On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on > French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a > woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog. > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=devoirs&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=images&search=vacances&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Devoirs_de_vacances.ogv > > I respectfully request an official statement from the individual Board > members and the Executive Director on this situation. What is your view: > Should Wikimedia projects continue to offer users unfiltered and > unfilterable search hits, up to and including bestiality porn, in response > to innocuous search terms like "homework", "toothbrush" and "holiday"? Hi Andrea I feel you conflate a bunch of moral and technical issues when you raise your points about this issue. I agree with Tobias on some of his observations about your posts. At the risk of MZ pointing out that I am repeating someone, I have felt that the category based search system and infrastructure for images is sorely broken. I don't think a lot of list members would disagree on that point, it needs some technical development, maybe a move to a tag-based system while we figure out a better system. The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable. They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this, who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in cases of content dispute. Now, when dealing with a particular community, the subject of relativity comes in. What you deem offensive might not be to others. There is no universal controversial content - there is graphic content, sexual content, disturbing content, but it is just content, the effect it has on the viewer is always relative. There are people who might deem any image of a woman not covered in a veil as offensive, there are a lot of people who have no problem at the sight of nudity, whether its breast or someone's bottom, it won't raise any eyebrows. Someone commented about graphic, medical images, how they can do without having them in articles, they also added that they should be there in case they do want to look. There is no universal, one filter fits-all approach as several others have pointed out. The subject of your previous post comes from this[1]. According to Imdb, appears to be a 5 minute french adult short from 1920. As Thomas pointed out, its content is probably illegal and possibly carries a prison term. While neither of us know about french laws on the subject, it is suffice to say it is a content issue and should definitely be marked and brought to the attention of a French admin to verify. There is no filter that can automatically detect if an uploaded images has nudity, graphic or even illegal content, it can only be viewed by someone, tagged and deleted, as I see it, that is the system we've always had, one that Youtube and others you mention also apply. If you can put aside the issue of graphic depiction and morality, do you think its existence needs to be acknowledged or wiped from the history of the world? My personal opinion on this subject aside, I do think there is a lot of development needed to just fix the image search system we have. As I said above, there is no universal controversial content. it is all content, the effect is has on a viewer is always relative. Regards Theo [1]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419683/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
