subject:"\[Wikimedia\-l\] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter\?"

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.

Alright, so we at least found a starting point we can agree on. I'll
say that's something.

>
>
> They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from
> the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.

I think they serve the purpose. I imagine in many cases, it would be
possible to do it like that, especially in articles on very general
topics.

>
>
>
> I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for
> good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on
> suicide for them with that editorial approach.

Books are very often image-light, given the publishing costs.
Wikipedia is not a book.

>
>
>
> The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*

In terms of a full article on marriage, to take up a slot for an
image, when we can generally only fit 10 or so images into even a long
article? No, it would not make that cut. Again, photos of weddings,
married couples, etc., in different cultures, would be far more
instructive than a photo of consummation (especially given that
marriage consummation doesn't really look visually any different than
sex any other time). You're trying very hard to set up that straw man,
but it is a straw man.

>
>
> A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being
> would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths
> they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the
> article.

Wait wait wait. Above, we discussed the war atrocity photos, and you
were perfectly fine with them. Do you not think such photos would
cause people to react with shock, concern, and compassion? They do for
me! But they appropriately illustrate the topic. Difficult subjects
may have difficult images accompanying them, but what would one really
expect to find?

And in this case, driver's education classes, literature on the topic,
and so on, routinely show photos of drunk driving crashes. Driver
safety material often shows photos of crashes. So you can't even use
the "that's not common practice" argument there. If we follow what you
assert to be common practice above, why wouldn't we follow it here?

Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such
> videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified
> experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.
>

Seems this bunch of incompetent, untrained fools has put together one
of the most astonishing, comprehensive, and widely utilized
educational tools in the history of the world. Maybe it was time for a
little unconventional thinking. Wikipedia was not built by deferring
blindly to "experts," and I wouldn't say it's turned out too badly so
far.

>
> Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)
>

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
> that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
> articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.



Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.



> > Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored,
> it
> > should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the
> article
> > is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
> > show a video of rape.
>
> It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos,
> but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.
>


They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from
the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.



>  An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
> > people killing themselves.
>
> For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general
> illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate
> license and high quality, I could see considering it.



I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for
good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on
suicide for them with that editorial approach.



>  An article on marriage would show a video of a
> > marriage's consummation.
>
> No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
> relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
> would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
> briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
> be an illustrated section.



The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*



>  An article on fatal car accidents would show a
> > video of a fatal car crash one.
>
> [[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of
> several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been
> fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident
> occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?
>


A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being
would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths
they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the
article. Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such
videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified
experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.



>  An article on Russian roulette would show
> > someone playing it. And so forth.
>
> Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
> likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
> let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
> is about?
>


Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)



> > This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
> > competence for that matter.
>
> Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
> anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we
> can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling
> people incompetent.
___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> 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.

As I said, it is disputed.

> 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?

I have no idea what the justification is for any particular image.  My
point was that Wikipedia contains plenty of images which were "taken
without the subject's genuine consent".

I am not the one who said that Wikipedia may not contain images which
were "taken without the subject's genuine consent".  That was brought
up by Todd Allen, and my purpose in showing that the images were in
Wikipedia was to show that this is *not* a valid criterion.

I do indeed think that the proper criterion, at least for the adult
version of Wikipedia, is whether or not the image is justified.

___
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?

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

Okay, I don't understand your request.

I thought you wanted me to give you an examples of these images.

>> 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.

"No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file."

7 other Wikipedias do use the image

(Ah, going to [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]] I see why.
The English Wikipedia is using the version of the image without the
blur/censorship.)

> 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.

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
> articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.

So legal + no "consensus" to delete = keep.

Fortunately "consensus" doesn't mean consensus.  Unfortunately, it
means something closer to mob rule.

>>  An article on marriage would show a video of a
>> marriage's consummation.
>
> No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
> relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
> would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
> briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
> be an illustrated section.

Why not?  The consummation of a marriage certainly deserves a section
in an adult version of an encyclopedia article on marriage.  I don't
think there should be a photograph of a consummation in Wikipedia, but
then I don't think there should be an photograph of a rape in
Wikipedia either, even in an adult version.  (For one thing, neither
illustration would do anything to enhance one's knowledge of the
topic.)

But what if some people want a photo and some don't?  No "consensus",
so we leave the photo in, right?

>> An article on Russian roulette would show
>> someone playing it. And so forth.
>
> Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
> likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
> let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
> is about?

Yes, it's exactly what the article is about.

But the article being about something does not mean there should be a
video of it.

Again, I don't see what a video adds to ones understanding of the topic.

>> This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
>> competence for that matter.
>
> Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
> anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate.

Well, no, not everyone who works on "this project" does.  But the
personal attack on you was inappropriate.

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, first of all, why?
>>
>> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
>> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
>> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
>> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
>> it's probably just a matter of time.
>
>
>
> 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). He and I
> have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't
> think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :)

That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.

> Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it
> should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article
> is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
> show a video of rape.

It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos,
but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.

 An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
> people killing themselves.

For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general
illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate
license and high quality, I could see considering it.

 An article on marriage would show a video of a
> marriage's consummation.

No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially
relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures
would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be
briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to
be an illustrated section.

 An article on fatal car accidents would show a
> video of a fatal car crash one.

[[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of
several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been
fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident
occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?

 An article on Russian roulette would show
> someone playing it. And so forth.

Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high
likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But
let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article
is about?

> This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
> competence for that matter.

Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think
anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we
can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling
people incompetent.

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

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

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?

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).

For "child abuse", see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erichsen_Abused_San_or_Nama_child_prisoners_p._52_v2.jpg

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.

___
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?

2012-06-21 Thread David Gerard

On 21 June 2012 20:38, 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). He and I


You've already been caught once today making a highly distorted claim
in this thread, so if you're going to make a claim like this you
really need to supply the diffs.


- d.

___
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?

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).

___
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?

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.
___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:

>
> Well, first of all, why?
>
> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
> it's probably just a matter of time.

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). He and I
have discussed this at length before, together with Jimbo, but I don't
think either of us has been able to change the other's mind. :)

Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored, it
should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the article
is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would
show a video of rape. An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
people killing themselves. An article on marriage would show a video of a
marriage's consummation. An article on fatal car accidents would show a
video of a fatal car crash one. An article on Russian roulette would show
someone playing it. And so forth.

This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational
competence for that matter.
___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
>> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.
>
>
>
> Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
> which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
> should always be sought before doing the transfer.
>
> Unfortunately, that's another rule more honoured in the breach than in the
> observance on Commons. (Note that even if the image doesn't show a face,
> the Commons page always includes a link to the person's Flickr stream, thus
> identifying them.)
>
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
> nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
> majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
> administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
> nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
> bad for community relations.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper
>
> You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
> is.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

2012-06-21 Thread Yann Forget

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe :
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
> nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
> majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
> administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
> nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
> bad for community relations.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper
>
> You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
> is.

When it goes so far even remotely connected to the reality, I
understand that it gets difficult to reach an agreement about
practical and down-to-earth issues, like nudity images.

Yann

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
> Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
> [[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
> there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
> it's probably just a matter of time.

No photo on the [[child abuse]] article either.  Is this for pragmatic
reasons (no free photo available), or reasons of principle?

If someone added a photo of child abuse on the [[child abuse]]
article, and if it did not have any copyright issues, would it be kept
unless there was a "consensus" to delete it?

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
>> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.
>
> Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
> which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
> should always be sought before doing the transfer.

Well, first of all, why?

Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
[[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc.  I checked, and
there's no photograph of someone being [[rape]]d, just paintings, but
it's probably just a matter of time.

___
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?

2012-06-21 Thread Yann Forget

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe :
> Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for

"copyright specialist"?
Is this supposed to be a joke? A 4th degree sargasm? An alien way of
defining a "specialist"? Or anything else?

Yann

(cut nonsense rethoric about the PK affair).

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

Many are transferred to Commons from Flickr without the uploader's consent
which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken in a private location,
should always be sought before doing the transfer.

Unfortunately, that's another rule more honoured in the breach than in the
observance on Commons. (Note that even if the image doesn't show a face,
the Commons page always includes a link to the person's Flickr stream, thus
identifying them.)

Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
administrators are feeling "harassed" by having their copyright violations
nominated and say he's doing it because he doesn't like them, and that it's
bad for community relations.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper

You couldn't make this stuff up. Not unless you were William Golding, that
is.
___
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?

>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
> even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
> similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
> areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
> especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.
>


2257 is also about child porn, because without age records there is often
no way of telling whether a cropped shot belongs to a minor or an adult,
and no way for the reader to tell whether they are looking at a picture or
video of a minor or not.

US-based adult sites use compliance statements for equivalent material.
They seem to be more responsible and law-abiding than the Wikimedia
community, which presents its material on a top-5 website.
___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
> consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

In case you need an example,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LeonardGSiffleet.jpg

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
>> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.
>
> That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
> rail against it, but that's the reality.

Sometimes I, and sometimes others, are going to write about the
results of it, okay?

>> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
>
> Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
> repeatedly, end of discussion.

Well, moreover, it's illegal almost everywhere.  So yeah, putting it
on Wikipedia wouldn't be pragmatic.

But I'm just wondering if there's a principled reason for the ban in
addition to the pragmatic one.

> But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
> porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
> adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
> real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
> whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
> in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
> would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
> and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
> taken without the subject's genuine consent.

Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
consent.  So surely that isn't the issue.

>> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?
>
> I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate

So, commons is fine, I guess.

> In every case I know
> of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
> macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

Convent pornography, cock and ball torture, and hogtie bondage,
though.  These are things that are relevant.

Or is it okay if, instead of putting the penis picture on [[Candidate
Whatever]], we put it in [[Candidate Whatever's Penis]]?

>> You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
>> agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
>> should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
>> in another.
>
> That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
> it and come to consensus, if we can.

And what is "consensus"?

> If no consensus can be reached
> for an exception in a particular circumstance, standing policy (in
> this case, NOTCENSORED) serves as a fallback/baseline, and we go with
> that.

So, things are included (under NOTCENSORED), unless there is consensus
to not include it?

> Did you have another suggestion for a better process?

Yes, but first let me get a complete description of the current
process (starting with answers to the above questions).

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>
> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter

 Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
 because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>>>
>>> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
>>> probability to be very high.
>>
>> Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
>> people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus.
>
> Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
> in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.

That's the way the project works. You or I can love it, or hate it, or
rail against it, but that's the reality. If you'd like to propose a
different mechanism, you can. But I think that the consensus
mechanism, for all its faults, has produced a very remarkable end
product.

Any system we use is going to be imperfect. Perhaps consensus is the
least imperfect one.

>> That,
>> too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
>> I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
>> gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.
>
> Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
> then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
> fix it back".
>
> You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
> "consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
> am accepting that assumption.

What would you propose as a superior mechanism, then? That's not a
rhetorical or sarcastic question-maybe we could do better. But you
haven't said how.

>>> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
>>> is it not?
>>>
>>
>> I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
>> very settled and tested law, unlike 2257.
>
> So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?
>
> (*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
areas, and I suspect the SC would find it massively overbroad,
especially as it relates to subjects not identifiable at all.

But even in a hypothetical (and highly unlikely) world where child
porn was legal, a privacy issue exists there that does not exist in
adult nude or sexual images, since children are incapable of giving
real consent to participation in such a thing due to lack of maturity,
whereas adults can and often do give informed consent to participation
in photographed or filmed nudity or sexuality. I think that, too,
would allow us to draw a distinction between sexual images of children
and those of adults, since those of a child would be -by definition-
taken without the subject's genuine consent.

>> In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
>> censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
>> picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
>> sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
>> "Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.
>
> What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

I can -conceive- of a case where that would be appropriate, such as if
the candidate were a member of a hypothetical "Porn Party" and freely
released such an image, and that release resulted in substantial
source coverage of that particular image.  In that case, we of course
should show it, since the article will have a section with reliably
sourced commentary on it. But since no such thing really exists, such
an image would be of little to no relevance to the article. In that
case, we're not disallowing it because it's a penis, we're disallowing
it because it's irrelevant. But if somehow it were extremely relevant
to the article, I'd see no problem including it. In every case I know
of, though, a candidate penis photo would be just as irrelevant as a
macro photo of a few hairs on the candidate's head.

> You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
> agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
> should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
> in another.

That goes back up to the above. When disagreement happens, we discuss
it and come to consensus, if we can. If no consensus can be reached
for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.

 "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>>
>>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>>
>> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
>> probability to be very high.
>
> Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
> people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus.

Heh.  Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.

> That,
> too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
> I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
> gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.

Certainly.  And when this happens, sometimes we write about it, and
then someone says "so fix it", and we say "the next day someone will
fix it back".

You seem to be making the assumption that Wikipedia's notion of
"consensus" is the proper way to write an encyclopedia.  I by no means
am accepting that assumption.

>> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
>> is it not?
>>
>
> I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
> very settled and tested law, unlike 2257.

So, the only reason kiddie porn isn't allowed (*) is that it's illegal?

(*) Notwithstanding Virgin Killer, and perhaps a few other examples, anyway.

> In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
> censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
> picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
> sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
> "Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.

What if it's a picture of the penis of the political candidate?

You seem to think there's a clear line to be drawn that everyone
agrees upon.  But clearly there isn't.  Some people think the line
should be drawn in one place, and some people think it should be drawn
in another.

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
 {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>>
>>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>>
>> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
>> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.
>
> Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
> probability to be very high.

Then, if your proposed change is opposed by a significant number of
people, it would tend to indicate it has not gained consensus. That,
too, is the nature of the beast, when working on a project like this.
I think we've all had an idea we strongly believe to be right fail to
gain the consensus that would be needed to implement it.

>> Rather, many of us believe that it
>> would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
>> comprehensive educational project.
>>
 I have no
 problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
 anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
 involving kids
>>>
>>> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
>>> most of them are banned, though.
>>
>> Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
>> though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
>> favor of that.
>
> But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
> is it not?
>

I suppose in the most technical sense it is, but that's a question of
very settled and tested law, unlike 2257. That's more like forbidding
copyvios--copyright law, while complex, is fairly stable and well
tested. In a very technical sense, forbidding penis vandalism is
censorship, but I think most of us know the difference. Putting a
picture of a penis on the article about a political candidate or
sports team is unacceptable, putting a picture of a penis on the
"Penis" article is much more likely to be done in good faith.

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

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>>
>> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter
>
> Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
> because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.

Well, it's not just that it's possible, it's that I judge the
probability to be very high.

> Rather, many of us believe that it
> would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
> comprehensive educational project.
>
>>> I have no
>>> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
>>> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
>>> involving kids
>>
>> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
>> most of them are banned, though.
>
> Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
> though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
> favor of that.

But a policy against porn or near-porn involving kids *is* censorship,
is it not?

___
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?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
>
> "The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter

Such is the nature of this project. If no one ever did anything
because of that possibility, no one would ever do anything at all.

>
>> Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
>> care to watch his video, or for him in general after the
>> OHNOESVIRGINKILLERIMAGE!!! hysteria a while back.
>
> Yeah, it's pretty bad.
>
>> You are, of course, starting from the presumption that the way you
>> want to do it -is- the "responsible" way, or what have you.
>
> As opposed to what, assuming that the way we want to do it is the
> irresponsible way?
>
> If I thought the way I wanted to do something was irresponsible, I
> wouldn't want to do it that way any more!

I perhaps wasn't clear. My problem was in the phrasing of "We should
do this the responsible way," followed by a description of the way
Andreas wanted to do it. The trouble is, that's essentially starting
from the premise that there's agreement on both sides on what the
responsible way -is-, and one side is arguing to be irresponsible.
That is, of course, not the case. Rather, many of us believe that it
would be irresponsible to implement censorship on an uncensored,
comprehensive educational project.

>
>> I have no
>> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
>> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
>> involving kids
>
> Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
> most of them are banned, though.

Uh...wow. One would hope so. I don't believe that's very common,
though. Certainly no one I've heard arguing against censorship is in
favor of that.

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

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

2012-06-21 Thread Seth Finkelstein

Reply-To: 
References: 
In-Reply-To: 


> Andreas Kolbe
> As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
> pornography both from the right, on a family values basis, and from the
> left, from feminists countering male bias. These are quite separate, but
> equally valid concerns.

Thanks for the mention. It's good to know that someone, somewhere,
reads what I write. But, just to clarify, let me stress I was being
merely *descriptive* there, rather than *prescriptive*. The context was
I had suggested that the Wikipedia _Signpost_ cover Larry Sanger's
recent material. Someone replied mentioning the antiporn-feminist view
(and opposing it). This originated from a gendergap list discussion,
but I didn't know that at the time, and so I was confused about why
Larry Sanger was being taken to be making those types of objections.
Hence I replied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&diff=prev&oldid=495437291

"I don't think Sanger is making any sort of (my gloss) 
"gender feminist" critique, but rather taking the standard
(again, simplifying) "family values" type position. While someone
involved in the topic might have such a view, and certainly there have
been alliances of convenience, I don't see it as being a part of what
he wrote in specific and what's he's attempting to do (except again as
an alliance). He probably would object to the following
characterization, but I'd say he's taking the older right-wing
anti-porn stance, rather than the newer left-wing anti-porn stance."

This was not meant as my endorsing both sides. It was more along
the lines of Tom Lehrer's song "National Brotherhood Week":

"Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews"

As in:

"Oh, the Fundamentalists hate the Feminists
And the Feminists hate the Fundamentalists
And the Wingnuts hate the Moonbats
And everybody hates the porn"

There's many different issues which get lumped together. I do think
Larry Sanger raises *some* valid points, and it bothers me immensely
when he gets treated in the style of kill-the-apostate. But I don't
agree with everything he says or tries to do, and I feel I need to
repeatedly made that clear, since I get flack from some people who
want to use me as an available scapegoat for their dislike of critics.

Metaphorically, I've shed a lot of my blood in defense of
civil-liberties on the Internet (my regret over how this harmed my
life sometimes discomfits people). Anyway, these days, I don't feel
any desire to argue ideological pornography theories (it's not going
to matter here anyway). But I'm interested in how this all turns out
in terms of the various factions at odds with each other.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

___
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?

2012-06-20 Thread Anthony

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> {{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.

"The next day someone will fix it back." - Douglas Hofstadter

> Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
> care to watch his video, or for him in general after the
> OHNOESVIRGINKILLERIMAGE!!! hysteria a while back.

Yeah, it's pretty bad.

> You are, of course, starting from the presumption that the way you
> want to do it -is- the "responsible" way, or what have you.

As opposed to what, assuming that the way we want to do it is the
irresponsible way?

If I thought the way I wanted to do something was irresponsible, I
wouldn't want to do it that way any more!

> I have no
> problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
> anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
> involving kids

Certainly some people will argue this.  I believe that, fortunately,
most of them are banned, though.

___
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?

2012-06-20 Thread Todd Allen

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
>> children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
>> randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
>> slim, ...
>
>
> There is another aspect to this, which is that Wikipedia presently gives
> undue weight to the weird, bizarre and even the completely made-up. To give
> an example: every kid will look up the word fuck at some point in their
> lives. Wikipedia offers, at the bottom of that article, the sexual slang
> template
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slang
>
> with links to (partly illustrated) articles on a whole slew of weird and
> obscure practices, while missing out many of the slang terms ordinary
> people actually use in the bedroom. Basically, it's urban dictionary,
> written for the lulz, rather than sex education.

{{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.

>
> Even the article on the humble gel bracelet
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_bracelet
>
> contains more about a sexual urban legend than anything else, and it too
> comes with a template offering helpful links to Wikipedia's bizarre world
> of sex.

It's well known for that. Like it or not, that's the aspect of them
that most sources write about. That's not in that case undue weight,
it's -due- weight.

>
> Larry recently illustrated another way in which kids can come across
> Wikimedia's wealth of sexual media:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4Z9qunAc4

Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
care to watch his video, or for him in general after the
OHNOESVIRGINKILLERIMAGE!!! hysteria a while back.

>
> As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
> pornography both from the right, on a family values basis, and from the
> left, from feminists countering male bias. These are quite separate, but
> equally valid concerns.

And like anything, we should catalog and report on the debate over the
issue in articles about it, accurately summarizing reliable sources
with due weight for each position, without as a project actually
taking a position ourselves.

>
> It's not for nothing for example that Anita Sarkeesian's article was
> vandalised with porn. Male-fantasy porn expresses male dominance; in this
> case, it was used to emphatically reassert that dominance, because
> Sarkeesian had threatened it. It's as symbolic as the babe calendar on the
> office wall: it signals that women don't have much to say in that office,
> and can be greeted with cat calls or put-downs.

Alright, so someone is both a vandal and a jerk. I'm not seeing the
relevance in that, to a discussion about having sexual images in
articles where they -are- germane and on topic. Could you please
clarify that?

>
> I am not against pornography per se. I just wish that if the projects have
> it, they'd handle it responsibly, the way everybody else does quite
> naturally. That means with respect for subject privacy, gender issues,
> child protection issues, and so forth. Just be professional about it and
> follow best practice.

You are, of course, starting from the presumption that the way you
want to do it -is- the "responsible" way, or what have you. I have no
problem with developing best practices, and certainly I don't think
anyone will argue that we should host or retain porn or near-porn
involving kids, but you want a very strict practice. A lot of us
disagree to that, and really don't want to treat such images
significantly differently from others, so long as they clearly involve
adults. I think we could also develop privacy best practices, such
that the subject of a photo must either be: a) Unidentifiable (or
rendered unidentifiable), b) Show clear awareness that they are being
photographed, or c) Give an explicit release. But I don't think c) is
necessary if a) or b) are satisfied.

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

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

2012-06-20 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
> children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
> randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
> slim, ...

There is another aspect to this, which is that Wikipedia presently gives
undue weight to the weird, bizarre and even the completely made-up. To give
an example: every kid will look up the word fuck at some point in their
lives. Wikipedia offers, at the bottom of that article, the sexual slang
template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sexual_slang

with links to (partly illustrated) articles on a whole slew of weird and
obscure practices, while missing out many of the slang terms ordinary
people actually use in the bedroom. Basically, it's urban dictionary,
written for the lulz, rather than sex education.

Even the article on the humble gel bracelet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_bracelet

contains more about a sexual urban legend than anything else, and it too
comes with a template offering helpful links to Wikipedia's bizarre world
of sex.

Larry recently illustrated another way in which kids can come across
Wikimedia's wealth of sexual media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4Z9qunAc4

As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
pornography both from the right, on a family values basis, and from the
left, from feminists countering male bias. These are quite separate, but
equally valid concerns.

It's not for nothing for example that Anita Sarkeesian's article was
vandalised with porn. Male-fantasy porn expresses male dominance; in this
case, it was used to emphatically reassert that dominance, because
Sarkeesian had threatened it. It's as symbolic as the babe calendar on the
office wall: it signals that women don't have much to say in that office,
and can be greeted with cat calls or put-downs.

I am not against pornography per se. I just wish that if the projects have
it, they'd handle it responsibly, the way everybody else does quite
naturally. That means with respect for subject privacy, gender issues,
child protection issues, and so forth. Just be professional about it and
follow best practice.

Andreas
___
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?

2012-06-20 Thread Anthony

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>> My middle one can very
>>> briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
>>> check up on her a lot.
>>
>> Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?
>
> Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
> children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
> randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
> slim,

Really?  How old are we talking about?

And what do you mean "randomly stumble across"?  I don't think it
would be random.  It would be one link leads to another, leads to
another, leads to another...

Also, how do you deal with the external links?  Do you have any type
of blocking software set up, or does your daughter recognize the
different shades of blue and know that she's not allowed to click on
the blues of a lighter shade without permission?

> and quite realistically, if it were to happen, I would much
> rather it occur in the context of a dispassionate article giving a
> frank but rather dry account of what it means, than a porn site with
> flashing banners and descriptions designed to shock, titillate, etc.

Wikipedia is better than a porn site.  But "better than a porn site"
doesn't mean it's necessarily a place I'd like my child to go to to
learn about a sexual topic.

> Her main interest is in dinosaurs, horses, and veterinary medicine,
> though-not exactly controversial sections of the project.

You've never gotten any of the "tough questions"?  The ones that I
claim, and you don't seem to deny, are not best answered by a
Wikipedia article.

>>> But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like
>>> it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the
>>> hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be
>>> any different?
>>
>> Well, surely it is different.  If you leave your keys in your car with
>> the car running, and my ten year old hops in and takes it for a
>> joyride, you don't think you're partially responsible for what
>> happens?
>
> My ten year old kid isn't stupid enough to do that. If yours is, you
> failed long before they got in the driver's seat.

Well, I don't have a ten-year-old kid, let alone one that would hop
into a car and go for a joyride.  But hypothetically speaking, maybe
s/he has a mental disability which is not a failure of mine at all.

> So no, I wouldn't
> particularly feel responsible-if your kid is that immature and prone
> to rash behavior, you shouldn't have let them out of your sight.

Well, first of all, every parent has to, at some point, let their kid
out of their sight (if nothing else, at some point they have to
sleep).  So, the failure is not necessarily that of the parent.  It
could be the failure of the baby-sitter, or the failure of the school
bus driver, or the action of a kidnapper, or any of a number of other
possibilities.

But, in any case, my point is not that the current caregiver of the
child is not at fault.  My point is that the person who left their car
running, unattended, with the doors unlocked, in it is *also* at
fault.

The law would certainly agree with me on this.  I guess you would
disagree with this aspect of law?

>> The question, really, is whether or not Wikipedia (or, at least, a
>> cordoned off section of Wikipedia) wants to be one of those safe
>> places.
>
> And like I said, and have seen with my own kids, the vast majority of
> it is. I would wager that a far higher percentage of Wikipedia is
> "child-safe" than the percentage of the Internet at large.

Well, yes, if you go by word count or article count.  If you go by
number of pageviews, I'm not so sure.  There are large portions of
Wikipedia which are perfectly safe for Wikipedia, and also completely
ignored by almost everyone.

> I have no
> problem recommending that my kids go read a Wikipedia article on
> something they're curious about, and then go look at the sources cited
> in it for more information.

So, you'd let them go on the Internet unsupervised.

> If someone wants to make a Kidopedia, with everything nuked out that
> they consider child-unfriendly, more power to them. They're welcome to
> host that wherever they like. They could even work at having the
> project in language aimed more at children, and perhaps making a point
> to cite children's education sources in articles in addition to
> newspapers, science journals, etc. This is free content, and someone's
> absolutely welcome to go and do that.
>
> But that's not -this- project, its aim is to be comprehensive.

What exactly do you mean by "this project"?  Are you talking about
Wikipedia, or about WMF in general?

WMF already does have a Kidopedia of sorts - Wikijunior.

> If you hire a babysitter, sure, it becomes their job-they accepted it
> as such. The same if you have family, etc., who help wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

2012-06-19 Thread Todd Allen

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> My middle one can very
>> briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
>> check up on her a lot.
>
> Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?

Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
slim, and quite realistically, if it were to happen, I would much
rather it occur in the context of a dispassionate article giving a
frank but rather dry account of what it means, than a porn site with
flashing banners and descriptions designed to shock, titillate, etc.
Her main interest is in dinosaurs, horses, and veterinary medicine,
though-not exactly controversial sections of the project.
>
>> But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like
>> it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the
>> hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be
>> any different?
>
> Well, surely it is different.  If you leave your keys in your car with
> the car running, and my ten year old hops in and takes it for a
> joyride, you don't think you're partially responsible for what
> happens?
>

My ten year old kid isn't stupid enough to do that. If yours is, you
failed long before they got in the driver's seat. So no, I wouldn't
particularly feel responsible-if your kid is that immature and prone
to rash behavior, you shouldn't have let them out of your sight. If
mine did that, I would absolutely feel fully responsible for it-ten
years is plenty of time that she should know that's an extremely
dangerous thing to do.

>> The world isn't always safe for children, and it is the
>> job of -parents- to keep children away from areas unsuitable for them,
>> and to alert them to the type of things they might encounter, not the
>> job of everyone else to make sure the whole earth is covered in safety
>> plastic and rubber bumpers.
>
> The question, really, is whether or not Wikipedia (or, at least, a
> cordoned off section of Wikipedia) wants to be one of those safe
> places.
>

And like I said, and have seen with my own kids, the vast majority of
it is. I would wager that a far higher percentage of Wikipedia is
"child-safe" than the percentage of the Internet at large. I have no
problem recommending that my kids go read a Wikipedia article on
something they're curious about, and then go look at the sources cited
in it for more information.

> Personally, all I'm saying is that it would be nice if it did.  Some
> others are saying that, if Wikipedia chooses not to be a place which
> is safe for children, then Wikipedia shouldn't be marketed to children
> - that the fundraisers shouldn't advertise Wikipedia as being a
> project which benefits children.  And I think they have a good point.

If someone wants to make a Kidopedia, with everything nuked out that
they consider child-unfriendly, more power to them. They're welcome to
host that wherever they like. They could even work at having the
project in language aimed more at children, and perhaps making a point
to cite children's education sources in articles in addition to
newspapers, science journals, etc. This is free content, and someone's
absolutely welcome to go and do that.

But that's not -this- project, its aim is to be comprehensive. The two
are mutually exclusive, because the real world is not always pleasant
or child-safe.

> And actually, I have to nit-pick and say that it isn't *only* my job
> and "not anyone else's".  It's also the job of others who have
> *chosen* to help me with it.  I think that's an important point,
> because the vast majority of us are *not* saying that Wikipedia *has
> to* choose to facilitate the creation of an educational resource for
> children.  We're saying you *should* choose to do so.

If you hire a babysitter, sure, it becomes their job-they accepted it
as such. The same if you have family, etc., who help with your
children, as well as teachers and the like who voluntarily assume
responsibility for your child while in their care. That's fine. But
you shouldn't be able to force total strangers to accept the
responsibility of supervising your children because you can't be
bothered to do it, and you certainly shouldn't be able to insist that
public places be childproofed.

Now if someone wants to take on that Kidopedia project, hey-all they
need is a DB dump, a webhost, and the time to nuke out whatever they
don't want. Given our categorization system, the time part's probably
not even as onerous as it sounds at first. That's the whole point of
free content-anyone here yowling that there should be such a thing can
go make that thing, any day they want! If no one wants to do it,
despite the fact that they don't need anyone's consent at all to get
started on it right this minute, guess it's not that big a de

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

2012-06-19 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> My middle one can very
> briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
> check up on her a lot.

Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?

> But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like
> it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the
> hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be
> any different?

Well, surely it is different.  If you leave your keys in your car with
the car running, and my ten year old hops in and takes it for a
joyride, you don't think you're partially responsible for what
happens?

> The world isn't always safe for children, and it is the
> job of -parents- to keep children away from areas unsuitable for them,
> and to alert them to the type of things they might encounter, not the
> job of everyone else to make sure the whole earth is covered in safety
> plastic and rubber bumpers.

The question, really, is whether or not Wikipedia (or, at least, a
cordoned off section of Wikipedia) wants to be one of those safe
places.

Personally, all I'm saying is that it would be nice if it did.  Some
others are saying that, if Wikipedia chooses not to be a place which
is safe for children, then Wikipedia shouldn't be marketed to children
- that the fundraisers shouldn't advertise Wikipedia as being a
project which benefits children.  And I think they have a good point.

And actually, I have to nit-pick and say that it isn't *only* my job
and "not anyone else's".  It's also the job of others who have
*chosen* to help me with it.  I think that's an important point,
because the vast majority of us are *not* saying that Wikipedia *has
to* choose to facilitate the creation of an educational resource for
children.  We're saying you *should* choose to do so.

___
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?

2012-06-19 Thread Todd Allen

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
> tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>> 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
>
>
>
> The issue there is that on the one hand, the Foundation's fundraising
> materials advertise Wikipedia as being God's gift for children, especially
> underprivileged children, through official fundraiser "stories" like these*:
>
> "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."
>
> "Wikipedia has been a wonderful recourse for my children and me to learn
> new terms, knowledge, and culture background as an immigrant family. It is
> a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research."
>
> "Thanks to websites like 'Wikipedia', children of all ages can continue
> their endeavor in learning."
>
> "We are a family that live in the interior of Brazil in a very poor state.
> We have opened a learning center and work with local children from nearby
> villages. Wikipedia is INVALUABLE for this work."
>
> "I worked for a non-profit in India and even the poorest children who were
> receiving education there knew about Wikipedia and were familiar with the
> site."
>
> So that's one half of the story. The other half of the story is that the
> community says the exact opposite: Wikipedia is not for children, but for
> adults, and only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go on
> Wikipedia unsupervised. Go figure.
>
> Andreas
>
> * http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go -on the
Internet-, unsupervised, Wikipedia or otherwise. Teaching your
children to use the Internet responsibly is no different than teaching
them to drive-at first, you have them watch you, then you let them
start taking the wheel with you watching closely, then as they gain
experience, maybe they can take short drives on quiet roads alone, and
then on from there. Throwing your kids on the Internet without giving
them any idea of what to expect is like handing them the keys when
they've never been on the road before.

My oldest kid is kind of in the intermediate stage right now-she can
use the Net, but I check in reasonably frequently. As she continues to
use it responsibly, the frequency of those checks will drop gradually,
until one day she knows how to properly and safely use it with no
supervision. My youngest is still at the stage where if she wants to
get online, I'm sitting right next to her. My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.

But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just like
it's my job to teach them how to drive, not everyone else's to get the
hell off the road before they start to. Why are we figuring this to be
any different? The world isn't always safe for children, and it is the
job of -parents- to keep children away from areas unsuitable for them,
and to alert them to the type of things they might encounter, not the
job of everyone else to make sure the whole earth is covered in safety
plastic and rubber bumpers.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
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?

2012-06-19 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am 18.06.2012 16:31, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>
>> We don't have much data on what our readers want; but a not insignificant
>>
> portion of them, at least, are concerned with controversial images
>> (nudity, Mohammed, etc.). I fully advocate finding out what the community
>> thinks; but when I raised this issue before it was snorted at with
>> something along the lines of "the readers aren't the driving force here".
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>>  I asked for the same thing and got no response as well. We had the
> referendum which had big flaws,[1] but not a single neutral survey directed
> at the readers under the light that our community is most likely biased...
>
> [1] explained in length at http://meta.wikimedia.org/**
> wiki/Talk:Image_filter_**referendum/en



That's one point we seem to agree on. I asked the same question a year ago
– why did nobody survey the reading public, or the donors?

A
___
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?

2012-06-19 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
> 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

The issue there is that on the one hand, the Foundation's fundraising
materials advertise Wikipedia as being God's gift for children, especially
underprivileged children, through official fundraiser "stories" like these*:

"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."

"Wikipedia has been a wonderful recourse for my children and me to learn
new terms, knowledge, and culture background as an immigrant family. It is
a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research."

"Thanks to websites like 'Wikipedia', children of all ages can continue
their endeavor in learning."

"We are a family that live in the interior of Brazil in a very poor state.
We have opened a learning center and work with local children from nearby
villages. Wikipedia is INVALUABLE for this work."

"I worked for a non-profit in India and even the poorest children who were
receiving education there knew about Wikipedia and were familiar with the
site."

So that's one half of the story. The other half of the story is that the
community says the exact opposite: Wikipedia is not for children, but for
adults, and only a moron or a bad parent would let their children go on
Wikipedia unsupervised. Go figure.

Andreas

* http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Stories2/en
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread Marc A. Pelletier


On 18/06/2012 7:52 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
The *hard* problem is convincing the "not censored" abusers that it's 
a useful feature for our community.


You're begging the question that it /is/ a useful feature.

-- Coren / Marc


___
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?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> 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.

Okay, so the server "hosts the current version itself".  Presumably
they are going to use Mediawiki to do this, unless you are suggesting
that they write their own custom wiki parser.  That Mediawiki that
they are running "is tightly coupled to the specific database
structure it uses", at least it was as of a few years ago.  What I
mean by this is that the parser loads from the database as it's
parsing.  It's not 1) load everything you need from the database, and
then 2) parse it.  You have to parse it in order to figure out what to
load, and parsing it means running Mediawiki.  I believe there were
some efforts made to fix this, so maybe it has been fixed.  I haven't
looked at it in years.

___
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?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
>> 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.

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)"

Are you going to include that template or not?  If so, where are you
going to link "improve this article" to?

___
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?

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.

___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread James Salsman

>> 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
>
> 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.

I'm not so sure about that.  Submitting a patch to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Bad_Image_List adding a user
preference to add one or more URLs with arbitrary media files to block
instead of using only the centralized list would not require the
approval of the community, just the developers.

Line 17 of 
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/BadImage/BadImage.class.php?revision=67467&view=markup
performs image censorship in the centralized, top-down way that the
community already rejected, so a patch to add a distributed filter
list would actually be in line with community decisions.

___
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?

On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

> 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".


Of course; but that is predicated on a bad process design. Solution; design
an appropriate process.


>
>  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.


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).



>  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.  irony>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.


>
>  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).
>

Filtering images would resolve most of these issues.


>
> 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.


>
>  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

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?

>> 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.

No, the goal of making Wikipedia a safe place for children is the
genesis of the filter.  It has since been watered down via design by
committee into some sort of "let's make people double click before
they can see the porn", but there certainly are some who have stuck by
their principles, on both sides of the argument.

___
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?

>
>
>>  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.


> 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.



> 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.

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.


> 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.


> 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.


> 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 project.

Our goal as maintainers for this main community should be:
* Maximise the ability of individuals to access content by...
* Minimising the road blocks (social, political, etc.) to accessing content

A significant portion of the filter discussion is predicated on our
internal prejudices and POV - basically navel gazing - with a wide
rejection of the idea that a multi-cultural society exists.

A non-WMF filtering project would not be useful to our community due to the
chicken/egg seeding problem.

Tom
___
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?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:21 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 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.

Where do you run the filter?  I suppose a sophisticated parent could
set up a firewall and a proxy on his home network, but many families
don't even have a spare computer to act as the firewall, let alone the
technical know-how to run the thing.

___
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?

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.

> 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).

> 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.

> 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.

___
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?

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
___
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?

On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> > On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard  wrote:
>
>
> >> The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
> >> it on the site itself:
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
> >> It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
> >> has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
> >> Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
> >> the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
> >> filtering.
>
> > Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
> > Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it
> the
> > most accessible for our community.
>
>
> That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the
> report?


Because they were investigating solutions to problems *on* Wikipedia. Seems
rather obvious ;)

Or perhaps you didn't read parts in full, this for example:

For example, all of these sites, as WMF pages do, have internally-generated
> policies that determine what content is permitted on their sites at all.


Or

However, on every one of these sites, they also employ a series of
> user-controlled options (options designed by the site) that allow users to
> tailor their viewing experiences to their individual needs. Unique among
> these sites, at the moment, Wikimedia projects employ no such options.


I'm not sure where you are leading with this line of argument.. but it
seems to be down a black hole :)

Tom
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread David Gerard

On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton  wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard  wrote:


>> The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
>> it on the site itself:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
>> It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
>> has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
>> Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
>> the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
>> filtering.

> Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
> Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it the
> most accessible for our community.


That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the report?


- d.

___
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?

On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte 
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
> it on the site itself:
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two
>
> It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
> has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
> Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
> the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
> filtering.


Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful.
Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it the
most accessible for our community.

Tom
___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread David Gerard

On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte  wrote:

> 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.

The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
it on the site itself:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two

It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it
has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable.
Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out
the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site
filtering.

- d.

___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread 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.

___
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?

2012-06-18 Thread 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. 

-- 
Tom Morris

___
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?

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?

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread 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

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread geni

On 17 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
>> perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
>
> You're assuming that a "good" exists for this function. This
> assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.


Well the various attempts by collages to block game sites were
somewhat effective. And that did have the effect of freeing up more
computers for actual college work.

-- 
geni

___
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?

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.

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread David Gerard

On 17 June 2012 15:43, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably
> draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its
> non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that
> conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an
> image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review
> editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of
> English, or anything else...

I haven't seen those being shouted for like this is. That is, there
are people actually asking for this, and there aren't really for those
other things. So I think my question - if this is so obviously the
right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as
relevant.

- d.

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread Andrew Gray

On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then
> (as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene,
> but one which is in no way actually urgent at present.

I certainly don't think it's urgent to try now - I'm sanguine that the
WMF WP we have now will be around for a second decade at least - but I
do think it's important to remember when bringing up the issue of
competitors.

As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably
draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its
non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that
conclusion. This applies whether the hypothetical fork is one using an
image filter, one using stable versions, one using peer-review
editorial control, one dynamically switching between varieties of
English, or anything else...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>>> No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
>>> perfect be the enemy of the good.
>>
>> You're assuming that a "good" exists for this function. This
>> assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.
>
> YouTube's age restricted content policy is "good".  That is to say,
> it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than Wikipedia's policies.  My
> kids are much more likely to run across hard core pornography while
> clicking around on Wikipedia than clicking around on YouTube.
> Personally I'd prefer they rely more on whitelisting than on
> blacklisting - but what they do is already a *lot* better than
> Wikipedia.

World Book Encyclopedia was "good".  I spent many days reading through
the entries, performing the dead-tree equivalent of clicking on the
links as I went from topic to topic.  My parents didn't sit looking
over my shoulder.  It was an encyclopedia I could read on my own.

You want an explanation for why the market hasn't created a WBE
equivalent based on Wikipedia (*)?  The top answer is copyleft.  (As
suggested by Andrew Gray, technical/legal problems are another
problem, but I think these issues pale in comparison to copyleft.)

(*) Actually I'm not sure the market hasn't created this.  There
certainly have been various projects which have attempted to create
it.  I'm not sure if any have succeeded, and my kids are not yet at
the reading level where I need to spend much time looking for it.

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread David Gerard

On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> 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.


Which comes back to someone testing our practical forkability, then
(as I've noted before) - arguably an important part of backup hygiene,
but one which is in no way actually urgent at present.


- d.

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread Andrew Gray

On 15 June 2012 13:21, 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?

I think we had this conversation almost a year ago ;-)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/114562.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/114569.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2011-September/115530.html

are my comments from the last round.

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.

(Alternatively, it might suggest there's no demand at all for any
meaningfully variant derivatives of Wikipedia, which is a demoralising
thought..)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
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?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
>> perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
> You're assuming that a "good" exists for this function. This
> assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.

YouTube's age restricted content policy is "good".  That is to say,
it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than Wikipedia's policies.  My
kids are much more likely to run across hard core pornography while
clicking around on Wikipedia than clicking around on YouTube.
Personally I'd prefer they rely more on whitelisting than on
blacklisting - but what they do is already a *lot* better than
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?

2012-06-17 Thread David Gerard

On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony  wrote:

> No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
> perfect be the enemy of the good.


You're assuming that a "good" exists for this function. This
assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.


- d.

___
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?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> Not that hard to
> understand, hence please avoid off-topic (see subject) paternalism.

I still don't understand how calling something "perfect" when you are
making an argument that it is the proper solution to a problem, is
sarcasm/irony.  Sarcasm/irony would be calling something perfect when
you are making an argument that it is not the proper solution.
Exaggerating a point on which you are incorrect is not sarcasm/irony.

In any case, I'm not sure where the paternalism is in my posts.  Yes,
I am giving the perspective of a father, but that is not paternalism.

No software is perfect.  No solution is perfect.  But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.

___
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?

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 wrote:
> 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.

Is this supposed to be a parody of the people who point out the flaws
in software solutions but fail to point out the flaws in non-software
solutions?

Because, it seemed to me to be an instance of it.

___
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?

2012-06-17 Thread 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

___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread Anthony

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 wrote:
> 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...

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.

___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>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...

No, the Wikimedia Foundation should develop a personal sarcasm filter
for this mailing list so nobody is surprised or confused by what they
(don't) read here.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread 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.

___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread Anthony

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Tom Morris  wrote:
> On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, 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?
>
> Market failures do sometimes exist.
>
> Also, because as far as I can tell, the proposed filter isn't a NetNanny type 
> thing, it's a "I don't want to see pictures of boobies" AdBlock type thing. 
> Which is a different thing entirely.
>
> Of course, there's some confusion here. Larry Sanger, for instance, is very 
> very angry about how Wikipedia hasn't implemented a "filter", even though he 
> seems slightly confused as to the difference between an AdBlock type filter 
> and a NetNanny type filter.
>
> Preventing people who don't want to see pictures of naked people from seeing 
> pictures of naked people is a lot easier a task than preventing people who DO 
> want to see pictures of naked people from doing so.

Preventing, sure.  But I think what you see as Sanger being confused
about the difference between an AdBlock type filter and a NetNanny
type filter is actually his desire for something which isn't either -
a filter which parents can set up to prevent their children from
inadvertently stumbling upon age-inappropriate materials.

As a parent I must say that there is certainly demand for this sort of
thing.  And I can think of many reasons why the market hasn't tackled
this one.  The copyleft license is near, if not at, the top of that
list.  Liability and other legal considerations would also be high up
on the list.

___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread Tom Morris


On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 23:51, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

> 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. ;-)


I should probably get a .uk domain name for my emails to remove any doubt as to 
whether I'm being ironic and/or dryly sarcastic.   

--  
Tom Morris




___
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?

2012-06-16 Thread 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…

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.

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.  

--  
Tom Morris

___
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?