A "dead human bodies" category that excludes mummies "because we're not idiots" is, by definition, not neutral.
2011/9/19 Stephen Bain <stephen.b...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Tobias Oelgarte > <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > We discussed this already and came to the conclusion, that you would > > need hundreds of these categories to filter out most of the > > "objectionable content". > > And once again, the labelling doesn't need to be perfect (nothing on a > wiki is) if an option to hide all images by default is implemented > (which at present there seems to be broad support for, from most > quarters). > > The accuracy of filtering can then be disclaimed, with a > recommendation that people can hide all images if they want a > guarantee. Coarse-grained labelling is then good enough, and we can > even adopt the position that where there is no consensus, the image > will not be filtered. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'd estimate the chances as pretty high that we're going to get a > > thorough exploration of every possible axis that's measured for a > > filter. > > > > So you're thinking to apply this only to photos, then? > > No. And of course artworks are being used as examples because they're > going to present the corner cases. But all of these discussions seem > to be proceeding on the basis that there are nothing but corner cases, > when really (I would imagine) pretty much everything that will be > filtered will be either: > * actual images of human genitals [1], > * actual images of dead human bodies, or > * imagery subject to religious restriction. > Almost all will be in the first two categories, and most of those in > the first one, and will primarily be photographs. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:29 AM, Fae <f...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > > > > Er, Egyptian mummies are real bodies that would need real photographs. > > > > For a wealth of horrific examples that need to be censored, please > > enjoy viewing http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mummies > > On the basis that the community, by and large, is not comprised wholly > of idiots, I'm sure it will be capable of holding a sensible > discussion as to whether images of mummies (not to forget bog bodies > and Pompeii castings, as further examples) would be in or out of such > a category. > > And again, perfection is not necessary. If someone has "dead bodies" > filtered and sees the filtered image placeholder with the caption > "this is an Egyptian mummy", they can elect to show that particular > image, or decide that they would like to turn off the filter. Or if > such a "dead bodies" filter is described as not including Egyptian > mummies, someone could decide to hide all images by default. This > doesn't have to be difficult. > > -- > [1] Which, naturally, includes actual images of people undertaking all > sorts of activities involving human genitals. > > -- > Stephen Bain > stephen.b...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
