maintained by the community, despite existing and huge
backlogs. Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite
different view points and which accepts different view points (main
difference between Flickr and Co). The result will be huge amount of
discussions about whether to tag an image or not. This leads me to the
simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort, especially if the
filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for children, while
everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.
Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted
view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a
burden for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or
against filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules
and could even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.
But i have to add that the WMF should not be part of this projects. This
projects define their own rules like Flickr and Co.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 09:21, schrieb David Gerard:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris wrote:
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
The problem there is the insistence of filter proponents (from board
down) that it *has* to be done on the sites themselves, with any
post-site solution being considered unsuitable. Why is not clear to me
either.
- d.
I guess Tom misunderstood my comment. I wrote down a simple plan how an
external solution could work and how to minimize the effort to maintain
it. If there is a community (it might overlap with our community) that
would run such a "filter portal" (or even multiple portals) then it
should be even more sufficient as if we would implement filters inside
Wikipedia itself. They could really block images and make a child-save
zone after their own definition, while we could continue as usual
without having the burden to avoid conflicts.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 09:00, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box"
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
would be minimal compared to anything else.
I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic
updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It
is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content
selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is
essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains
selected/checked content. That way a "childrens Wiki" could easily be
created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays
minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of
already written articles)
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution rather
than a filtered mirror is preferable. If a filtered mirror were to come into
existence and become popular, this would mean that people would just filter all
of main Wikipedia, which would prevent people from editing Wikipedia. A
client-side solution means they are still looking at wikipedia.org just without
naughty pics and doesn't interfere with editing. It also reduces the need for
any servers.
I never meant that we should host or create such a solution on our own.
Every external "force", which sees a need to do this, could do this for
itself. I'm really not interested to implement a filter on Wikipedia
itself. If there is a huge enough group of readers that want's to have
its own "view" from Wikipedia, than this would be practical way to go.
It would not make much of a difference if it is installed locally or as
a web service. The web based solution would only have the advantage that
it could "entertain" a open or partially closed community that selects
the content.
To clarify: I'm against any kind of filtering done by the WMF or our
community itself. If others want to, then they can do that by using and
filtering our content on their own.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted revision) or even entirely automated for articles or images marked as unproblematic. There would be some programming work (an "confirm update button"), but overall it would be easy to implement and maintain. That way you could easily create a Wiki suited for the needs of a special audience which is quickly updated and expanded to the latest versions. A subset of Wikipedia. I don't see how that isn't a fork. And I don't think it would be easy to implement or to maintain. Citizendium tried to do this without even doing the automatic updating part, and they quickly decided that it was more trouble than it was worth. Maybe things have gotten better since then. Maybe they have gotten worse. I don't know. Is there even a way to export an article, including (recursively) all the templates it depends on? Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box" solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this would be minimal compared to anything else. I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains selected/checked content. That way a "childrens Wiki" could easily be created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of already written articles) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 21:41, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo): Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50: In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything* clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general, rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want to do. A filtered mirror is not something clever and we have plenty of mirrors. Nemo May i ask why? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 17:16, schrieb Anthony: On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerard wrote: So I think my question - if this is so obviously the right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as relevant. The fact that it is the right thing isn't obvious, and forking of free content is generally a last resort, when all else has failed. Those "recent statements by board members that the filter is alive and well" make a fork less likely, not more. It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted revision) or even entirely automated for articles or images marked as unproblematic. There would be some programming work (an "confirm update button"), but overall it would be easy to implement and maintain. That way you could easily create a Wiki suited for the needs of a special audience which is quickly updated and expanded to the latest versions. A subset of Wikipedia. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 09:11, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo): Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05: I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's porn problem is a serious issue. The point was, I think, that no "software" is perfect (not even parents' brain) and that parents can't rely on software too much. Not that hard to understand, hence please avoid off-topic (see subject) paternalism. Nemo This interpretation is right but a also a bit incomplete. It also criticizes the "one hat suits everyone" approach. The reasons are: a) Children have not the same age. What should a 8 year old see and what a 16 year old? I doubt that there is a good compromise between both ages, what i called black- and white-listing. b) Also parents have different expectations depending on how they see their child or themselves. c) The proposed filter would have affected all projects and therefore every culture the same way, ignoring cultural differences entirely. This leaves the question: What is the prototype target group for the filter? If I remember correctly, this was never defined. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony: I have never seen a "censorware" that works flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much (incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the parents and match the age of the child. The only "software" which does this perfectly is the brain of the parents that tracks the actions of the child, stops them when necessary and gives useful advice (even better then Clippy). What parent tracks every action of their child? You seem to have a very unrealistic picture of how parenting works. I guess i have to really wrap any comment inside the tag stack to avoid confusion... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 16.06.2012 23:36, schrieb Tom Morris: On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I guess that it could be easily improved over time. But the image filter had an different goal. It wouldn't help the schools, since the content is still accessible. But why we discuss about schools and children all the time and speak about it as a net nanny? Don't you get it? An image filter you can trivially opt-out of by clicking the big button labelled "show image" is a perfect way of preventing children from getting to naughty pictures… Is this irony? My comment included some irony as well. ;-) How would a "show image" button protect children from getting to naughty pictures? The first thing a child would do is to press this button out of curiosity alone. Real child protection software is meant to hide such content without giving the child even the possibility to access such content. That is what a so called "net nanny" software will do, since it is usually meant to block access in case no parent is present and watching over their children exploring minefields. At least the adverts tell this great story. Seriously though, I'm slightly surprised that commercial censorware providers haven't bothered to add the nudey stuff from Commons. Pay a few bored minimum wage people to go through and find all the categories with the naughty stuff and stick all those images in their filter. It'd only take a few hours, given the extensive work already done by the Commons community neatly sorting things into categories with names like "Nude works including Muppets" and "Suggestive use of feathers" etc. Yes they could do that. But the Internet is large. They usually use a combination of black and white listing which is the core evil in the detail. White listing delivers perfect results (as long the content doesn't change over night), but it is much more expensive since every new page would need to be checked. Blacklisting is way easier, since it doesn't block access to new pages or images. But at the same time it has it's flaws, because any unknown website (the biggest part) can be accessed regardless of content. It's almost as if the censorware manufacturers are selling products to people who don't know any better that are ineffective and serve to give piece-of-mind placebo to people in place of effective access control. Oh, wait, that would be the inner cynic speaking. Exactly that is the case. I have never seen a "censorware" that works flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much (incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the parents and match the age of the child. The only "software" which does this perfectly is the brain of the parents that tracks the actions of the child, stops them when necessary and gives useful advice (even better then Clippy). nya~ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 15.06.2012 23:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard wrote: I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's actually a demand for one? (IIRC the various netnannies for workplaces don't filter Wikipedia, or do so only by keyword, i.e. [[Scunthorpe problem]]-susceptible, methods.) UK schools of course filter, but both the bestiality video and everything that comes up in a multimedia search for "male human" was accessible on computers in my son's school. Much to their surprise. The one thing their filter did catch was the masturbation videos category page in Commons. That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I guess that it could be easily improved over time. But the image filter had an different goal. It wouldn't help the schools, since the content is still accessible. But why we discuss about schools and children all the time and speak about it as a net nanny? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 14.06.2012 22:40, schrieb Risker:
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
sure it's the best one, but I'm not sure leaving it out is any better.
The present usage (to mean "you disagree with our editorial judgement
therefore you must be a juvenile troll") is significantly worse.
I'm not entirely certain that you've got the "usage" case correct, David.
An example would be that one should not be surprised/astonished to see an
image including nudity on the article [[World Naked Gardening Day]], but
the same image would be surprising on the article [[Gardening]].
The Commons parallel would be that an image depicting nude gardening would
be appropriately categorized as [[Cat:Nude gardening]], but would be poorly
categorized as [[Cat:Gardening]]. One expects to see a human and gardening
but not nudity in the latter, and humans, gardening, *and* nudity in the
former.
Now, in fairness, we all know that trolling with images has been a regular
occurrence on many projects for years, much of it very obviously trolling,
but edge cases can be more difficult to determine. Thus, the more neutral
principle of least astonishment ("would an average reader be surprised to
see this image on this article?/in this category?") comes into play. I'd
suggest that the principle of least astonishment is an effort to assume
good faith.
Risker
You gave a nice description how it should be applied in the right way.
But the usual interpretation i found in any recent discussions was
something like this:
"We don't need to show naked people inside the article [[World Naked
Gardening Day]]. It would be an offense against any reader that doesn't
want to see naked people. It also might it be dangerous to read this
article in public. ..."
Together with the usual pointy strong-wording it becomes something like
this:
"Wikipedia dishes out porn. We need an image filter. Protect the
children..."
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?
Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni: On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard wrote: Yes, but this is called editorial judgement No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by enough people to make any debate not worth the effort. It is called censorship right at that moment when useful illustrations are removed because of their shock value, while arguing with the "the priciple of XYZ" from a rather extreme position. Good editorial judgment would include such depictions if they further the understanding of a topic. But bad editorial judgment tends to exclude useful depictions and to include useless/unrelated, shocking or not, depictions. rather than something that can be imposed by filtering. True for wikipedia but commons in particular needs some way or another to provide more focused search results. I already made a workable suggestion for Commons, but the interest from any side was very low: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence Some seam not like to give up the idea of filtering (labeling) and others seam not to care. Overall we have a proposal that would be workable, being to the benefit of all users and would not introduce any controversy or additional work, once implemented. (Although the board and staff claim that editorial judgement they disagree with must just be trolling is how "principle of least surprise" becomes "we need a filter system".) Perhaps but I wasn't aware that their opinions were considered to be of any significance at this point. Okey they did block [[user:Beta_M]] but the fact that very much came out of the blue shows how little consideration they are given these days. The fact remains that anyone who actually wants a filter could probably put one together in the form of an Adblock plus filter list within a few days. So far the only list I'm aware of is one I put together to filter out images of Giant isopods. I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter that there would already services in place that would filter the content or images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google APIs, but no real filter lists. Judging from your approach to filter out Giant isopods, we see that there is no general rule what should be filtered. Some dislike X, others Y and the next one likes X and Y but not Z. Overall this results in the wish to have as many suitable filters as possible, which at the same time results in massive tagging work. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] MathJax comes to Wikipedia
Am 03.05.2012 18:49, schrieb Erik Moeller: On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Dario Taraborelli wrote: MathJax [1] is now enabled site-wide as an opt-in preference. You can now see beautifully rendered, accessible, copy&pasteable and standard-compliant (MathML) formulas on Wikipedia, replacing the old TeX-rendered PNGs. Thanks Dario. There are definitely still bugs in this experimental rendering mode, so please report issues in Bugzilla against the Math component: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=MediaWiki%20extensions&component=Math More here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/MathJax_testing First try, first bug. ^^ https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36485 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
