Since I moved to an internet connection that doesn't cripple my connection speed after 1 GB of traffic/month, I probably won't use this feature either.
But, as I to and fro have tried to follow the debate over the last week, I got curious about the feasibility of one possible solution that *I think* would sidestep some of the issues which has been presented concerning the categorization that has been deemed necessary: What if the user has a default switch "show images?" [on/off] (as someone else already suggested somewhere - sorry, I don't remember in which post), and in every place where a picture is shown (or supposed to be shown), the user would have the ability to toggle the visibility of that particular image. Kim Bruning: if these settings are stored server-wise, and given the lack of indications on any page about any ban-worthiness, do you think it still would be possible for a third party to create a list of "banned images"/"banned pages" and impose it on anyone? I mean, besides what is already possible by looking at category names such as "sex", "religion", "people from country X" etc. Obviously, this would emphatically not be a "think of the children" or "if you are a good <insert-belief-here> you should use our special filter" tool, and it would be a pain in the neck to maintain for the user if he or she would like any kind of fine grained control - but quite purposefully so. (An image wouldn't - couldn't - be blocked until the user got to a page where the image is called for and actively blocked it for him/herself, i.e. no manual editing of the raw blacklist or whitelist.) The reason I ask is that I'm no programmer, and have no clue about the technical feasibility of such a solution, how tampering-resistant this could be made (I *guess* the "red team" would have a harder time destroying this than a system based on a publicly visible categorization, but would it be in some sense "sufficiently" hard?) nor whether this would require too much of the servers, keeping track of settings of x million users times y million images. I'd be happy to be educated in this. \Mike On 10/09 2011 09:35, WereSpielChequers wrote: > As this debate has ploughed on I've become less likely to use this feature > myself. But am still utterly unconvinced by the opposition arguments. > > Re: Demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV by right-wing > US". As long as the image filter would enable Moslems to opt out of seeing a > certain set of cartoons, then this to me is about globalisation not about > appeasing Conservapedia and its fans. Actually one of the most predictable > risks of implementing this is that we will be attacked by our American > critics "Wikipedia enables censorship, Moslems now allowed to censor images > they dislike, but naturally no "block all porn" option for Christians" (all > porn is bound not to be an option because definitions of porn are so > divergent. But if it were they'd pick another unimplemented option such as > "swimsuit" or "respectable swimsuit"). > > As for Kim's Red team Blue team shenanigans, why would anyone bother? I can > understand why spammers try to subvert our processes and add their links and > spamcruft - they see us as a free source of advertising worth their time to > try and sneak their message in. But if devout Bahais decide to use this > filter to screen out certain images, how likely is it that there will be an > opposing team trying to sneak those images past their filter? Especially if > the filters are personal options that other editors can't see. > > WereSpielChequers > > Board is filled with a bunch of amateurs (not derogatory meaning!) -- >> including yourself in the past and hypothetically including myself if >> I passed last election -- which position is the product of political >> will (community, chapters, Board will itself). >> >> Any sane body -- which is aware that it is there because of political >> will and not because of their expertise (no, Stu and Jan-Bart are not >> in the Board as experts when they act as apologists of Jimmy's >> deletion of artworks on Commons [1][2]) -- knows that it should >> delegate responsibilities to those who know the matter better. >> >> However, Wikimedia Foundation Board acts dilettantish whenever one of >> the Board member (or a friend of that Board member) has strong >> position toward some issue. >> >> For example, Wikipedia in Tunisian Arabic has been rejected by the >> Board, although relevant international institutions (and reality, as >> well) recognize it as a separate language [3]. Just after long >> discussion (in short period of time) between two Board members and >> Language committee, it was threw under the carpet as "waiting" [4] >> with the excuse to wait for non-existent initiative to create North >> African Arabic Wikipedia (it was my initiative at the end, just to end >> with grotesque Board's dilettantism, by claiming that their members >> are better introduced in linguistic diversity than relevant >> international bodies and Language committee as well; which I see as >> humiliating for the Board, but Board members don't think so). >> >> I didn't want to open this issue; but the flow of discussion -- >> claiming that Board *really* knows what it is doing -- forced me to >> give it as an example. >> >> While I am sure that at least Arne cares about German Wikipedia and >> Bishakha cares about Hindi Wikipedia -- collectively, Board reacts >> just if someone points to their POV related to English Wikipedia. >> Everything else, including Serbian Wikipedia in 2005 and including >> Kazakh Wikipedia in 2011, are just safari-like care about interesting >> and strange species. Yes, Board cares when some project dares to >> question Jimmy's authority, like when Wikinews did it well and >> Wikiversity badly. >> >> If the Board members would be more honest in their intentions, not to >> hide behind demagogy of "multiculturalism" when it means "pushing POV >> by right-wing US" and similar phrases with similar opposite meanings, >> we could start to have real discussion. Not to mention that it is >> obvious that some of the motivations of some of the Board members are >> not even politically motivated, but very personally (and "very" has >> the meaning inside of the phrase). >> >> [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058026.html >> [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057795.html >> [3] >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisian&action=historysubmit&diff=2744156&oldid=2741178 >> [4] >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWikipedia_Tunisian&action=historysubmit&diff=2748151&oldid=2744156 >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
