On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, the issue is not dead.
That's correct; nobody from WMF has said otherwise. What's dead is the idea of a category-based image filter, not the idea of giving additional options to readers to reversibly collapse images they may find offensive, shocking, or inappropriate in the context in which they're viewing them (e.g. at work). However, Sue has made it clear that she wants the WMF staff to work with the community to find a solution that doesn't mean strong opposition. Her presentation on the issue in Hannover begins with this slide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APresentation_Gardner_Hannover.pdf&page=15 My personal view is that such a solution will need to take into account that actual current editorial practices and perceptions in our projects vary a great deal, as did the image filter poll results by language. As I pointed out before, projects like Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia are currently collapsing content that's not even on the radar in most of these discussions (e.g. the 1866 painting L'Origine du monde in Hebrew Wikipedia), while German Wikipedia put the vulva photograph on its main page. A solution that pretends that this continuum of practice can be covered with a single approach, one which doesn't give a lot of flexibility to readers and editors, is IMO not a solution at all. I'm not convinced that the "collapse image one-by-one" approach to develop a filter list is very valuable in and of itself due to lack of immediate practical impact and likely limited usability. The idea of making it easy to build, import and share such lists of images or image-categories would move the process of categorization into a market economy of sorts where individual or organizational demand regulates supply of available filters. This could lead to all kinds of groups advertising their own filter-lists, e.g. Scientology, Focus on the Family, etc. From there, it would be relatively small step for such a group to take its filter list and coerce users to only access Wikipedia with the filter irreversibly in place. While third parties are already able to coerce their users to not see certain content, creating an official framework for doing so IMO puts us dangerously close to censors: it may lead to creation of regimes of censorship that did not previously exist, and may be used to exercise pressure on WMF to change its default view settings in certain geographies since all the required functionality would already be readily available. My personal view on this issue has always been that one of the most useful things we could do for readers is to make NPOV, well-vetted and thorough advice too users on how to manage and personalize their net access available to them. Wikipedia is only one site on the web, and whatever we do is not going to extend to the rest of the user's experience anyway. There are companies that specialize in filtering the Net; we could point people to those providers and give advice on how to install specific applications, summarizing criticism and praise they have received. On the other hand, such advice would be pretty removed from the experience of the reader, and l do think there are additional reasonable things we could do. So I'm supportive of approaches which give an editing community additional flexibility in warning their readers of content they may find objectionable, and give readers the ability to hide (in the general or specific case) such content. As I said previously, this wouldn't create a new regime of filter lists or categories, merely a broad community-defined standard by which exclusion of some content may be desirable, which could vary by language as it does today. Kim, I just read the conversation on your talk page. In general, I agree that more research into both the current practices of our editing communities as well as reader expectations and needs would be valuable. Right now we have some anecdotal data points from the projects, Robert's original research which mostly focuses on establishing definitions and principles, and the image filter poll results. I think the latter are useful data if carefully analyzed, but they do mingle low-activity users who are chiefly readers with the core editing community in ways that don't give us tremendously clear information by group. The poll also referred to a filtering concept that's now been rejected. At the same time, I do think that we shouldn't hesitate to build some cheap prototypes to make abstract ideas more understandable. I think to advance our understanding, as well as the state of the conversation, through both additional pointed research, as well as discussion of some interactive prototypes, without spending tremendous amounts of time and money on either, feels like a response that's commensurate to the scale and importance of the issue. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
