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

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Personal Image Filter results announced

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


pbeaudette at wikimedia

Sep 3, 2011, 9:33 PM

Post #1 of 198 (2244 views)
Permalink
Personal Image Filter results announced

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
Please note that the results are not final: although the vote count is, and
has been finalized, the analysis of comments is ongoing.

Posted on behalf of the committee,
Philippe
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.


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


dgerard at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 2:17 AM

Post #2 of 198 (2187 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette <pbeaudette [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
> have released their interim report and vote count.  You may see the results
> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.


The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".

So. What happens now?


- d.

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


mikael79 at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 3:35 AM

Post #3 of 198 (2187 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On the other hand: "I think it is important not to..." isn't necessarily
interpreted the same as "I think it is not important to...".
Which of those answers was meant by the respondents that chose "0"?

\Mike

On 04/09 2011 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette<pbeaudette [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
>> The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
>> have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
>> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
>
>
> The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
> continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
> had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".
>
> So. What happens now?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


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


berialima at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 3:39 AM

Post #4 of 198 (2184 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

Blame the wording of the survey for not be clear enough?
_____
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*


On 4 September 2011 11:35, Mikael <mikael79 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On the other hand: "I think it is important not to..." isn't necessarily
> interpreted the same as "I think it is not important to...".
> Which of those answers was meant by the respondents that chose "0"?
>
> \Mike
>
> On 04/09 2011 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette<pbeaudette [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image
> Filter
> >> have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the
> results
> >> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
> >
> >
> > The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
> > continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
> > had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".
> >
> > So. What happens now?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 5:48 AM

Post #5 of 198 (2184 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

I said from the beginning that this poll was too badly designed for anyone
to be able to draw useful conclusions from whatever the results are. I think
that has been proven correct.

A very large proportion of voters said they don't consider the feature
important. If they simply mean "not important" then the result could be
considered a mandate to proceed. If they actually mean they are opposed to
the feature, which seems likely given the number of negative comments, then
there is not even a clear majority in favour.

While I personally am in favour of this feature, I urge the Foundation not
to proceed with it without further consultation. To ask the community for
their views and then not actually take those views into account (which you
can't do since you can't tell what they are) would be a an insult to the
community and would significantly harm relations between the Foundation and
those it exists to serve.

The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the questions
accordingly.
On Sep 4, 2011 11:39 AM, "Béria Lima" <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
> Blame the wording of the survey for not be clear enough?
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre
> acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
> fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*
>
>
> On 4 September 2011 11:35, Mikael <mikael79 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand: "I think it is important not to..." isn't necessarily
>> interpreted the same as "I think it is not important to...".
>> Which of those answers was meant by the respondents that chose "0"?
>>
>> \Mike
>>
>> On 04/09 2011 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
>> > On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette<pbeaudette [at] wikimedia>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image
>> Filter
>> >> have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the
>> results
>> >> at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en.
>> >
>> >
>> > The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
>> > continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
>> > had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".
>> >
>> > So. What happens now?
>> >
>> >
>> > - d.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l [at] lists
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


zvandijk at googlemail

Sep 4, 2011, 6:08 AM

Post #6 of 198 (2182 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

Hello,

Frankly, I am quite unhappy about the referendum and share the
concerns expressed by Thomas. I think that the Foundation did not take
those Wikimedians serious who are opposed to the filter. The
Foundation avoided the direct question whether someone is for or
against the filter at all, this most important question was denied to
the community.

From this perspective, the first question can be seen as manipulative.

On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter

It will go until September 15th, but by now the results are as
follows: Against the filter 231, for the filter 44. Undecided 14.

Kind regards
Ziko



2011/9/4 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>:
> I said from the beginning that this poll was too badly designed for anyone
> to be able to draw useful conclusions from whatever the results are. I think
> that has been proven correct.
>
> A very large proportion of voters said they don't consider the feature
> important. If they simply mean "not important" then the result could be
> considered a mandate to proceed. If they actually mean they are opposed to
> the feature, which seems likely given the number of negative comments, then
> there is not even a clear majority in favour.
>
> While I personally am in favour of this feature, I urge the Foundation not
> to proceed with it without further consultation. To ask the community for
> their views and then not actually take those views into account (which you
> can't do since you can't tell what they are) would be a an insult to the
> community and would significantly harm relations between the Foundation and
> those it exists to serve.
>
> The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
> this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
> you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the questions
> accordingly.


--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

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


dgerard at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 6:22 AM

Post #7 of 198 (2185 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 13:48, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
> this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
> you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the questions
> accordingly.


... including posting the questions for sanity-checking, at the very least.


- d.

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


dgerard at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 6:24 AM

Post #8 of 198 (2182 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 14:08, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk [at] googlemail> wrote:

> Frankly, I am quite unhappy about the referendum and share the
> concerns expressed by Thomas. I think that the Foundation did not take
> those Wikimedians serious who are opposed to the filter. The
> Foundation avoided the direct question whether someone is for or
> against the filter at all, this most important question was denied to
> the community.
> From this perspective, the first question can be seen as manipulative.


I see no reason to assume it was not merely badly thought-out, rather
than intended as manipulative.

Could someone please detail the process by which the questions were written?


> On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
> It will go until September 15th, but by now the results are as
> follows: Against the filter 231, for the filter 44. Undecided 14.


Could someone also please detail why this - the key question
surrounding the whole issue - was not asked?


- d.

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


nemowiki at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 6:32 AM

Post #9 of 198 (2185 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

David Gerard, 04/09/2011 11:17:
> The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
> continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
> had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".

Or that a successful "plebiscite" (as it's called in the results page)
usually has a 90-95 % support. Hmm, yet another terminology/translation
problem.

Nemo

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


millosh at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 6:52 AM

Post #10 of 198 (2186 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:17, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> The bimodal distribution in the first graph suggests this feature will
> continue to be controversial (to say the least), with fans saying "we
> had the majority" and foes saying "there is clearly not a consensus".
>
> So. What happens now?

People with sufficient free time could be very imaginative in solving
that existential problem for them. I've heard that German, Polish,
Hungarian (etc.?) Wikipedians solved the problem by introducing
flagged revisions. I suppose that Board's approach to that problem is
to analyze endlessly numbers which basically mean nothing.

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


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 10:43 AM

Post #11 of 198 (2184 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 03:08:54PM +0200, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
>

Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
large, I think that the difference in results can largely be
explained directly by the design of the !referendum.

The emerging discrepancies between the german vote and the
!referendum, together with the known deficiencies in the !referendum
design warrant some -slight- cause for concern, perhaps.

I'd like to run some sort of audit to allay potential concerns.
Any ideas as to practicability and/or execution?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


philippe at wikimedia

Sep 4, 2011, 11:56 AM

Post #12 of 198 (2186 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Kim Bruning <kim [at] bruning> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 03:08:54PM +0200, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On German language Wikipedia, there is a poll of its own.
> >
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
> >
>
> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
> large, I think that the difference in results can largely be
> explained directly by the design of the !referendum.
>
> The emerging discrepancies between the german vote and the
> !referendum, together with the known deficiencies in the !referendum
> design warrant some -slight- cause for concern, perhaps.
>
> I'd like to run some sort of audit to allay potential concerns.
> Any ideas as to practicability and/or execution?
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
>
>
What type of audit? If you're speaking of data security/integrity, that's
handled by SPI and there could be no tampering. If you're speaking of
design, etc, there's room for a conversation. :) ~~~~
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


church.of.emacs.ml at googlemail

Sep 4, 2011, 12:11 PM

Post #13 of 198 (2184 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
> large […]

That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
and of course Muhammed. So it's clear that there is simply no or a very
small necessity for a filter; thus the rejection.

The other extreme would be Acehnese Wikipedia (remember the boycott?[1])
There it might be a unique opportunity to help dissolve a very difficult
conflict.

The image filter makes sense for some Wikipedia versions and for some
not. All depending on the cultural background.
The difficult question is, what to do with very multi-cultural
Wikipedias, like English.

--Tobias

[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/thread.html#59843
Attachments: signature.asc (0.26 KB)


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 12:18 PM

Post #14 of 198 (2186 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:57:22PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > (I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational context.)
>
> I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
> suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
> to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
> images of Muhammad.

I...I don't think so. <speechless>

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


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


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 12:28 PM

Post #15 of 198 (2182 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
> > disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
> > only of degree, not of kind.
>
> I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
> that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.

Right, but then they won't be educated.

But, if they don't want to be educated, erm, why are they using
an encyclopedia in the first place?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 12:38 PM

Post #16 of 198 (2185 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning <kim [at] bruning> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >> > The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
> >> > disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
> >> > only of degree, not of kind.
> >>
> >> I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
> >> that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.
> >
> > Right, but then they won't be educated.
> >
> > But, if they don't want to be educated, erm, why are they using
> > an encyclopedia in the first place?
>
> They won't be educated *as much*. They can still be educated. If they
> don't use Wikipedia at all because of fear of seeing things they don't
> want to see (or, because their parents fear they will see things their
> parents thing they shouldn't see), then they aren't getting educated
> by Wikipedia at all. Seeing almost all of Wikipedia is better than
> seeing none of it.

Seeing *almost* all of wikipedia introduces potential bias, which
can actually be rather much worse than seeing none of wikipedia
at all.

I think we have a rule about that.

aka:
Thomas Dalton Wrote:
> ... they ... can still ... fear... their parents...

Hmm, I'd need just a few more words to *really* misquote you. ;-)


sincerely,
Kim Bruning




--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

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


thomas.dalton at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 12:42 PM

Post #17 of 198 (2186 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
<church.of.emacs.ml [at] googlemail> wrote:
> On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
>> large […]
>
> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
> liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
> and of course Muhammed. So it's clear that there is simply no or a very
> small necessity for a filter; thus the rejection.

What about Swastikas?

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


dgerard at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 12:50 PM

Post #18 of 198 (2184 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
> <church.of.emacs.ml [at] googlemail> wrote:

>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
>> liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
>> and of course Muhammed. So it's clear that there is simply no or a very
>> small necessity for a filter; thus the rejection.

> What about Swastikas?


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika looks good to me (visually and
in Google translation).

(I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational context.)


- d.

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


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 12:53 PM

Post #19 of 198 (2183 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:36:31PM +0200, rupert THURNER wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >> swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
> >> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
> >> * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
> >
> >
> > Well, en:wp allows fair use, but de:wp doesn't. Which averts that one nicely.
>
> oh, and why, if the domain name for both belongs to the wikimedia
> foundation which is located in the united states?

%-/

Why? Because our mission is to make things free (as in speech).
You may have heard about that ;-)

It's Wikipedia the free (as in speech) encyclopedia, not Wikipedia the
fair use encyclopedia.

So in theory, en shouldn't be allowing fair use either. In
practice, some people fubared things, and now it's grandfathered
in.

Also, de.wikipedia uses Commons 100% iirc. Commons also only
hosts actual free (as in speech) images. Because -hey- that's
their mission.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


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


thogol at googlemail

Sep 4, 2011, 12:56 PM

Post #20 of 198 (2183 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika looks good to me (visually and
> in Google translation).
>
> (I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational context.)
>

You'll find them only in educational contexts as they are prohibited
by law in any other context in Germany and this special law is
enforced on dewp by the administration (which means, the use of such
pictures in non-educational context is banned and leads to user
blocks, and in some cases to police investigation).

Th.

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


thomas.dalton at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 12:57 PM

Post #21 of 198 (2183 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 20:50, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
>> <church.of.emacs.ml [at] googlemail> wrote:
>
>>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>>> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
>>> liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
>>> and of course Muhammed. So it's clear that there is simply no or a very
>>> small necessity for a filter; thus the rejection.
>
>> What about Swastikas?
>
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika looks good to me (visually and
> in Google translation).
>
> (I realise you may have been asking more broadly than an educational context.)

I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
images of Muhammad. Even if that's not the case, there are all kinds
of other things people might want to filter out. Sex, violence and
Muhammad are just some of the most obvious examples, so they tend to
be the ones we talk about.

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


dgerard at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 1:12 PM

Post #22 of 198 (2183 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 20:57, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
> suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
> to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
> images of Muhammad. Even if that's not the case, there are all kinds
> of other things people might want to filter out. Sex, violence and
> Muhammad are just some of the most obvious examples, so they tend to
> be the ones we talk about.


Well, yes, quite plausibly (I'm not German so I can't say from
personal experience). That said, you can't go to an article called
[[Swastika]] and not expect to see swastikas, any more than you can go
to an article called [[Cock ring]] and not expect to see a cock ring.

The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
only of degree, not of kind.


- d.

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


thomas.dalton at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 1:16 PM

Post #23 of 198 (2181 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> Well, yes, quite plausibly (I'm not German so I can't say from
> personal experience). That said, you can't go to an article called
> [[Swastika]] and not expect to see swastikas, any more than you can go
> to an article called [[Cock ring]] and not expect to see a cock ring.
>
> The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
> disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
> only of degree, not of kind.

I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.

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


kim at bruning

Sep 4, 2011, 1:18 PM

Post #24 of 198 (2188 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> > Yes (maybe). It's not at all clear that this use case should not be
> > ignored to avoid the possibility of compromising the encyclopedia.
> >
> Some workplace filters don't allow for certain subjects to be searched. I
> work at a major museum institution, I cannot view subject matter about
> certain sex topics (and I'm the Wikipedian in Residence, so I'm on WP most
> of my day). (i.e. "sexual differences").

That could be inconvenient at times. My favorite example so far is
when a filter blocked me from looking up "The internet is for porn".

Which (fyi) is a song from an award-winning broadway musical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_internet_is_for_porn

(Just in case you were thinking strange thoughts)

A much worse case is when I'm trying to download software.
You can imagine that in a multi-megabyte download, there's bound
to be a sequence of bytes 83, 69, 88, 33 (ASCII for "SEX!") in there
somewhere. Not to mention things like strong language in the linux
kernal source code. http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/wordcount/

This means I get to either go home or (these days) use tethered G3 and
sneakernet to actually do my <censored> job. ;-)

> I don't know why people are wigging out so badly about the image filter. If
> people want to use it, great, and if you don't, DON'T. But perhaps I'm
> misunderstanding something about the idea. I voted for it, and it seems the
> people who dislike the idea are the only one's speaking out on the list.
>

* There's nothing wrong with the filter program itself
* The problem is with categorizing things to work with such a program.
* This is called prejudicial labelling
* AMA defines prejudicial labelling as "A censoring tool"
* This definition has existed for over half a century.

We also have huge discussions where it is explained in detail *why* and *how*
such categories can be used for censorship. We also have discussed how a
category system that starts out innocent and neutral can be subverted to
serve in a censorship role. No one has found solutions how to prevent that from
happening. AMA certainly hasn't been able to do so in the last 60 years. We
might be smarter than AMA, but it's a hard problem.

Sincerely,
Kim Bruning

I really wish people would read previous discussions.


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


rupert.thurner at gmail

Sep 4, 2011, 1:20 PM

Post #25 of 198 (2186 views)
Permalink
Re: Personal Image Filter results announced [In reply to]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 21:42, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
> <church.of.emacs.ml [at] googlemail> wrote:
>> On 09/04/2011 07:43 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>> Assuming that the .de community is similar to the wikimedia community at
>>> large […]
>>
>> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
>> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
>> liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
>> and of course Muhammed. So it's clear that there is simply no or a very
>> small necessity for a filter; thus the rejection.
>
> What about Swastikas?

swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

rupert

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

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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.