Possible solution for image filter

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

Possible solution for image filter

Milos Rancic-2
I am serious now, please read below as a serious proposal.

I was talking today with a friend about the image filter, and we came
to the possible solution. Of course, if those who are in favor of
censorship have honest intentions to allow to particular people to
access Wikipedia articles despite the problems which they have on
workplace or in country. If they don't have honest intentions, this is
waste of time, but I could say that I tried.

* Create en.safe.wikipedia.org (ar.safe.wikiversity.org and so on).
Those sites would have censored images and/or image filter
implemented. The sites would be a kind of proxies for equivalent
Wikimedia projects without "safe" in the middle. People who access to
those sites would have the same privileges as people who accessed to
the sites without "safe" in the domain name. Thus, everybody who wants
to have "family friendly Wikipedia" would have it on separate site;
everybody who wants to keep Wikipedia free would have it free.

* Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for
censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself,
but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image
names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name
"Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg" would be
"fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. The
image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name
"thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg";
it would be translated as "thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg"
on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing
system; some other algorithm could be deployed.)

* Link from the real image name and its hash would be just inside of
the Wikimedia system. It would be easy to find relation image=>hash;
but it would be very hard to find relation into other direction. Thus,
no entity out of Wikimedia would be able to build its censorship
repository in relation to Commons; they would be able to do that just
in relation to safe.wikimedia.org, which is already censored.

Besides the technical benefits, just those interested in censoring
images would have to work on it. Commons community would be spared of
that job. The only reason why such idea would be rejected by those who
are in favor of censorship would be their wet dreams to use Commons
community to censor images for themselves. If they want to censor
images, they should find people interested in doing that; they
shouldn't force one community to do it.

Drawbacks are similar to any abuse of censorship: companies, states
etc. which want to use that system for their own goals would be able
to do that by blocking everything which doesn't have "safe" infix.
But, as said, that's drawback of *any* censorship mechanism. Those who
access through the "safe" wrapper would have to write image names in
their hash format; but that's small price for "family friendliness", I
suppose.

Thoughts?

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Fajro
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thoughts?
>

I am against anything that validates the image filter.

I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
> I am against anything that validates the image filter.
>
> I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.
>
> --
> Fajro
>

+1


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

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Béria Lima
+1
_____
*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 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >
> > I am against anything that validates the image filter.
> >
> > I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the foundation.
> >
> > --
> > Fajro
> >
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Kim Bruning
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 01:19:48PM +0100, B?ria Lima wrote:
> +1
> On 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>wrote:
> > +1

Please, enough with the plussing!

This isn't G+ or /. . It is not
conducive to a consensus debate. :-/

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

--

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Fae-7
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
donor's money creating more?

I find it significant that the WMF has been unable to tell us how much
the exercise has cost so far apart from informal vague claims that it
was "tiny" or a couple of week's of someone's time. Projects using
charitable monies without budgets or accounts concern me greatly.

Fae

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Milos Rancic-2
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
> donor's money creating more?

Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
$1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Fae-7
On 23 September 2011 21:44, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
>> donor's money creating more?
>
> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
> corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
> $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.

What? My point had nothing to do with how much money is raised in the
US and there is no evidence apart from vague guesswork and assumptions
of who wants or would use such features. Rather than building
something that someone else already created, just give all the WMF
staff a huge bonus and a nice holiday instead, that would be much
better value for money.

Fae

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

David Levy-8
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Milos Rancic wrote:

> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
> corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
> $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.

Assuming that the "10%" figure is accurate, it has no bearing on the
feature's relative importance.

The same people/corporations might care more about numerous other
potential uses of the money (including different unimplemented
features), so your mathematical equation is invalid.

And I reject the premise that it's reasonable to base fund allocations
on popular opinion, with donors' views carrying extra (all?) weight.
Our mission is to disseminate information to the world, not to
"please" donors by catering to their preferences.

David Levy

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Milos Rancic-2
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
>> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
>> corporations want to have a kind of "family friendly" Wikipedia. Thus,
>> $1M/year is fair price for creating something which would please them.
>
> Assuming that the "10%" figure is accurate, it has no bearing on the
> feature's relative importance.
>
> The same people/corporations might care more about numerous other
> potential uses of the money (including different unimplemented
> features), so your mathematical equation is invalid.
>
> And I reject the premise that it's reasonable to base fund allocations
> on popular opinion, with donors' views carrying extra (all?) weight.
> Our mission is to disseminate information to the world, not to
> "please" donors by catering to their preferences.

In principle yes, but Board wants to please or "please" them.

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Tobias
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […]

Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS
blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy.
Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue.

> * Create safe.wikimedia.org. That would be the site for
> censoring/categorizing Commons images. It shouldn't be Commons itself,
> but its virtual fork. The fork would be consisted of hashes of image
> names with images themselves. Thus, image on Commons with the name
> "Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg" would be
> "fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg" on safe.wikimedia.org. The
> image preview located on upload.wikimedia.org with the name
> "thumb/8/80/Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg/800px-Torre_de_H%C3%A9rcules_-_DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg";
> it would be translated as "thumb/a1f3216e3344ea115bcac778937947f1.jpg"
> on safe.wikimedia.org. (Note: md5 is not likely to be the best hashing
> system; some other algorithm could be deployed.)
You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is
correct.
But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create
a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and
compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org.
Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the
files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but
arguably doable.

So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it
tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal)

-- Tobias


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

signature.asc (270 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Possible solution for image filter

Milos Rancic-2
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 17:18, church.of.emacs.ml
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […]
>
> Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS
> blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy.
> Using en.wikipedia.org/safe/ might resolve this issue.

Governments about which we are talking have methods to filter
particular images, not just domain names. But, I am fine with
.../safe/ as an option.

The other issue is that those who want to censor actually want to
block non-censored access. If so, let's them give that, but not on the
main site, so they could actually block en.wikipedia.org if they are
so insane. Bottom line is to protect more permissive cultures. If some
group really wants to have Wikipedia censored and it's so powerful to
push WMF Board to do something beyond reasonable involvement in
content issues, sexual education of their children is around the
bottom of my concerns.

> You're counting on there being too many hashes to go through, which is
> correct.
> But there are far fewer images to go through. You'd only have to create
> a list of all hashes of all 11 million or so images on Commons and
> compare that list to the list of unsafe images on safe.wikimedia.org.
> Which is not easy (if you have to download all the files, i.e. if the
> files themselves are used for hashing, not only the file name), but
> arguably doable.
>
> So, in effect, I don't think your proposal properly achieves what it
> tries to accomplish. (Sorry if I misunderstood your proposal)

I am not sure what do you object at the end. If you have better
technical idea or have an idea for better design, I am fine with it as
long as it doesn't affect the main site.

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

Re: Possible solution for image filter

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Béria Lima
+1

2011/9/21 Béria Lima <[hidden email]>

> +1
> _____
> *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 21 September 2011 08:11, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Fajro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I am against anything that validates the image filter.
> > >
> > > I still believe that the filter is against the mission of the
> foundation.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fajro
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l