Mailing List Archive

Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
> German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
> created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
> (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
> users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
> image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."

I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
if I want to use it?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs> wrote:

> I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
> they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
> if I want to use it?


Because a non-neutral filter would have to warp the project around
itself to work at all, as has been detailed at length here (and
everywhere). Thus, making the option available would carry significant
side-effects.

A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
(and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
>> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
>> Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
>> German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
>> created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
>> (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
>> users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
>> image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
> I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
> they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
> if I want to use it?
>
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.

If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
freedom, your judgment and not the judgment of others.

PS: If it wasn't at this place i would call your contribution trolling.
But feel free to read the arguments:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:27 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs> wrote:
> > I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> > opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> > a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> > even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
> > they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
> > if I want to use it?
>
> Because a non-neutral filter would have to warp the project around
> itself to work at all, as has been detailed at length here (and

I have to admit I haven't been following the entire discussion, but I
don't see why would that have to be the case. Plus, it is my
understanding that German Wikipedians are opposed to any implementation
of the filter, even if one could be made that wouldn't warp the project
around itself.

> A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
> (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).

And also be completely useless.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
> the use case this does not serve?

Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an
article.

It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution
because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> >> "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
> >> contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
> >> German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
> >> created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
> >> (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
> >> users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
> >> image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
> > I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> > opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> > a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> > even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
> > they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
> > if I want to use it?
> >
> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you

No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
want, which is a huge difference.

> this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be

If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off.
Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.

> easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
> you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.

Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for
a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some
websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled
content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply
use Wikipedia over https.

And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then
the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable
possibility.

> If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close

It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
or otherwise inadequate.

> your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your

If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the
content of the page.

> PS: If it wasn't at this place i would call your contribution trolling.

It certainly isn't very helpful to good discussion that now I know you
would call it trolling were we discussing it somewhere else.

> But feel free to read the arguments:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal

It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
an opt-in filter.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
Am 23.10.2011 08:30, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>> And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
>> the use case this does not serve?
> Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an
> article.
>
> It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution
> because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.
That isn't the case. It was claimed multiple times that reading
Wikipedia in front of bystanders can be a problem, since unwillingly
some "disturbing" image might show up. If that is the case, then you can
hide the images by default and enable them while you read. There were
also thoughts to not hide the images entirely, but to blur them. So you
will have glimpse on what it is about and could view it (remove the
bluring) by just hovering it.

This would satisfy many typical needs and it isn't a thought to make the
proposed feature useless. It is the result if you try to react to this
problem without the need for categories and that wikipedians would need
to play the censor for others.

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
>> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
> No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
> want, which is a huge difference.
>
> If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off.
> Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not.
That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet
his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite
the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know
that we already have a massive categorization delay on commons.
>> easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
>> you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
> Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for
> a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some
> websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled
> content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply
> use Wikipedia over https.
If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the
rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not
know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
> And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then
> the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable
> possibility.
Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is
possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't
provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
>> If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
> It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
> or otherwise inadequate.
Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it
above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user,
leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
>> your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
> If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the
> content of the page.
That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He
would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized
image would show up and you still would have the option to show images
in which you are interested.
>> But feel free to read the arguments:
>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal
> It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
> be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
> an opt-in filter.
>
None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as
default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to
distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach
would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the
feature.

The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
censorship tool.

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
I completely agree :)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs>wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> > "Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
> > contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> > Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
> > German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
> > created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
> > (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
> > users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
> > image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia."
>
> I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
> opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
> a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
> even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
> they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
> if I want to use it?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> >> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
> >> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
> > No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
> > want, which is a huge difference.
> >
> > If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off.
> > Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
> It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not.
> That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet
> his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite
> the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know

Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone
to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if
their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and
not Your Problem.

> >> easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
> >> you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
> > Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for
> > a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some
> > websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled
> > content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply
> > use Wikipedia over https.
> If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the
> rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not
> know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.

If my provider ever blocks https, I am changing my provider. If in some
country all providers block https, these people have bigger problems
than images on Wikipedia (that would likely be forbidden anyway).

> > And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then
> > the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable
> > possibility.
> Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is
> possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't
> provided inside the same document and are not served using https.

Images should be served using https anyway.

> >> If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
> > It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
> > or otherwise inadequate.
> Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it
> above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user,
> leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.

I believe a filter that is adjusted specifically to Wikimedia projects
would work much better than parental software that has to work across
the entire Internet. Anyway, I don't see why would anyone have to waste
time over it.

> >> your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
> > If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the
> > content of the page.
> That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He
> would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized
> image would show up and you still would have the option to show images
> in which you are interested.

If I would use a hide all/nothing filter, I wouldn't be able to see
non-offensive relevant images by default. No one is going to use that.

> >> But feel free to read the arguments:
> >> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal
> > It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
> > be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
> > an opt-in filter.
> >
> None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as
> default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to
> distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach
> would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the
> feature.

That is absolutely not true. For example, the first argument:

"The Wikipedia was not founded in order to hide information but to make
it accessible. Hiding files may reduce important information that is
presented in a Wikipedia article. This could limit any kind of
enlightenment and perception of context. Examples: articles about
artists, artworks and medical issues may intentionally or without
intention of the reader lose substantial parts of their information. The
aim to present a topic neutral and in its entirety would be jeopardized
by this."

This is mostly true, but completely irrelevant for an opt-in filter.

> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
> censorship tool.

Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
Am 23.10.2011 17:19, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
> On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>> Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
>>> On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>>>> Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
>>>> intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
>>> No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
>>> want, which is a huge difference.
>>>
>>> If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off.
>>> Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
>> It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not.
>> That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet
>> his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite
>> the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know
> Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone
> to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if
> their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and
> not Your Problem.
It is wasted time for them as well as for us, since they are most likely
editors that are part of "us". If they waste their time on
categorization then it is lost time that could be spend on article
improvement or invested in better alternatives that are illustrative as
well as not offending.
>>>> easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
>>>> you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
>>> Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for
>>> a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some
>>> websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled
>>> content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply
>>> use Wikipedia over https.
>> If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the
>> rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not
>> know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
> If my provider ever blocks https, I am changing my provider. If in some
> country all providers block https, these people have bigger problems
> than images on Wikipedia (that would likely be forbidden anyway).
You can do that. But there are many regions inside the world that depend
on one local provider that is even regulated by the local
goverment/regime/... . Since the filter was proposed as a tool to help
expanding Wikipedia inside this weak regions, it could be as well
counterproductive. For the weak regions as also for stronger regions.
Are you willed to implement such a feature without thinking about
possible outcome?
>>> And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then
>>> the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable
>>> possibility.
>> Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is
>> possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't
>> provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
> Images should be served using https anyway.
It isn't done for performance reasons. It is much more expansive to
handle encrypted content, since caching isn't possible and Wikipedia
strongly depends on caching. It would cost a lot of money to do so.
(Effort vs Result)
>>>> If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
>>> It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
>>> or otherwise inadequate.
>> Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it
>> above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user,
>> leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
> I believe a filter that is adjusted specifically to Wikimedia projects
> would work much better than parental software that has to work across
> the entire Internet. Anyway, I don't see why would anyone have to waste
> time over it.
That is a curious point. People that are so offended by Wikipedia
content, that they don't want to read it, visit the WWW with all it's
much darker corners without a personal filter software? Why does it
sound so one-sided?
>>>> your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
>>> If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the
>>> content of the page.
>> That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He
>> would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized
>> image would show up and you still would have the option to show images
>> in which you are interested.
> If I would use a hide all/nothing filter, I wouldn't be able to see
> non-offensive relevant images by default. No one is going to use that.
It is meant as a tool that you activate as soon you want to read about
controversial content. If you have arachnophobia and want to inform
yourself about spiders, then you would activate it. If you have no
problem with other topics (e.g. physics, landscapes,...) then you could
gladly deactivate it. That is your choice and in that point the tool
would support you.

Additionally you will have to consider the blurred image approach. It
would not hide the image entirely. It's just strongly blurred enough to
guess what it could be, but not so unsharp that you recognize nothing.
Hovering over the image would make it visible at this moment. If the
filter is off, all images would stay unblurred.
>>>> But feel free to read the arguments:
>>>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal
>>> It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
>>> be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
>>> an opt-in filter.
>>>
>> None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as
>> default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to
>> distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach
>> would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the
>> feature.
> That is absolutely not true. For example, the first argument:
>
> "The Wikipedia was not founded in order to hide information but to make
> it accessible. Hiding files may reduce important information that is
> presented in a Wikipedia article. This could limit any kind of
> enlightenment and perception of context. Examples: articles about
> artists, artworks and medical issues may intentionally or without
> intention of the reader lose substantial parts of their information. The
> aim to present a topic neutral and in its entirety would be jeopardized
> by this."
>
> This is mostly true, but completely irrelevant for an opt-in filter.
>
As long the filter stays opt-in it could be acceptable. But who ensures
that it will be so? If you only have access to the internet at an local
institution and enforces an opt-in with enabled filter, then you have lost.
>> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
>> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
>> censorship tool.
> Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
> software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
> unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
>
We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We
decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't
forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be
imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit
of the project. Point.

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>
>>> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
>>> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
>>> censorship tool.
>> Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
>> software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
>> unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
>>
> We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We
> decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't
> forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be
> imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit
> of the project. Point.
>
> nya~
>

Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?

If the filter will be applied to Commons, I assume that de.wikipedia
must be conform with the decision of the other communities.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
Am 23.10.2011 19:32, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
> On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
>>>> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
>>>> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
>>>> censorship tool.
>>> Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
>>> software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
>>> unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?
>>>
>> We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We
>> decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't
>> forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be
>> imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit
>> of the project. Point.
>>
>> nya~
>>
> Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?
>
> If the filter will be applied to Commons, I assume that de.wikipedia
> must be conform with the decision of the other communities.
>
> Ilario
That does not mean that the German community is willed to show a button
on it's pages to enable it. It will just be disabled and all
flagged/marked/categorized/discriminated/... images will be copied from
commons to the local project to remove the flagging, if necessary.

Alternatively the project could think about "forking", which would
remove the yearly hassle from the German verein to calculate the
spendings and to give away the corresponding money to the foundation...

But it's nice to see that the per project-results of the filter are
released. It is as expected. The average for importance reaches from
3,34 to 8,17 on a scale from 0 to 10. That means, that single projects
have a very different viewpoint on this topic and a very different kind
of need.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/en#Appendix_2

There is no way that this result could justify the approach to impose an
global image filter on all projects. We also have to ask the question:
What will happen to commons, which is shared by all projects?

nya~

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
* Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone
>to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if
>their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and
>not Your Problem.

When your filtering or categorization choices affect others in any way
then your choices have moral and ethical implications that people find
it hard to ignore. Few people would stand idle by when they learn you
flag images they find very appropriate as inappropriate. You can claim
not standing idle by is their choice; and you would be mistaken.

>Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
>software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
>unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be able to use some software.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:49:42AM +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
> or otherwise inadequate.

... and this despite (very likely) having a larger budget than the foundation ;-)

There's a reason the software is inadequate, and that is because filtering is a
hard problem.

If we're smart, we'll try to do something that is slightly different from actual
filtering, to get around what I'm starting to suspect is something of a mathematical
pothole in our way.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

--

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l