On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com>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. <contains some > 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.</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 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<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 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. >> > 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 don't exist at the moment. A second part of our community > wants it to be more conservative in fear that it might the deciding factor > that could create road blocks. I already mentioned it above in the > "benefits vs effort" section. > > 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* Tom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l