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


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 11:13 PM

Post #51 of 69 (1915 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 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.
>

Kicking ti into the long grass, or at least over the electoral cycle.
And it sounds like twisting the economic knife over funding structure.

Do not forget though that though the economic obstacles against
forking Wikimedia are (on paper) prohibitive, the legal ones that
guarantee forkability are iron-cast. And if you lose the community,
you are just guardians of an editable, but un-edited encyclopedic
venture. A Nupedia on wheels. I want the Wikimedia to succeed.
If there is anyone who doubts that, please raise their hand. But
I know it cannot succeed by going back on its own original ideals.

> 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.

I love corporate speak. "has been requested" Er, Who requsted what?
And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a
need for clarification.!!!!

> 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.

Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.

> 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!

Very true.

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

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


putevod at mccme

Mar 7, 2012, 11:37 PM

Post #52 of 69 (1913 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

> Andreas: I think
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html
is
> one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these
examples
> to
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems> now.
>
> MZMcBride
>

I just suggested to rename the file
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=68036007&oldid=68034622].
Please discuss there.

Cheers
Yaroslav

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


dgerard at gmail

Mar 7, 2012, 11:40 PM

Post #53 of 69 (1918 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:

>> 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.

> I love corporate speak. "has been requested" Er, Who requsted what?
> And precisely by which means and avenues?! This screams for a
> need for clarification.!!!!


Passive voice is indeed problematic here. What would that sentence
look like in active voice?


- d.

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


de10011 at gmail

Mar 8, 2012, 2:20 AM

Post #54 of 69 (1911 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on
> French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a
> woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog.
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki
>
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv
>
> I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board
> members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view:
> Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and
> unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response
> to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"?


Hi Andrea

I feel you conflate a bunch of moral and technical issues when you raise
your points about this issue. I agree with Tobias on some of his
observations about your posts.

At the risk of MZ pointing out that I am repeating someone, I have felt
that the category based search system and infrastructure for images is
sorely broken. I don't think a lot of list members would disagree on that
point, it needs some technical development, maybe a move to a tag-based
system while we figure out a better system.

The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community
members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this,
who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
cases of content dispute.

Now, when dealing with a particular community, the subject of relativity
comes in. What you deem offensive might not be to others. There is no
universal controversial content - there is graphic content, sexual content,
disturbing content, but it is just content, the effect it has on the viewer
is always relative. There are people who might deem any image of a woman
not covered in a veil as offensive, there are a lot of people who have no
problem at the sight of nudity, whether its breast or someone's bottom, it
won't raise any eyebrows. Someone commented about graphic, medical images,
how they can do without having them in articles, they also added that they
should be there in case they do want to look. There is no universal, one
filter fits-all approach as several others have pointed out.

The subject of your previous post comes from this[1]. According to Imdb,
appears to be a 5 minute french adult short from 1920. As Thomas pointed
out, its content is probably illegal and possibly carries a prison term.
While neither of us know about french laws on the subject, it is suffice to
say it is a content issue and should definitely be marked and brought to
the attention of a French admin to verify. There is no filter that can
automatically detect if an uploaded images has nudity, graphic or even
illegal content, it can only be viewed by someone, tagged and deleted, as I
see it, that is the system we've always had, one that Youtube and others
you mention also apply. If you can put aside the issue of graphic depiction
and morality, do you think its existence needs to be acknowledged or wiped
from the history of the world?

My personal opinion on this subject aside, I do think there is a lot of
development needed to just fix the image search system we have. As I said
above, there is no universal controversial content. it is all content, the
effect is has on a viewer is always relative.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419683/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


saintonge at telus

Mar 8, 2012, 3:01 AM

Post #55 of 69 (1913 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard<dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
>> assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
>> sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
>> asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
>> insufficient fame.
> We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is
> tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are
> majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream.

What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny
of the majority.
> We are progressive, but that is another matter.
>
> All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader.

Which reader?

Does our hypothetical reader not have any responsibility in the way he
interprets what he reads or says?

Ray

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


morton.thomas at googlemail

Mar 8, 2012, 3:23 AM

Post #56 of 69 (1900 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:

> On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard<dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
>>> assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
>>> sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
>>> asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
>>> insufficient fame.
>>>
>> We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is
>> tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are
>> majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream.
>>
>
> What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny
> of the majority.


Hmm, so the argument here is to enforce the view of a minority on a
majority?

As I pointed out last time; if anything, that is a worse goal...

Providing global access is a far far cry from enforcing a viewpoint (thank
goodness), which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating here.


>
> We are progressive, but that is another matter.
>>
>> All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader.
>>
>
> Which reader?
>

The users of the website.

You know; our main focus! :)


>
> Does our hypothetical reader not have any responsibility in the way he
> interprets what he reads or says?
>
>
Yes. Which is my point entirely.

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


andreengels at gmail

Mar 8, 2012, 5:26 AM

Post #57 of 69 (1902 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 [at] comcast> wrote:

> Phoebe, does this sound familiar? "We want you to imagine a world in which
> every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That
> is our commitment". "We're in it for the long haul". (From: "Ten things you
> may not know about Wikipedia")
>
> Should this read, "...the sum of all knowledge (except any controversial
> content that may upset some people."

No. Re-read what it says there. _Can_, not _must_. We are there to
freely provide knowledge _to those who want that knowledge_. If
someone does not want some knowledge, we are not there to force them
to read and watch it nevertheless.



--
André Engels, andreengels [at] gmail

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


nawrich at gmail

Mar 8, 2012, 6:44 AM

Post #58 of 69 (1907 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro [at] gmail>wrote:

>
>
> Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
> the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
> proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.
>

"We as a community" don't agree on very much, and the image filter and
related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could
just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would
think, but I'd appreciate it.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cimonavaro at gmail

Mar 8, 2012, 8:18 PM

Post #59 of 69 (1905 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro [at] gmail>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
>> the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
>> proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.
>>
>
> "We as a community" don't agree on very much, and the image filter and
> related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you could
> just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community would
> think, but I'd appreciate it.

This is just so wrong. There neve was ideas on this "from all sides". What
there was to begin with, were very ham-handed attemps to try on maklng
wikipedia more "family friendly". Once those were soundly spanked, as they
needed to be; we got more sophisticated approaches that amounted to the
same. And again the community -- not me -- rose up as one man and said
a thorough *NO!!!* to the whole thing. Please don't try to personalize something
where the minority is trying to lead the majority astray...


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

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


nawrich at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 5:52 AM

Post #60 of 69 (1886 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail
> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> > <cimonavaro [at] gmail>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Whew. We as a community figured that it would be insuperable from
> >> the get go, about 9 years ago. And Jimbo duely banned the first
> >> proposers. Glat to know the board is up to date, only 9 years late.
> >>
> >
> > "We as a community" don't agree on very much, and the image filter and
> > related issues certainly have a lot of people on all sides. So if you
> could
> > just speak for yourself, I don't know what the rest of the community
> would
> > think, but I'd appreciate it.
>
> This is just so wrong. There neve was ideas on this "from all sides". What
> there was to begin with, were very ham-handed attemps to try on maklng
> wikipedia more "family friendly". Once those were soundly spanked, as they
> needed to be; we got more sophisticated approaches that amounted to the
> same. And again the community -- not me -- rose up as one man and said
> a thorough *NO!!!* to the whole thing. Please don't try to personalize
> something
> where the minority is trying to lead the majority astray...
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>

So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you,
and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community?
I see.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgerard at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 6:31 AM

Post #61 of 69 (1904 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you,
> and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community?
> I see.


I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff
tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get
up and leave.


- d.

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


nawrich at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 7:11 AM

Post #62 of 69 (1904 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with
> you,
> > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire
> community?
> > I see.
>
>
> I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff
> tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get
> up and leave.
>
>
> - d.
>

I'm not sure where you saw that mentioned or how it's relevant to my
exchange with Cimon. His phrase "we the community" is an example of an
unfortunate problem in discussions about the Wikimedia community and
movement; people tend to generalize their own views to the majority, to
assume for themselves the weight of consensus, and then write as though
they speak on behalf of the entire community when they clearly do not. It's
simply common courtesy not to speak on behalf of others unless they have
elected you to do so, and I wish more Wikimedians observed that courtesy.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


coldchrist at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 7:15 AM

Post #63 of 69 (1899 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> It's
> simply common courtesy not to speak on behalf of others unless they have
> elected you to do so, and I wish more Wikimedians observed that courtesy.
>

I agree with this. Cimon's commented that the community responded "as one
man"; I have not expressed an opinion either way on the image filter
debate, and nor, I suspect, have the majority of the (highly productive)
editors I interact with on en-wiki.

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


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 9:48 AM

Post #64 of 69 (1911 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with
> you,
> > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire
> community?
> > I see.
>
>
> I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff
> tried to push the issue, a large chunk of de:wp threatened to just get
> up and leave.



One thing I've never understood is why the Board wants to allow the German
Wikipedia community to dictate what will be done in Commons, English
Wikipedia, and dozens of other projects that the German community has no
stake in.

If the German Wikipedia does not want the image filter, then let them opt
out. They genuinely need it less than most other projects – they serve a
culturally homogeneous language region whose standards are very
progressive, and they are generally more judicious in the way they use
explicit content.

But it is not fair to say that other projects can't have the image filter,
just because the Germans don't want it, or need it.

German Wikipedia has Pending Changes, English Wikipedia doesn't. Did we
tell the Germans that because English Wikipedia gave Pending Changes a
thumbs-down, it was verboten for the Germans to have it?

It's not the German community's place to dictate global WMF policy.

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


saintonge at telus

Mar 9, 2012, 5:50 PM

Post #65 of 69 (1875 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 03/08/12 3:23 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintonge<saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
>> On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard<dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
>>>> assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
>>>> sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
>>>> asserting the claim for the *opposite* reason Andreas gives, i.e.
>>>> insufficient fame.
>>> We're a mainstream resource, with links to academia. Whilst it is
>>> tempting to view the movement as radical and fundamental we are
>>> majority ruled, and the majority is mainstream.
>> What follows from this is the need for mechanisms that avoid the tyranny
>> of the majority.
> Hmm, so the argument here is to enforce the view of a minority on a
> majority?

Enforcing the view of the minority is not in logic the alternative to
the tyranny of the majority. It is the enforcing that is wrong in both
instances.

> As I pointed out last time; if anything, that is a worse goal...
>
> Providing global access is a far far cry from enforcing a viewpoint (thank
> goodness), which is what a lot of people seem to be advocating here.

So we agree that a lot of people here are advocating to provide global
access.
>> We are progressive, but that is another matter.
>>> All of which is irrelevant in considering the desire of the reader.
>> Which reader?
> The users of the website.
>
> You know; our main focus! :)
>
Hmmm! I was responding to "desire of the reader" in the singular. Your
"users" is clearly in the plural, Now that I know that you meant users
as a monolith, I can safely consider my question answered.;-)

Ray

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


saintonge at telus

Mar 9, 2012, 6:16 PM

Post #66 of 69 (1878 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community
> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this,
> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
> cases of content dispute.
>
>
This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of
staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it
assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a
properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it
must act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel
offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong
bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people
need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of
knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a
tryer of the facts.

Ray

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


jayen466 at gmail

Mar 9, 2012, 9:39 PM

Post #67 of 69 (1868 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:

> On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
>> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
>> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
>> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
>> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
>> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of
>> community
>> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive
>> this,
>> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
>> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
>> cases of content dispute.
>>
>>
>> This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of
> staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it
> assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
> question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a
> properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must
> act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by
> some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may
> or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed
> of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management
> will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts.



Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always
burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go
away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial
judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project
content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would
have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now
and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as
*comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this
last year, is ludicrous.

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


saintonge at telus

Mar 13, 2012, 12:23 AM

Post #68 of 69 (1859 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>>
>>> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
>>> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
>>> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
>>> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
>>> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
>>> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of
>>> community
>>> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive
>>> this,
>>> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
>>> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
>>> cases of content dispute.
>>>
>>>
>>> This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of
>> staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it
>> assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
>> question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a
>> properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must
>> act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by
>> some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which may
>> or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be informed
>> of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that management
>> will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts.
> Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always
> burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go
> away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial
> judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project
> content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would
> have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around now
> and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as
> *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this
> last year, is ludicrous.
>
It's not at all question of burying one's head in the sand. It's a
question of the communities solving their own problems. Serious
injustices are a common occurrence in the communities, but a community
is diminished when it has to run to mother-WMF's apron strings to solve
its problems. Some communities will implement filters, others not;
that's fine. Eventually, each community will find its own balanced solution.

Ray

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


gerard.meijssen at gmail

Mar 14, 2012, 3:34 PM

Post #69 of 69 (1856 views)
Permalink
Re: Controversial content software status [In reply to]

Hoi,
Commons as a project provides a service to any and all projects. It does
have its own community but as Commons is a shared resource it is similar
but not the same in its autonomy. This should be obvious .
Thanks,
Gerard

On 13 March 2012 08:23, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:

> On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge [at] telus>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>>>
>>> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
>>>> executives or board members should make a statement about that video.
>>>> It's
>>>> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
>>>> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
>>>> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and
>>>> unreasonable.
>>>> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of
>>>> community
>>>> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive
>>>> this,
>>>> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
>>>> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
>>>> cases of content dispute.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of
>>>>
>>> staff. The status of an ISP implies blindness to content. The more it
>>> assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
>>> question. It does not know about these contents until it receives a
>>> properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must
>>> act according to law. Third parties who just happen to feel offended by
>>> some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which
>>> may
>>> or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be
>>> informed
>>> of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that
>>> management
>>> will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts.
>>>
>> Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always
>> burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go
>> away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial
>> judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project
>> content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would
>> have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around
>> now
>> and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as
>> *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this
>> last year, is ludicrous.
>>
>> It's not at all question of burying one's head in the sand. It's a
> question of the communities solving their own problems. Serious injustices
> are a common occurrence in the communities, but a community is diminished
> when it has to run to mother-WMF's apron strings to solve its problems.
> Some communities will implement filters, others not; that's fine.
> Eventually, each community will find its own balanced solution.
>
> Ray
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists**org <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-l<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

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.