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

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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?

2012-06-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe


 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?

2012-06-21 Thread Yann Forget

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
 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 2:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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?

2012-06-21 Thread Yann Forget

2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
 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?

2012-06-21 Thread Todd Allen

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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 Andreas Kolbe

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org 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 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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?


Am 21.06.2012 21:55, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allentoddmal...@gmail.com  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?

2012-06-21 Thread David Gerard

On 21 June 2012 20:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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 22:24, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@gmail.com  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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 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?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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?


Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

Can you point me to any examples of real child abuse, sexual abuse or of
child sexual abuse?

On Wikipedia?  On Commons?  Anywhere?

Do i really need to answer this question, depending on where we discuss?


For child sexual abuse, I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
image (and as I said, whether or not the image constitutes this is
disputed).

You call the Virgin Killer image child sexual abuse? Truly?


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

I don't see any problem with this image. It documents child abuse as a 
fact without advocating it.



For sexual abuse, a simple search came up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AG-10.jpg (which isn't on the
English Wikipedia except through image search, but is on other
language Wikipedias.

I would be truly shocked if that image or another version of it isn't used.

Are that examples of images you find shocking or that should not be 
shown on Wikipedia or hosted on Commons?




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

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


Am 22.06.2012 00:02, schrieb Anthony:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:


On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:

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?

2012-06-21 Thread Andreas Kolbe

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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?

2012-06-20 Thread Anthony

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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 with your
 children, as well as

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 toddmal...@gmail.com 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 Todd Allen

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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 Anthony

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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?

2012-06-19 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_lawhttp://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?

2012-06-19 Thread Todd Allen

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

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_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#UK_law

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.

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.

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 Anthony

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com 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 deal after
all,

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
http://tommorris.org/








___
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 t...@tommorris.org 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?


Am 18.06.2012 09:21, schrieb David Gerard:

On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org  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?

On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
 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 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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 12:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
  On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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?


Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:

On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org  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?



  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?


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. 
contains some ironyWe 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./contains some irony 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

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

On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:

 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. contains some
 ironyWe 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./contains some irony 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 at any time.

  Think of the children is not really an argument I ascribe to. And not
 really

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=67467view=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?

2012-06-18 Thread Anthony

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com 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?