Thanks to Andrew Gray for covering some of the history. Kerry, there is further material that you might find of interest in a recent (May 2014) discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=466380;page=1;mh=-1;list=wiki;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC Best, Andreas On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I am unsurprised that it has been considered before, as it's the > obvious solution. Sad that the Board lacked the will to see it through. > > But it doesn't mean that it could not or should not be raised again. Social > justice issues rarely succeed on their first attempt. If we took that > attitude, women still wouldn't have the vote. > > The group we should be most concerned about is younger children. With many > children increasingly having smartphones, it is far harder for parents to > supervise the content they are viewing (unlike a desktop that can be > positioned where the parent can keep an eye on things). At the same time, > WMF is putting increasing effort into the mobile platforms and the WMF > metrics show consistent uptrends in mobile access. The two trends suggest > that Wikipedia and Commons are now a lot more likely to be accessed by > children in an unsupervised context. > > Kerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: shimg...@gmail.com [mailto:shimg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andrew > Gray > Sent: Saturday, 26 July 2014 4:08 AM > To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com; Addressing gender equity and exploring ways > to > increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. > Subject: Re: [Spam] Re: [Gendergap] Sexualized environment on Commons > > Hi Kerry, > > Sad as it is to be the bearer of dispiriting news... > > A proposal more or less similar to this was made by the Board in 2011 > (some kind of image filtering on a user-selected basis) - > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content > > The debate about whether (and/or how) to implement it was pretty > vicious, pretty angry, and went on for the best part of a year. A > September 2011 community poll gave interestingly mixed results - > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/News_a > nd_notes > and the development of any software was suspended pending further > discussion. In mid-2012, the Board then formally rescinded the > "develop a filter system" request - > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Featur > e > - and it has more or less been dead in the water since then. > > There's been no significant attempt to revive it, but I think this is > in part because the wounds are still fresh - I think were it to be > reopened now you'd get much the same result, a lot of heat which > eventually stalls. > > It's worth noting that a very small-scale version of this is in use > for some wikis - it's been pointed out that some sexual topics on > Arabic Wikipedia have a "click to expand" field which conceals an > image - but this is pretty rare and done on a page-by-page, not > image-by-image, basis; it also has no user-level customisability. > > Andrew. > > On 24 July 2014 02:51, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And while there > > may be all manner of very niche groups who find strange things > > offensiveness, maybe some people object to seeing refrigerators or > reading > > about cakes, nonetheless we know that there are a lot of widespread > > categories of offensiveness that generate the bulk of discussions about > the > > inclusion of items on Wikipedia or Commons. > > > > > > > > What we could do is to have to some system of classification (like the > > movies) for articles, images, and/or categories indicating that they are > > potentially offensive for various reasons. Perhaps along similar lines to > > the "content advisories" in IMDB, e.g. > > > > > > > > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg > > > > > > > > People could then put in their profiles that all classifications are > > acceptable or them or that these are the classifications they don't want > to > > see (e.g. Sex and Nudity, Gore and Violence, Profanity, etc - obviously > our > > classifications might not be identical to IMDB as we are dealing with > > different kinds of content but you get the idea). When that person > searches > > Wikipedia or Commons, then those articles, images and categories that > they > > would find offensive are not returned. When a person reads an article > > containing an offensive-to-them categorised image, it is simply not > > displayed or some image saying "Suppressed at your request (Sex and > > Nudity)". We could possibly bundle such these finer classifications into > > common collections, e.g. Inappropriate for Children, Suitable for > Muslims, > > or whatever, so for many people it's a simple tick-one-box. > > > > > > > > For anonymous users or users who have not explicitly set their > preferences, > > rendering of an article or image could first ask "This article/image has > > been tagged as potentially offensive for SuchAndSuch reason, click OK to > > confirm you want to view it". If they are a logged-in user, it could also > > offer a link to set their preferences for future use. > > > > > > > > I note that movies are often made with variants for different countries. > > Sometimes that's simply a matter of being dubbed into another language > but > > it can also include the deletion (or replacement) of certain scenes or > > language that would be offensive in those countries. So it is not as if > we > > are reinventing the wheel here, just customising it to Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > > [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari > > Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2014 7:11 AM > > To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the > > participationof women within Wikimedia projects. > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Sexualized environment on Commons > > > > > > > > Personally, I don't think it's worth having a discussion here about the > > merits of deleting these images. There's no chance in hell they are going > to > > be deleted from Commons. What I'm more interested in is the locker-room > > nature of the discussions and how/if this can be addressed, as I think > that > > is actually more likely to dissuade female contributors than the images > > themselves. > > > > Ryan Kaldari > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ryan, thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I've put a lot of > thought > > into the series of photos this comes from over the years, and it's well > > worth some discussion. I'd like to hear what others think about this. > Here > > is a link to the category for the larger collection; warning, there's > lots > > of nudity and sexual objectification here, so don't click if you don't > want > > to see that: > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_tech > nology > > > > First, I agree with Ryan that in the (various) deletion discussions I've > > seen around this and similar topics, there is often a toxic level of > > childish and offensive comments. I think that's a significant problem, > and > I > > don't know what can be done to improve it. Scolding people in those > > discussions often a backfires, and serves only to amplify the offensive > > commentary. But silence can imply tacit consent. How should one > participate > > in the discussion, promoting an outcome one believes in, without > > contributing to or enabling the toxic nature of the discourse? I think > I've > > done a decent job of walking that line in similar discussions, but I'm > sure > > there's a lot of room for better approaches. I would love to hear what > has > > worked for others, here and/or privately. > > > > > > > > Also, my initial reaction to these images is that they are inherently > > offensive; my gut reaction is to keep them off Commons. > > > > > > > > But after thinking it through and reading through a number of deletion > > discussions, the conclusion I've come to (at least so far) is that the > > decision to keep them (in spite of the childish and offensive commentary > > along the way) is the right decision. These strike me as the important > > points: > > > > * We have a collection of more than 20 million images, intended to > support > a > > wide diversity of educational projects. Among those 20 million files are > a > > great many that would be offensive to some audience. (For instance, if I > > understand correctly, *all images portraying people* are offensive to at > > least some devout Muslims.) > > * Were these images originally intended to promote objectification of > women? > > To support insightful commentary on objectification of women? Something > > else? I can't see into the minds of their creators, but I *can* imagine > them > > being put to all kinds of uses, some of which would be worthwhile. The > > intent of the photographer and models, I've come to believe, is not > relevant > > to the decision. (apart from the basic issue of consent in the next > bullet > > point:) > > > > * Unlike many images on Commons, I see no reason to doubt that these were > > produced by consenting adults, and intended for public distribution. > > > > If they are to be deleted, what is the principle under which we would > delete > > them? To me, that's the key question. If it's simply the fact that we as > > individuals find them offensive, I don't think that's sufficient. If it's > > out of a belief that they inherently cause more harm than good, I think > the > > reasons for that would need to be fleshed out before they could be > > persuasive. > > > > Art is often meant to be provocative, to challenge our assumptions and > > sensibilities, to prompt discussion. We host a lot of art on Commons. On > > what basis would we delete these, but keep other controversial works of > art? > > Of course it would be terrible to use these in, for instance, a Wikipedia > > article about HTML syntax. But overall, does it cause harm to simply have > > them exist in an image repository? My own conclusion with regard to this > > photo series is that the net value of maintaining a large and diverse > > collection of media, without endorsing its contents per se., outweighs > other > > considerations. > > > > > > > > (For anybody interested in the deletion process on Commons, the kinds of > > things that are deliberated, and the way the discussions go, you might be > > interested in my related blog post from a couple months ago: > > > http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/ > ) > > > > > > > > -Pete > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > > If anyone ever needs a good example of the locker-room environment on > > Wikimedia Commons, I just came across this old deletion discussion: > > > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Radio_butt > on_and_female_nude.jpg > > > > The last two keep votes are especially interesting. One need look no > farther > > than the current Main Page talk page for more of the same (search for > > "premature ejaculation"). > > > > Kaldari > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
