Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Controversial content software status

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


z at mzmcbride

Mar 1, 2012, 8:49 PM

Post #1 of 69 (6935 views)
Permalink
Controversial content software status

Hi.

What happened with implementing software related to controversial content?
There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a
little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the
current status of the project? Is it still a project? (If there's a project
status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.)

MZMcBride

P.S. I'm always fascinated by cases where there's an extreme contrast
between how seemingly innocuous the search term is and how explicit the
search results are. I think my current favorite case is the search for
"forefinger" on Wikimedia Commons. More examples always welcome at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems>.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 3, 2012, 8:44 PM

Post #2 of 69 (6828 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:49 AM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

>
> What happened with implementing software related to controversial content?
> There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a
> little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the
> current status of the project? Is it still a project? (If there's a project
> status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.)
>
> MZMcBride
>
> P.S. I'm always fascinated by cases where there's an extreme contrast
> between how seemingly innocuous the search term is and how explicit the
> search results are. I think my current favorite case is the search for
> "forefinger" on Wikimedia Commons. More examples always welcome at
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems>.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing
the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a
clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?)

This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly
in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make
Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results
according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the
middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from
other types of monarch, etc.

See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons
for
Niabot's own write-up of his proposal.

(If you are unfamiliar with the Commons search problem please see

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems

as well as the recent Fox article:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/24/why-is-wikipedia-still-doling-out-porn/


And see (note that this link is NSFW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=images&search=forefinger&fulltext=Search


for what the forefinger search looks like in Wikipedia.)

Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just
meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of
the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would
sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one
for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening.
Where are we on this?

Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


keegan.wiki at gmail

Mar 3, 2012, 8:50 PM

Post #3 of 69 (6811 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just
> meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of
> the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would
> sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one
> for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening.
> Where are we on this?
>
>
Hopefully nowhere from the development standpoint, because where are
nowhere from the community standpoint. Inaction and not sticking to
time-lines is fine by me in this case. I for one prefer letting sleeping
dogs lie.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Mar 4, 2012, 3:10 PM

Post #4 of 69 (6820 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing
> the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a
> clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?)
>
> This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly
> in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make
> Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results
> according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the
> middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from
> other types of monarch, etc.

Interesting. :-) I encourage everyone to take a look at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming> and
chime in.

> Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also just
> meant to ask the question that MZMcBride asked above. What is the status of
> the image filter? Last year, we heard that in January, developers would
> sift through the proposals on the Meta brainstorming pages, and select one
> for implementation. But now it is March, and nothing seems to be happening.
> Where are we on this?

I still don't have an answer to the status question, but I did bang out a
few thoughts on editorial judgment and the Wikimedia community here:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editorial_judgment>.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 4, 2012, 5:00 PM

Post #5 of 69 (6801 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> What happened with implementing software related to controversial content?
> There was quite a bit of hubbub at some point, then Wikimedia pulled back a
> little (and Sue visited Germany to give some assurances)... what's the
> current status of the project? Is it still a project? (If there's a project
> status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.)

Hi MZ and all --

Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more
pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is
currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on
whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding
feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter.
We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and
generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of
months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the
timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set.

So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our
original proposal has been requested.

It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical
and social work that needs to be done around controversial content
that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons
search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for
any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be
many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of
the controversial content resolutions
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content),
though much less controversial, are also quite important!

-- phoebe, as WMF secretary

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Mar 4, 2012, 7:04 PM

Post #6 of 69 (6801 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

phoebe ayers wrote:
[snip]
> It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical
> and social work that needs to be done around controversial content
> that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons
> search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for
> any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be
> many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

Yes. Implementing even basic image tagging would be helpful, I think. Lots
of low-hanging software development fruit on Commons.

> I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of
> the controversial content resolutions
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
> and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content),
> though much less controversial, are also quite important!

Thank you for the detailed response. :-)

I think having the resolutions published is great, but I also think having
an index with statuses of high-level projects would also be good. Somewhere
where outsiders and insiders can look and answer a question about the status
of X (e.g., controversial content software implementation) without needing
to bother Board members. ;-)

Any ideas on implementing something like that? I'm not sure how many other
high-level projects there are, even. Any guidance on this would be great and
appreciated.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 4, 2012, 9:03 PM

Post #7 of 69 (6797 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:00 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> Hi MZ and all --
>
> Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more
> pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is
> currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on
> whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding
> feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter.
> We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and
> generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of
> months. I haven't reported on it one way or the other because the
> timeline for a revote hasn't yet been set.
>
> So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
> things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
> debate and all of the controversy, serious reconsideration of our
> original proposal has been requested.
>
> It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical
> and social work that needs to be done around controversial content
> that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons
> search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for
> any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be
> many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.
>
> I'd like to point out here that the other points addressed in both of
> the controversial content resolutions
> (
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
> and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content),
> though much less controversial, are also quite important!
>
>

Thanks, Phoebe. But think about it – if we're not doing the image filter,
why should the community bother to do anything else you've "urged" in these
resolutions? None of it has been happening so far. Model releases? Consent
of people depicted in private settings? All I see, almost one year after
these Board Resolutions were put up, is business as usual, with people
happy to muddle along, Flickrwashing as before. Who cares if the account
disappears off Flickr a week later?

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported
in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say
that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons
just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on
Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being
threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin,
because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation
board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the
Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not
agree with them.

I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
(admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in
exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's
the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show,
to keep the public money coming in.

Wikimedia critics like Greg Kohs confidently claimed over a year ago that
nothing would ever come of the Harris study, that any proposed action that
would bring Wikimedia in line with all the other top websites like Google,
YouTube and Flickr would be delayed, postponed and watered down until
finally, hopefully, everybody would have forgotten about it. It is
beginning to look like he may yet be proved right ... and that everybody,
from Robert Harris to all the various volunteers who made a good-faith
effort to come up with a system that might work, wasted their time.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 4, 2012, 11:32 PM

Post #8 of 69 (6805 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
> represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
> (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in
> exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's
> the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show,
> to keep the public money coming in.


Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp.

You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 12:07 AM

Post #9 of 69 (6810 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:32 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp.
>
> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?



Wait ... so you're saying that the two board members whose terms run out
this summer are hoping that if they keep shtum about the image filter for
the next 15 weeks, people will forget that they voted for it twice during
their last term, and they'll get another term on the board?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 9:07 AM

Post #10 of 69 (6807 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
>> represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
>> (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in
>> exactly the same way that doctors are irrelevant in an asylum where it's
>> the inmates who call the shots, and the doctors are only kept on for show,
>> to keep the public money coming in.
>
>
> Yeah, 'cos that worked so well applied to de:wp.
>
> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
>
>
> - d.

Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
been one vote on each resolution.

And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

all best,
-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 9:49 AM

Post #11 of 69 (6812 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:



>
> Niabot has just come up with what I think is a great idea for addressing
> the search problem you mention in your postscript. He's proposed a
> clustered search function. (Anybody remember Vivísimo?)
>
> This could not just solve the problem of NSFW media popping up unexpectedly
> in media searches in Wikipedias and Commons. It would generally make
> Commons' search function more user-friendly, by grouping search results
> according to categories. So adult media would no longer pop up in the
> middle of unrelated searches, monarch butterflies would be separated from
> other types of monarch, etc.

The beauty of clustering search engines is that they are not prejudicial. And
fundamentally improve functionality of the search. Enable to find what you
personally *want* to find, rather than merely making it easier to exclude what
someone wants to make it easier for you to not find
you don't want to find. And it is done by the search engine software (at least
in theory), not people who are not the person browsing.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 10:21 AM

Post #12 of 69 (6803 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:07 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
> been one vote on each resolution.
>
> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
> a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
>
> all best,
> -- phoebe


I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my
sympathy.

However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a
Multimedia search for "male human" in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human

Or try just "human":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human

Is this the Wikimedia view of what humanity is about?

There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
who say they will fork if anything changes.

Let them.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 11:50 AM

Post #13 of 69 (6804 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

>> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
>> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?

> Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
> been one vote on each resolution.


The first was the vote on the resolution:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content

The second was to send a letter affirming the board still considered
the resolution a good idea:

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/253393#253393

"We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment:
we let that resolution stand unchanged."

You were also the chair of the Controversial Content Working Group
that *wrote* the resolution.


> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
> a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.


I raised it as one, here.

If you do not support the image filter, you have given *no* sign that
I have seen of not supporting it before your statement for this
selection of a board member by the chapters.

You appeared (from your actions) to support it before, you claim not
to support it now. I believe it is relevant to note this.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


tobias.oelgarte at googlemail

Mar 5, 2012, 4:33 PM

Post #14 of 69 (6799 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Am 05.03.2012 19:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> I agree you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and you have my
> sympathy.
>
> However, I would like you to consider what our users get when they do a
> Multimedia search for "male human" in Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=male+human
>
> Or try just "human":
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=0&profile=images&search=human
>
> Is this the Wikimedia view of what humanity is about?
>
> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
> who say they will fork if anything changes.
>
> Let them.
>
> Andreas
>
Sometimes your a little bit to persistent. I know that this results are
giving a wrong image, but you brought them up in at least 20 discussions
until now. But this won't solve anything. How about some active work to
come up with possible solutions? No, I don't mean solutions that would
perfectly fit your own demands. It is way more productive to search for
solutions that the opposition could agree with, while also achieving the
own goals at the same time.

You saw my search proposal and you where in favour of it. But it wasn't
only you who could agree with this proposal. The opposition would be
happy with it as well. That is the way to go. But to find such solutions
you will need to respect other opinions as well.

Back to your "human" examples, I have simple explanation. This images,
how controversial they are, get good treatment by the community. Yes
even a deletion request is good treatment in this case. There are much
more people involved with this files then with many other files. This
leads to very direct descriptions, better categorization and so on. Now
we must not wonder that the search is so happy to represent the current
results. Such actions make them even more popular and give them a high
rank inside the results.

You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that
the current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a
great porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from.
Take a look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One
thing to notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular.
Since Wikipedia is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that
so many people visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a
very short time browsing through our content. But using this as an
argument that we are a porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as
using this as an argument.

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 4:41 PM

Post #15 of 69 (6802 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
> who say they will fork if anything changes.
> Let them.


You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the
actual work* won't put up with it.

However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater
usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public.

This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered
according to your vision.

If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your
project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales!


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 4:57 PM

Post #16 of 69 (6792 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Hi David,

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>>> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
>>> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
>
>> Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
>> been one vote on each resolution.
>
>
> The first was the vote on the resolution:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
>
> The second was to send a letter affirming the board still considered
> the resolution a good idea:
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/253393#253393
>
> "We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment:
> we let that resolution stand unchanged."

That's actually explicitly not a vote -- as in, we agreed not to
re-vote at the October meeting. We did agree to postponing
development, however, as I noted above; and a re-vote is likely on the
table for the spring.

> You were also the chair of the Controversial Content Working Group
> that *wrote* the resolution.

That is true. And I supported the resolution we wrote, felt that we
did good work to try to come to a consensus between pretty widely
divergent points of view, and proposed the resolution to the other
trustees.

There were plenty of reservations at the time, from me and others;
hence all the language about principles. However, we thought what we
proposed could work.

After publishing that resolution, we had the referendum and (even
more) thousands of pages of discussion, and after all that I am
convinced by the arguments that the image hiding feature specifically
is not an especially appropriate or useful thing to do. Surely that is
not a terrible or outlandish conclusion to reach; one might argue for
the benefit in keeping an open mind. And if I am not mistaken, we are
now closer to being in agreement on the issue, which does make one
wonder why you're hassling me over it.

I'll note that still, there are plenty of good arguments on both
sides, and I don't think all the trustees are in agreement about how
to proceed; as this thread shows, there is still plenty of interest on
both sides as well.

I took on chairing the controversial content group because I wanted to
help the board find consensus on a tough issue, not because I wanted
CC to become the defining issue of my term. If I thought at the
beginning that is what would happen, frankly I wouldn't have
volunteered to do it.


>> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
>> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
>> a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
>
>
> I raised it as one, here.
>
> If you do not support the image filter, you have given *no* sign that
> I have seen of not supporting it before your statement for this
> selection of a board member by the chapters.

Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
board acts as a corporate body.

I have all along personally thought that both sides of the issues had
merit but that there were strong principles we needed to adhere to,
which is a thread that shows up in the resolution.

> You appeared (from your actions) to support it before, you claim not
> to support it now. I believe it is relevant to note this.

Sure. If there's a place to note what one thinks about something, why
not a candidacy statement? And I will note, in turn, that the
questions to the candidates so far seem to indicate what the chapters
representatives care most about this election, and it's mostly
finances and related -- if I were, as you imply, only hypocritically
trying to win over hearts and minds for the election I think I would
be focusing on that!

regards,
-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 4:58 PM

Post #17 of 69 (6799 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
>> who say they will fork if anything changes.
>> Let them.
>
>
> You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
> precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the
> actual work* won't put up with it.
>
> However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater
> usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public.
>
> This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered
> according to your vision.
>
> If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your
> project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales!

As I understand it, Andreas is pushing for better editorial control
and search rather than censorship or a fork. The issues Andreas has
highlighted are real; how to fix them is the open question. Renaming
files is a _good_ immediate solution for some of the search problems.
Andreas has also raised the option of clustered search, proposed by
Niabot, and other ideas the community are coming up with as
alternatives.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Mar 5, 2012, 5:01 PM

Post #18 of 69 (6800 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

David Gerard wrote:
> However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater
> usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public.
>
> This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered
> according to your vision.
>
> If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your
> project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales!

An appeal to "then why don't you fork!" is pretty lame, David.

Much as people hate censorship and love free content, if you've looked at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems>, you know
there's an actual technical issue here. I refuse to believe that a search
for "forefinger" leading to animated GIFs of someone masturbating is a not a
bug. Search needs improvements. Commons needs improvements. This is hardly
surprising or controversial. And, I'll note: there have been proposals to
address the technical issue at "Controversial content/Brainstorming" and
elsewhere. Including a neat idea involving groupings and hierarchical
tagging for media.

Please, let's not resort to "why don't you fork!" when there aren't even
dumps of the images on Commons, much less one of the other 1,000 issues
you'd hit when trying to fork a Wikimedia wiki. Be reasonable, please.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 5:06 PM

Post #19 of 69 (6804 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
> board acts as a corporate body.


If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns,
I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from
your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say
"actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your
views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the
representing.

What stopped you from voicing your qualms?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 5:20 PM

Post #20 of 69 (6803 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
> > personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
> > speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
> > right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
> > some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
> > especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
> > board acts as a corporate body.
>
>
> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns,
> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from
> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say
> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your
> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the
> representing.
>
> What stopped you from voicing your qualms?
>

I don't know about you, but I can imagine personally disliking the concept
of an image filter while simultaneously believing a resolution in favor of
it was the best position for the Board to take at the time. Compromise
isn't a four letter word. I'd say its more odd to call phoebe out for
taking all the criticism on board; surely that was the intent of many of
the critics, including yourself?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayvdb at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 5:29 PM

Post #21 of 69 (6805 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:07 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>...
>> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
>> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
>...
> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
> a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.

I don't understand.
Three candidates, including yourself have mentioned image
hiding/filtering in their statements.
You are the only board member seeking re-election, and your statement
says you "support rescinding [a] part of our resolution."

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Candidates

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 5:32 PM

Post #22 of 69 (6794 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
>> board acts as a corporate body.
>
>
> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns,
> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from
> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say
> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your
> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the
> representing.

That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my
mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it.
I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few
months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at
the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that.

> What stopped you from voicing your qualms?

Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly
because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called
(among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a
poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like
dignifying any of that with engagement.

And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails
I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be
moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what
we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything!

So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying
not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including "can't
we please find something more important to argue about?!"). Oh well.

Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
search :)

best,
Phoebe

p.s. John, I misunderstood what David was referring to about it being
an election issue -- When I said that I meant that board
reconsideration of the resolution was raised independently of the
election; it's not meant to be timed for political reasons, as I
thought he was implying. Yes, of course, I did bring this topic up in
my statement.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 9:14 PM

Post #23 of 69 (6803 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:32 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

> Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
> search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
> search :)
>


Can you get a developer to provide us with some feedback on Niabot's
proposal?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons


The discussion that led to this proposal was here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search

Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 9:25 PM

Post #24 of 69 (6821 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelgarte [at] googlemail> wrote:

> You also stated in another discussion that the sexuality related
> categories and images are also very popular among our readers and that the
> current practices would make it a porn site. Not that we are such a great
> porn site, we aren't, but we know where all this people come from. Take a
> look at the popular search terms at Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. One thing to
> notice: Sexuality related search requests are very popular. Since Wikipedia
> is high ranked and Commons as well, it is no wonder that so many people
> visit this galleries, even if they are disappointed in a very short time
> browsing through our content. But using this as an argument that we are a
> porn website is a fraud conclusion, as well as using this as an argument.



The earlier discussion you refer to, about Commons neither being nor
becoming a porn site, was in the context of how to rank search results in
the cluster search you proposed. Given that the
masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed 1,000 times more often than
other toothbrush images, an editor suggested that it was perhaps
appropriate that the masturbation image came near the top of Commons and
Wikipedia toothbrush search results. If people want porn, we should give
them porn, was the sentiment he expressed. I argued that following that
approach would indeed turn Commons into a porn site, and that doing so
might be incompatible with Wikimedia's tax-exempt status. (For those
interested, the actual discussion snippet is below.)

By the way, I would not say that Commons is entirely unsuitable as a porn
site. It may well fulfill that purpose for some users. One of the most
active Commons contributors in this area for example runs a free porn wiki
of his own, where he says about himself,

*"Many people keep telling me that pornography is a horrible thing, and
that i cannot be a radical, anarchist, ethical, buddhist... etc. Well, i am
all those things (sort of) and i like smut. I like porn. I like wanking
looking at other people wank, and i like knowing that other people enjoy
seeing me do that. Therefore i am setting up this site. This will be a
porno portal for the people who believe that we need to take smut away from
capitalist fuckers."*

There is certainly quite a strong collection of masturbation videos on
Commons. Now, all power to this contributor, if he enjoys his solitary sex
life – but would the public approve, if we told them that this sort of
mindset is representative of the people who define the curatorial effort
for adult materials in the Commons project funded by their donations? I am
not just talking about the Fox News public here. Do you think the New York
Times readership would approve?

Andreas

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ARequests_for_comment%2Fimproving_search&diff=67902786&oldid=67859335

Agree with Niabot that page views aren't an ideal metric, especially if a
nice-to-have aspect of implementation would be that we are trying to reduce
the prominence of adult media files displayed for innocuous searches like
"toothbrush". Anything based on page views is likely to have the opposite
effect:

- When ranked by pageviews or clicks, almost all the top Commons content
pages <http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/top> are adult media files.
- The most-viewed category is Category:Shaved genitalia
(female)<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
followed by Category:Vulva<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Vulva>
and Category:Female
genitalia<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_genitalia>
.
- The masturbating-with-a-toothbrush image is viewed more than 1,000
times a day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Masturbating%20with%20a%20toothbrush.jpg>,
compared to roughly 1 view a
day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Toothbrush-20060209.JPG>
or less than one view a
day<http://stats.grok.se/commons.m/latest60/File:Motorized%20toothbrush.jpg>
for
actual images of toothbrushes.
- Its popularity is not due to the fact that it is our best image of a
toothbrush (it isn't), or that the image is included in a subcategory of
Category:Toothbrushes<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Toothbrushes>,
the term the user searches for. It is due to the fact that it is primarily
an image of masturbation displaying female genitalia: it is
included in Category:Shaved
genitalia (female)<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>,
which, as mentioned above, is the most popular category in all of Commons,
and it is also part of Category:Female
masturbation<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>,
the 10th most popular of all Commons categories.
- The same thing applies to the cucumber images: their viewing figures
will far outstrip viewing figures for any images just showing cucumbers,
but these high viewing figures will not be because of people who have
browsed to these images via the cucumber search term, or the cucumber
category tree, but because of people interested in sexual media, where the
presence of a cucumber is merely incidental.

More generally speaking, page views aren't everything; if we were after
maximising page views, we'd have a w:page 3
girl<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/page_3_girl> on
the main page. --*JN
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
* 15:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have to say, this comment makes me think that
maybe we don't have so much of a problem in the first place. If people are
actually looking for masturbation with a toothbrush 1000 times more often
than an actual toothbrush, then delivering that result for "toothbrush"
might just get people what they're looking for more often. The "principle
of least astonishment", if one believes in it, should dictate that if our
horny little audience is really hunting for porn most of the time, it would
be astonishing not to serve it up to them.
Wnt<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Wnt>
(talk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wnt>) 22:34, 4 March
2012 (UTC) The point I was trying to make is that those 1,000 daily page
views don't come from people who are searching for an image of a
toothbrush. They're from the quarter million people who look at Category:Shaved
genitalia (female)<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female)>
and Category:Female
masturbation<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_masturbation>
every
month, where this image is contained ... The other point is, regardless of
how educational it is to look at other people's genitalia, and at images of
other people having sex, would a free porn site meet the definition of a
tax-exempt educational site? If YouPorn, say, proposed a business model
whereby they were funded by donations, would they qualify for tax exemption
and 501(c)(3) status? Probably not. And would Wikimedia donors be happy to
see their money spent on providing the public with a free porn service?
Probably neither. --*JN
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466>466<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayen466>
* 00:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 5, 2012, 11:06 PM

Post #25 of 69 (6793 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
>> who say they will fork if anything changes.
>> Let them.
>

There has never been a genuine confrontation on Wikimedia sites between
people for radical change and those defending the Status Quo Ante. There
have however been (and I trust will ever be -- A "status quo") of people
who feel there can be no give and take. And those who philosophically
accept they will never be happy with things as they are on Wikimedia,
but think the attempt to bridge the gap itself is a worthwhile effort, for all
that follows from it, the joy and the misery. Sometimes it is difficult to
know who those people are, because there is a natural ebb and flow. Land
now, waters rushing in the next moment. Between those sides you have
to decide where your boat belongs. Aground and unmovable, or afloat
and moving with the waves that wash back and forth.

>
> You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
> precisely because the overwhelming majority of the people who *do the
> actual work* won't put up with it.
>
> However, you are convinced that filtering is the key to far greater
> usefulness to, and acceptance by, the public.
>
> This suggests that what you should do is start a fork, filtered
> according to your vision.
>
> If you are correct that this is what the public really wants, your
> project will be a huge success. You could be the next Jimmy Wales!
>
>
> - d.
>

Let's be fair. Wikimedia could well turn more prudish, and that would
be quite natural. But forcing a boat up a mountain, rather than letting
it sail isn't quite what we do here. Yet oceans with geological timescales
yield high grounds where you can find ancient seafloors, and (if you
can imagine it?) high mountains with sharp edges, are turned into
rounded curves by the glaciers passing over them, with time.

If you are right about the direction Wikimedia should move, all you
have to do is wait.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.