On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Risker, > > > > The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the > > word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in > > [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex". > > That is not a category based filter. If you believe it was a category > > based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software > > in order to verify your assertion. > > > > > I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on > which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are > not open systems. > > It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are > legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no > difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the > categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same. > > Risker > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
As long as we're brainstorming, I added this to the page on Meta. "...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed. The difference is, 1) this system already works "article reviewer", 2) does not rely on the existing categorization system and would create 3) a new process that won't be fool-proof but probably harder to exploit for vandals. The technical implementation of this would probably be easier too, and the community can decide on the offensive-ness on its own through a request for review or something similar, in case of contentious decisions. Whether other projects can have this should of course remain their decision, they can choose to completely opt-out of this flag similar to "article reviewer", and for that very reason, enwp community should vote on this itself- not random readers but a straight forward vote on wiki." It's an alternative, albeit a slower process to mark offensive images, without relying on the current categorization system. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#A_new_group_right.2Fflag_to_review_images Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
