I refuse to believe you could read that novel and respond intelligently in 41 minutes.I'm still waiting for the cliff notes version.
^_^ -Jon On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 01:58, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Greg, for this brilliant and personal overview. Very helpful. > > A few thoughts: > > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Why might a super-abundance of explicit images be a problem? > > (1) They potentially bring the Wikimedia sites into ill repute (it's > > just a big porn site!) > > This can be addressed in part by increasing the quality standard for > our images. A well-ordered set of anatomy images, in standard > proscribed frame and format, from an established cross-section of > races or backgrounds : this would be excellent. It would also be a > useful model to follow for all sorts of anatomical images (you could > use the same models to get entire sets of images of the body). > > Likewise, a well-ordered set of images of jewelry and piercings, > perhaps organized in partnership with a large piercing/jewelry parlor > in a multiethnic community, would also be easy enough to set up -- and > would quickly replace the many lazily-shot and casually curated images > we have today. (note that I didn't specify genital jewelry and > piercings; though that would be part of the series). > > A gorgeous and professionally made encyclopedia of sexuality might not > be to some people's tastes, but wouldn't inspire them to say 'just a > big porn site!', just as the Museum of Sex has acquired a very > respectable following and media coverage in New York. That is > something we should aspire to. > > (And if some people want to debate whether we want to host such a > specialized sub-encyclopedia on Foundation servers, or on servers > belonging to the Dutch chapter, for fear of overly strict laws in the > US - that's fine. The point is, this is a topic worth covering > beautifully and comprehensively, like all important topics, and we > should not shortchange it.) > > > (2) They encourage the blocking of Wikimedia sites from schools and > libraries > > I think there are good solutions here, beginning with communicating > directly with schools and libraries and find solutions that work for > them. For instance, making sure that they have access to > schools-wikipedia.org and similar snapshot sites until they can find a > way to provide access to all of wikipedia. > > Working on these solutions may be a good way to recruit new teacher > editors, as well. > > > (3) Explicit photographs are a hot-bed of privacy issues and can even > > risk bumping into the law (underage models) > > This is the easiest one to address. Requiring proof of model > release, the way we require proof of copyright release, would be an > excellent start -- and doing this on general principle, not just in > cases where a face is recognizable: make sure you have the model's > permission. This is simply a philosophical question; we can afford to > be picky and only host images that we are sure the model was > comfortable with publishing. > > > SJ > > > > > > "The lay of the land" > > > > > > Commons has a hard rule that for images to be in scope they must > > potentially serve an educational purpose. The rule is followed pretty > > strictly, but the definition of educational purpose is taken very > > broadly. In particular the commons community expects the public to > > also use commons as a form of "visual education", so having a great > > big bucket of distinct pictures of the same subject generally furthers > > the educational mission. > > > > There are two major factors complicating every policy decision on > commons: > > > > Commons is also a service project. When commons policy changes over > > 700 wikis feel the results. Often, language barriers inhibit effective > > communication with these customers. Some Wikimedia projects rely on > > commons exclusively for their images, so a prohibition on commons > > means (for example) a prohibition on Es wiki, even though most > > Eswikipedians are not active in the commons community. This > > relationship works because of trust which the commons community has > > built over the years. Part of that trust is that commons avoids making > > major changes with great haste and works with projects to fix issues > > when hasty acts do cause issues. > > > > Commons itself is highly multi-cultural. While commons does have a > > strong organizing principle (which is part of why it has been a > > fantastic success on its own terms where all other non-wikipedia WMF > > projects are at best weakly successful), that principle is strongly > > inclusive and mostly directs us to collect and curate while only > > excluding on legal grounds and a few common areas of basic human > > decency— it's harder to create any kind of cross cultural agreement on > > matters of taste. Avoiding issues of taste also makes us more > > reliable as an image source for customer projects. > > > > > > I think that a near majority of commons users think that we could do > > with some reductions in the quantity of redundant / low quality human > > sexuality content, due to having the same experience I started this > > message with. Of that group I think there is roughly an even split > > between people who believe the existing "educational purposes" policy > > is sufficient and people who think we could probably strengthen the > > policy somehow. > > > > There are also people who are honestly offended that some people are > > offended by human sexuality content— and some of them view efforts to > > curtail this content to be a threat to their own cultural values. If > > this isn't your culture, please take a moment to ponder it. If your > > personal culture believes in the open expression of sexuality an > > effort to remove "redundant / low quality" sexuality images while we > > not removing low quality pictures of clay pots, for example, is > > effectively an attack on your beliefs. These people would tell you: If > > you don't like it, don't look. _Understanding_ differences in opinion > > is part of the commons way, so even if you do not embrace this view > > you should at least stop to understand that it is not without merit. > > In any case, while sometimes vocal, people from this end of the > > spectrum don't appear to be all that much of the community. > > > > Of course, there are a few trolls here and there from time to time, > > but I don't think anyone really pays them much attention. There are > > lots of horny twenty somethings, but while it might bias the > > discussions towards permissiveness I don't think that it really has a > > big effect beyond the basic youthful liberalism which exists > > everywhere in our projects. > > > > There are also a couple of occasional agitators calling for things > > like a complete removal of sexuality content. Most of them fail to > > sound reasonable at all— demanding the removal of old works of art, > > basic anatomy photos... I think these complaints are mostly ignored. > > > > ... and a majority of people who either don't care or don't speak the > > languages the discussions are held in. > > > > "The goal" > > > > Considering the landscape, how do we solve the problems? > > > > Lets take a category of Penis images as an example. Load it up. > > Hundreds of penii. Pretty shocking. We can obviously cut back on this, > > right? How many penis images do we really need to meet the mission of > > the Wikipedias? (and then we need to consider the more expansive > > mission of commons in educating through media). > > > > Well, we ought to have circumcised, and uncircumcised. Flaccid and > > erect. An example of each kind of penis jewellery that has a WP > > article in some language. An example of every disease with > > penis-visible symptoms.... We're easily at 50-100 images already. > > People seem to think we also need many of the prior samples from > > multiple races to demonstrate the (lack of) differences. Add a little > > further inflation because editorial preferences on the Wikipedias will > > differ. > > > > So on the basis of meeting the Wikipedia's need alone, we're up to > > hundreds of pictures of penises. Now— commons' hundreds are not so > > diverse, we need fewer of some kinds and more of others, but in terms > > of the sheer count even before considering commons' own educational > > remit we still need a bunch. > > > > Where does this place us in terms of our problem statements? Well, > > With hundreds of pictures in the category it will be easy to cast > > commons as a penis palace. Thus, in terms of this class of images— > > problem (1) is probably unsolvable given our educational mission. If > > someone wants to point to the category and inspire the "Oh my god; > > it's full of cocks" response, they can... > > > > Virtually all libraries and schools that block internet sites employ > > categorical blocking software. They block broad categories like > > "Drugs, weapons, nudity, pornography, and proxy evasion". All of the > > Wikimedia projects could be blocked under all of these categories. > > Even a highly educational penis is still nudity— these filtering > > services are often criticized for blocking information on breast > > exams, for example. Because of the way the blocking happens reducing > > the number of penis images to the educational minimum would not likely > > reduce the incidence of blocking in any material way. So problem (2) > > seems to be unsolvable given our educational mission. > > > > I think we could make some improvement with problem (3). The privacy > > issues can also be addressed by using images without visible faces > > (which are often perceived to be more prurient, unfortunately). > > > > Ironically— the commercial pornography industry has been pretty happy > > to supply us with images which we are quite sure are legal and without > > privacy problems. But accepting these images heightens the perception > > that commons is promoting pornography rather than merely hosting > > educational resources. > > > > The prevalence of commercial sex images reflects the result of prior > > attempts to avoid child images and images created without the model's > > consent, though I don't think the consequence was expected. As a > > checkuser (with OTRS access) I can't say that I've seen evidence of > > abuse by commercial porn providers: Wikimedians are going to them. > > > > Although, _obviously_ problematic images are regularly and easily > > deleted without dispute. I've nuked a few from orbit and never hit > > the slightest bit of resistance. Though the community also has no > > reason to distrust my claims that an image is inappropriate, other > > people may get different results. > > > > Now how would we draft such a policy to further improve things? > > > > We need a policy which can be easily understood by many languages and > > cultures, which improves the situation but doesn't provide a basis for > > other censorship (e.g. some would have us remove all likenesses of > > Muhammad, images of women without veils, historical offensive > > political cartoons and symbols, etc). Actually be enforceable in the > > face of incomplete information from uploaders, without the risk of too > > much 'taste' and the resulting instability for customers. I'm at a > > loss. I have no suggestion beyond preferring illustrations rather than > > photos (which we already do), and accepting images contributions > > commercial sources, which is bad for our image. This seems really > > hard. > > > > > > Now pull in the part of the landscape that I didn't mention: Commons > > has almost five million images. The deletion spree which was operated > > completely without regard to the community process was described as an > > "almost complete cleanup" removed fewer than 500 images— or about > > 0.008% of the collection. > > > > At this point in my reasoning I inevitably conclude (1) The problem > > was far less bad than my initial impression. (2) At _best_ we can't > > solve much of the problem without accepting aggressive censorship of > > our coverage, both text and images (3) The part we could improve is > > pretty hard to improve. (4) There are more important things to work > > on. > > > > None of this really depends on any difficulty coming from governance. > > Even as supreme ruler for a day I couldn't solve this one > > satisfactorily. > > > > The initial surprise is enough that I've gone through this cycle > > several times now, but I keep reaching the same conclusion. I expect > > the same is true for many other contributors. > > > > ... and outside of some agitation from people pushing for the > > unachievable like "school safeness", and some popular troll-nest > > message boards, troll-nest 'news' agencies, and a somewhat trollish > > ex-nupedian, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that these 0.008% are > > suddenly in need of a major effort. I can promise you that a far > > greater proportion of our works are misleadingly labelled, outright > > spam, egregious copyright violations, potentially carrying hidden > > malware, etc. > > > > > > Feedback from the board that such an effort is desired from the board > > would certainly help shift the priorities— it would also give us some > > excusability for disruption to our customer projects. > > > > But this isn't what we got at all. The clear _consensus_ among the > > commons community and many of our customers is that what we what we > > got was disruptive, under-informed, and damaging to our internal > > governance. We now faction lines have been drawn between the couple > > of commons users aligned with Jimmy and the (literally) hundreds of > > users opposed the methodology used here and the specifics of some of > > the deletions. There is no active discussion about making an > > improvement, our customers are discussing creating chapter operated > > forks of commons free from this kind of disruptive intervention which > > is perceived by many to be overt values based censorship. Many other > > messages have expressed the complaints in greater detail. > > > > > > I hope this has provided some useful background and that it will > > foster improved communication on the subject. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > common...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ "This email should not be used to sue me" -- Bawolff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
