On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 16:20, Kim Bruning <k...@bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:03:24PM +0200, Kim Bruning wrote: >> To wit, the proposed implementation of a category system for >> controversial content (required for many plausible implementations >> of this point) is exploitable by 3rd parties and/or can lead to >> in-community conflicts; depending on the exact chosen >> implementation. > > I would like to expand on this point. > > Apparently, the generation of such categorisation schemes has > previously been discussed by the American Library Association as far > back as 1951. > > A relevant paragraph from their conclusion (last amended Jan 19, 2005): > > "Labels on library materials may be viewpoint-neutral directional aids > that save the time of users, or they may be attempts to prejudice or > discourage users or restrict their access to materials. When labeling is > an attempt to prejudice attitudes, it is a censor's tool. The American > Library Association opposes labeling as a means of predisposing people's > attitudes toward library materials." [1] > > I assume that the board was previously not aware of the central role such a > categorisation scheme would take in any form of practicable image > filter.
Board was aware of that, as the first Robert Harris' report included very similar text from Canadian librarian association. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
