Image filter

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image filter

Andrew Gray-3
On 9 March 2012 14:17, Thomas Morton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We also work quite well as a filter of information. And it is improving
> this that we are currently discussing.
>
> Improving the filtering of information is a critical facet of making it
> accessible to as many people as possible. If a Muslim refuses to go to
> Wikipedia because of our image policy - which we (realistically) impose on
> him - then we have failed in our core objective.

I had sworn off commenting on these discussions some time back, but I
want to chime in to support this point - the way in which our
community handles controversial content is itself a viewpoint
position, and potentially a flawed one.

Opposing changes to the way we handle and display this content isn't
as simple as defending "neutrality"; it's arguing for retaining the
status quo, and thus enforcing our communities' current systemic
biases and perspectives on what is acceptable, what is normal, what is
appropriate.

Those perspectives may be "better" than the alternatives - sometimes I
think so, sometimes I don't - but by not doing anything, we're in real
danger of privileging the editing community's belief that people
should be exposed to things over a reader's desire not to be exposed
to them.

The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
any time someone tries to discuss the problem.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image filter

David Gerard-2
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
> to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
> any time someone tries to discuss the problem.


There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography

The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay
pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image filter

Andrew Gray-3
On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
>> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
>> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
>> to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
>> any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
>
> There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
>
> The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay
> pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.

Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some
length) telling them they're wrong.

There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind
them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for
example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow
nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different
material...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image filter

Tobias Oelgarte
Am 12.03.2012 23:14, schrieb Andrew Gray:

> On 11 March 2012 00:23, David Gerard<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
>>> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
>>> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
>>> to think seriously about these issues without yelling "censorship!"
>>> any time someone tries to discuss the problem.
>> There are theoretical objections, and then there are the actual objectors:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Gay_pornography
>>
>> The objector here earnestly and repeatedly compares the words "gay
>> pornographic" in *text* on the page to images of child pornography.
> Well, yes, and everyone else involved in that discussion is (at some
> length) telling them they're wrong.
>
> There are *other* actual objections, and ones with some sense behind
> them; the unexpected Commons search results discussed ad nauseam, for
> example. I don't think one quixotic and mistaken complaint somehow
> nullifies any other objection people can make about entirely different
> material...
>
At the same time we have a huge amount of search terms that give the
expected results, while we only see the examples where it goes wrong. I
remember that Andreas picked "drawing style" as an example.[1] Was this
just an coincidence? No it wasn't. He actually knew about an image that
I uploaded some time ago, he attacked it later on and now used it's file
description to construct an example.[2] That's how this examples are
created.

Additionally I proposed a solution for the search a while ago, that
would avoid any problems from both sides entirely.[3] If we, the board
or the foundation would put some heart into it, then we would have one
less problem, even so I don't see it as problem as it currently is. But
i would also benefit from this kind of improved search. (no tagging, no
rating, no extra work for users, still better)

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Buttons_to_switch_images_off_and_on
[2]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
[3]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Image filter

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Thomas Morton
On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:

> On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
>>
>>> Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
>>> perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
>>>
>>>
>>>   "Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily
>> defined. In many otherwise non-controversial articles we have pictures that
>> do not further the contents of the articles.  They may have a loose
>> connection with the article's topic, but they don't add any information to
>> the topic. They do, however, break up solid blocks of text, and make it
>> more readable.
>>
>>
> But isn't that an equally subjective matter; I know several editors who
> consider such images (to break up prose) a hindrance and they remove them
> with vigour.
>
> To me you're just making an argument for a "Images used in a decorative
> capacity" category, so those people can read undisturbed :)
>
>
It*is* equally subjective. I can understand where those editors with a
passion for removing decorative images are coming from, but they suffer
from an excess of zeal.  But then too there is a point (which I can't
define) where the decorative images can become excessive. Editorial
judgement involves finding balances in this as well as in matters of
sexually explicit pictures.

We get into trouble when we allow rules or software be the substitute
for editorial judgement. However the rules and software are written,
there will always be valid exceptions.

I think that where this whole debate got off the rails was with a one
rule fits all resolution by the Board.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12