Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Bishakha Datta  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>>
>> If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
>> are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
>> decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is
>> really not the way a board of trustees should work.
>>
>> From my experience, this is not how we work.
>
> There is no question of the staff making decisions for the Board, because we
> cannot do so!
>
> Best
> Bishakha
>

I don't want to single out *anything*. However, in all fairness, much
of the acrimony about  how WMF is doing "business as usual" could have
been avoided with even just that little bit of transparency. It is
rather grotesque for people on the board of trustees complaining folks
in the community aren't aware of their real views, when they don't air
those views to the public.




-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Geoffrey Plourde]

http://www.benchmarkcs.com/hello.php?html143
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Bishakha Datta]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

>
> If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
> are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
> decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is
> really not the way a board of trustees should work.
>
> From my experience, this is not how we work.

There is no question of the staff making decisions for the Board, because we
cannot do so!

Best
Bishakha


> ___
> 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: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Bishakha Datta]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:


> The problem is that what is usually called "the Board" on this list is
> not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons.
>
> And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within
> "the Board" about what to exactly do or not do.
>
>
While I totally agree that each of us, as individual board members has our
own individual take on this issue (as we do on many other issues), that does
not mean we are incapable of making a collective decision on this as a
Board.

I think Ting, Phoebe and Sue have accurately summarized this in their emails
to this list.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Levy]

Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> The way it is supposed to work is by creating categories that simply describe
> media content. A bit like alt.texts, I guess. Examples might be:
>
> Images of people engaged in sexual intercourse.
>
> Videos of people masturbating.
>
> Images of genitals.
>
> Pictures of the prophet Muhammad.
>
> Images of open wounds.
>
> In other words, the idea is to give the user objective definitions of media
> content (not a subjective assessment of any likely offence).

As has been mentioned numerous times, deeming certain subjects (and
not others) "potentially objectionable" is inherently subjective and
non-neutral.

Unveiled women, pork consumption, miscegenation and homosexuality are
considered objectionable by many people.  Will they be assigned
categories?  If not, why not?  If so, who's gong to analyze millions
of images (with thousands more uploaded on a daily basis) to tag them?

And what if the barefaced, bacon-eating, interracial lesbians are
visible only in the image's background?  Does that count?

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 20:52, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:09PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]]
>
> 
>
> What are you trying to ...
>
> Let's try a question like:
>
> ...Can you block [[:Category:Demolished windmills]] (and all
> subcats?) for yourself?
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>
>


Kim, I am getting the impression you are being deliberately obtuse.  These
are systems that I have encountered where I have no controls whatsoever; I
don't even know what the software is because all I get is a screen that says
"this page is blocked" or words to that effect.

I cannot decide what is being blocked, as a bottom level user. Those
decisions have been made at a sysadmin or software level. I can tell you my
experiences as a user on those systems, but I do not have the information
you seek, nor am I in a position to obtain it.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Theo10011]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Risker  wrote:

> On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> > Risker,
> >
> > The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
> > word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in
> > [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex".
> > That is not a category based filter.  If you believe it was a category
> > based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software
> > in order to verify your assertion.
> >
> >
> I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on
> which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are
> not open systems.
>
> It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are
> legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no
> difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the
> categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same.
>
> Risker
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

As long as we're brainstorming, I added this to the page on Meta.

"...,a viable alternative to not relying blindly on the categorization
system, would be implementing a new "image reviewer" flag on en.wp and maybe
in commons. This method would create a list of reviewed images that can be
considered objectionable, that could be filtered/black-listed. The
difference is, 1) this system already works "article reviewer", 2) does not
rely on the existing categorization system and would create 3) a new process
that won't be fool-proof but probably harder to exploit for vandals. The
technical implementation of this would probably be easier too, and the
community can decide on the offensive-ness on its own through a request for
review or something similar, in case of contentious decisions. Whether other
projects can have this should of course remain their decision, they can
choose to completely opt-out of this flag similar to "article reviewer", and
for that very reason, enwp community should vote on this itself- not random
readers but a straight forward vote on wiki."

It's an alternative, albeit a slower process to mark offensive images,
without relying on the current categorization system.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#A_new_group_right.2Fflag_to_review_images

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:22:09PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]] 



What are you trying to ... 

Let's try a question like: 

...Can you block [[:Category:Demolished windmills]] (and all
subcats?) for yourself?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> Risker,
>
> The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
> word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in
> [[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex".
> That is not a category based filter.  If you believe it was a category
> based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software
> in order to verify your assertion.
>
>
I don't have the funniest notion what the software is; these are systems on
which I have no control and no rights above first level user, and they are
not open systems.

It may be that they are using keywords, but many obvious keywords are
legitimately used as category names on our projects. Therefore, it makes no
difference whether they're using keywords that match our categories, or the
categories themselves: the effect is exactly the same.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Ray Saintonge]

On 10/10/11 4:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? "Violence",
> "Gore", etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images
> belong to which broad category?
>
>

The Gore Family of Tennessee?? :-P

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[John Vandenberg]

Risker,

The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word "Sex", which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word "sex".
That is not a category based filter.  If you believe it was a category
based filter, I would definitely like to know the name of the software
in order to verify your assertion.

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on
> any
> > system that I control.  The systems on which I have encountered them are
> not
> > publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested
> > within a given category on English Wikipedia and all images within a
> given
> > category that I tested on Commons.
>
> That sounds like it works on the basis of keywords, perhaps.
>
> How thoroughly have you tested it, when did you do this test?
>
> Can we check?
>
> Can it block those images from the given category on commons, if
> viewed on the actual pages they are used for on wikipedia?
>
> And will it also block images from the subcategory - if used on wikipedia?
>
> I might investigate or even buy this software (if not exceptionally
> expensive) and test it extensively if this is the case.
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>
>

I cannot answer your questions, Kim, as these are generally systems in which
I do not have longterm access; and those that I do have longterm access, I'm
not going to risk my accounts for your experiments. I cannot think of a
legitimate reason why I would be investing a large amount of time checking
all the articles in [[:Category:Sexual positions]] (or the equivalent
Commons category) on those accounts, for example. You may be in a different
situation.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Sue Gardner wrote:
>This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
>problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
>the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
>we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
>influence each other.

The Board asked you to develop this feature in consultation with the
community. The manner in which you chose to do that has led to parts
of the community discussing the best way to split from the community.

>I'm not saying it isn't messy and awkward and flawed in many respects:
>it absolutely is. But nobody is playing games with you. The Board is
>sincere. It is taking seriously the German community, and the others
>who have thoughtfully opposed the filter.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066624.html

  The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees,
  will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community
  support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter

Funny correlation: all polls about the image filter that explained the
pros and cons to voters found voters overwhelmingly opposed to it.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@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: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Ray Saintonge]

On 10/09/11 9:58 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
>> Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
>>> The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to
>>> the community or the chapters or to any other external agent.
>> I find this response a bit odd. ;-) It almost seems to assume that the
>> community (or Nathan?) is likely wanting to elect someone the WMF
>> couldn't accept, or that "responsibility to the community" is a bad
>> thing, while we used to say only that there's no imperative mandate and
>> that chapters-elected trustees are not chapters representatives, etc.
> I'm not sure what you find odd about it, but it is factual.
>
> The key point is that board members must work on behalf of the Foundation,
> and must not act as representatives of a particular constituency, and those
> constituencies cannot direct board members elected/nominated by them to act
> in certain ways.
>
>
It's not the factuality of the statement that is odd.  The Hong Kong 
style of democracy that insures that the elected members can never form 
a majority is.

In a fully democratic country all elected representatives work on behalf 
of the country, but they still represent particular constituencies 
and/or parties, to which they are accountable.  Without that the entire 
notion of constituencies is a sham. When they fail to represent the 
interests of their constituencies they should be voted out.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Ray Saintonge]

On 10/09/11 8:00 AM, Julius Redzinski wrote:
> That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the 
> community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so 
> caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the 
> projects. If the filter should get forced on a project that voted against it, 
> then there can be just a strike the solution.

I opposed the Italian Suicide Strategy, but there is much to  be learned 
from that experience, notably that there is wide latitude for boldness 
on the part of both individual projects and chapters.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on any
> system that I control.  The systems on which I have encountered them are not
> publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested
> within a given category on English Wikipedia and all images within a given
> category that I tested on Commons.

That sounds like it works on the basis of keywords, perhaps.

How thoroughly have you tested it, when did you do this test?

Can we check?

Can it block those images from the given category on commons, if
viewed on the actual pages they are used for on wikipedia? 

And will it also block images from the subcategory - if used on wikipedia?

I might investigate or even buy this software (if not exceptionally
expensive) and test it extensively if this is the case.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: Bob the Wikipedian 

The question arises, however, of where to draw the rather thick gray 
line. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take for instance the 
famous Renaissance paintings; often innocent at first glance, but 
perhaps one of the subjects is nude. Perhaps in the background there is 
a nude individual. Maybe that individual is too tiny to see clearly. Or 
perhaps it's adorned with nude cherubim around the corners. Or maybe 
there's a photo of something where in the background you can see a nude 
sculpture. And that's just the topic of nudity within the scope of the 
Renaissance art-- it gets worse.

This is precisely the thing that makes it difficult to decide whether to 
block an image or not.

Whatever system is used, it needs to be a bit more intricate than just 
"either / or".




Bob,

I agree it needs a large upfront investment in defining categories sensibly.

Photos of genitals attached to live human beings are different from historical 
paintings, or photos of Greek sculptures. Few if any would want to filter the 
latter. 

But the idea is to use pedestrian descriptions, telling the user exactly what 
sort of media files are meant.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Ray Saintonge]

On 10/09/11 7:12 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
>
>

This is certainly the most problematical part of the entire resolution.  
It leaves the impression that all negotiations are being held under the 
Sword of Damocles. That whatever happens can be overruled by force 
majeure or the tyranny of the majority.  Many projects have not 
encountered problems with objectionable images at all.  They are either 
too small or the scope of what they do would not bring them into contact 
with such problems.

Making clear that projects would be free to turn the feature on only 
when it became relevant to them would go a long way to relieving tensions.

Ray

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 19:12, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:43:22PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  I've seen it in operation.
> > >
> > > Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
> > > directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I have seen net-nanny software directly block entire Commons
> > categories.
>
> Ok, so you can ask net nanny to obtain categories from commons,
> and use them to block images on wikipedia? Or is it blocking by
> key word, and only on commons?
>
> Can you arrange a demonstration for me?
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>


No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on any
system that I control.  The systems on which I have encountered them are not
publicly accessible. They have prevented access to all articles I tested
within a given category on English Wikipedia and all images within a given
category that I tested on Commons.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Risker  wrote:
> On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >  I've seen it in operation.
>>
>> Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
>> directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
>>
>
>
> Yes, I have seen net-nanny software directly block entire Commons
> categories.

What was the name of the software?  Or where was it installed where you saw it?

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Bob the Wikipedian]

The question arises, however, of where to draw the rather thick gray 
line. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, take for instance the 
famous Renaissance paintings; often innocent at first glance, but 
perhaps one of the subjects is nude. Perhaps in the background there is 
a nude individual. Maybe that individual is too tiny to see clearly. Or 
perhaps it's adorned with nude cherubim around the corners. Or maybe 
there's a photo of something where in the background you can see a nude 
sculpture. And that's just the topic of nudity within the scope of the 
Renaissance art-- it gets worse.

This is precisely the thing that makes it difficult to decide whether to 
block an image or not.

Whatever system is used, it needs to be a bit more intricate than just 
"either / or".

Bob

On 10/10/2011 7:17 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> A media file either shows genitals, or it doesn't. It either shows people 
> having sexual intercourse, or it doesn't. If there is any doubt (say, 
> visibility is largely obscured, or you can't tell), then the basic rule 
> should be "leave it out" (unless and until filter users start complaining).

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:43:22PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  I've seen it in operation.
> >
> > Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
> > directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
> >
> 
> 
> Yes, I have seen net-nanny software directly block entire Commons
> categories.

Ok, so you can ask net nanny to obtain categories from commons,
and use them to block images on wikipedia? Or is it blocking by
key word, and only on commons?

Can you arrange a demonstration for me?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: MZMcBride 
Personally, from the technical side, I don't think there's any way to make
per-category filtering work. What happens when a category is deleted? Or a
category is renamed (which is effectively deleting the old category name
currently)? And are we really expecting individual users to go through
millions of categories and find the ones that may be offensive to them?
Surely users don't want to do that. The whole point is that they want to
limit their exposure to such images, not dig into the millions of categories
that may exist looking for ones that largely contain content they find
objectionable. Surely.

So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? "Violence",
"Gore", etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images
belong to which broad category?

Not trying to be provocative, I've just never understood how the
category-based system is supposed to work in practice. In (abstract) theory,
it seems magical.




The way it is supposed to work is by creating categories that simply describe 
media content. A bit like alt.texts, I guess. Examples might be: 

Images of people engaged in sexual intercourse.

Videos of people masturbating.

Images of genitals.

Pictures of the prophet Muhammad.

Images of open wounds.

In other words, the idea is to give the user objective definitions of media 
content (not a subjective assessment of any likely offence). 

Working out good category definitions would be an important task. There is 
little potential for arguments, provided the definitions are clear. A media 
file either shows genitals, or it doesn't. It either shows people having sexual 
intercourse, or it doesn't. If there is any doubt (say, visibility is largely 
obscured, or you can't tell), then the basic rule should be "leave it out" 
(unless and until filter users start complaining).

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[MZMcBride]

Risker wrote: 
> Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
> to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
> is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
> have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
> rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.

Personally, from the technical side, I don't think there's any way to make
per-category filtering work. What happens when a category is deleted? Or a
category is renamed (which is effectively deleting the old category name
currently)? And are we really expecting individual users to go through
millions of categories and find the ones that may be offensive to them?
Surely users don't want to do that. The whole point is that they want to
limit their exposure to such images, not dig into the millions of categories
that may exist looking for ones that largely contain content they find
objectionable. Surely.

So that leaves you with much broader categorization, I guess? "Violence",
"Gore", etc. And then that leaves you with people debating which images
belong to which broad category?

Not trying to be provocative, I've just never understood how the
category-based system is supposed to work in practice. In (abstract) theory,
it seems magical.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Levy]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> if  you  like the image browsers

Sorry, I don't know what you mean.

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> >  I've seen it in operation.
>
> Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
> directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
>


Yes, I have seen net-nanny software directly block entire Commons
categories.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:31 AM, David Levy  wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
>> hijacked by downstream users.
>
> I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.
>
> The proposal to which I linked involves no "tagging" (as I understand
> the term).  Is it possible that you misread/misinterpreted it?  If
> not, please explain how it would enable such an exploit.
>
> David Levy
>

if  you  like the image browsers




-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> >
> 
> 
> Oh please, Kim; this is nonsense.  

Be careful with what you call nonsense. :-)

> Commercially available software is, even
> right now, blocking certain content areas by category and/or keywords for
> (at minimum) Commons and English Wikipedia;

Yes. These tools also have a category system. That category system
is structured very differently from the commons category system. 

Just because mediawiki uses a database and wordpress uses a
database, it doesn't mean that the two databases are
interchangable. That's just silly! (try it and see if you don't
believe me)

The same is true for categories (which are just a particular way
to structure a database anyway). Just because mediawiki uses
categories, and ACME CensorThemAll(tm) uses categories, doesn't
mean that they are necessarily interchangable in any way.

>  I've seen it in operation. 

Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?

> So there's no reason to believe that the current category
> system, which we use legitimately for content-finding, is not
> amenable to use in exactly the same way that an
> image-filter-specific category would be.

It would require some amount of remapping before it could be
practically used in that manner. 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning



-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Levy]

Risker wrote:

> So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by
> downstream users?

Yes, but not nearly to the same extent.

> Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
> to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
> is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
> have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
> rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.

The current system doesn't involve categorizing images based on
criteria under which they're considered "potentially objectionable,"
so someone wishing to censor images of x is far less likely to find
Category:x.

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Levy]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very nicely vulnerable to being
> hijacked by downstream users.

I've steadfastly opposed the introduction of a tag-based image filter system.

The proposal to which I linked involves no "tagging" (as I understand
the term).  Is it possible that you misread/misinterpreted it?  If
not, please explain how it would enable such an exploit.

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> >
> > Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system
> seems
> > to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system,
> which
> > is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does
> not
> > have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
> > rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.
>
>
> Been discussed to death, raised from the dead, chopped up with a
> chainsaw,reresurrected, taken out
> with a sawn-off-shotgun, stood back up missing an arm...  "they just keep
> on coming!"
>
>
> The current category system is not as vulnerable to being abused because it
> is not a prejudicial labelling
> system.
>
> In straight english:
>
> Computers are sort of stupid. They can't infer intent.
>
> A. If we want a computer program to offer something to be blocked, it needs
> a label that essentially says "This Is
> Something People Might Want To Block"
>
> B. A computer program cannot really safely determine what to do with
> "licking" or "exposed breasts" (especially as
> are different norms on what is appropriate in different parts of the world)
>
>
> Our current category system conforms to B. We would need some sort of
> mapping to A to make a category based filter
> work.
>
> Social problem: Mapping B to A is evil, according to ALA. ;-)
>
> sincerely,
>Kim Bruning
>
> Patient: "Doctor Doctor, it hurts when I map B to A!"
> Doctor: "So Don't Do That Then"
>
>


Oh please, Kim; this is nonsense.  Commercially available software is, even
right now, blocking certain content areas by category and/or keywords for
(at minimum) Commons and English Wikipedia; I've seen it in operation. So
there's no reason to believe that the current category system, which we use
legitimately for content-finding, is not amenable to use in exactly the same
way that an image-filter-specific category would be.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Nickanc Wikipedia, 10/10/2011 22:59:
> Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
> wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?

This is already possible on all wikis with ipblock-exempt group and 
is/was used mainly for Chinese wikipedians AFAIK.
Everybody happily editing on clandestinity is not really a solution.

Nemo

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
> 
> Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
> to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
> is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
> have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
> rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.


Been discussed to death, raised from the dead, chopped up with a 
chainsaw,reresurrected, taken out
with a sawn-off-shotgun, stood back up missing an arm...  "they just keep on 
coming!"


The current category system is not as vulnerable to being abused because it is 
not a prejudicial labelling
system.

In straight english:

Computers are sort of stupid. They can't infer intent.

A. If we want a computer program to offer something to be blocked, it needs a 
label that essentially says "This Is
Something People Might Want To Block"

B. A computer program cannot really safely determine what to do with "licking" 
or "exposed breasts" (especially as
are different norms on what is appropriate in different parts of the world)


Our current category system conforms to B. We would need some sort of mapping 
to A to make a category based filter
work.

Social problem: Mapping B to A is evil, according to ALA. ;-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

Patient: "Doctor Doctor, it hurts when I map B to A!"
Doctor: "So Don't Do That Then"



-- 

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

[Foundation-l] Controversial content brainstorming

[MZMcBride]

Hi.

With nudging from Kim, I've started a subpage at
 to
brainstorm ideas for a workable solution to dealing with controversial
content on Wikimedia wikis.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

[Nickanc Wikipedia]

> Ilario writes:
>
> > We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the
> > passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like
> > done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia
> > available to the person living in totalitarism.
> >
> > The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live
> > in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure
> > that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike.
>

I live in Italy and I was among those one who worked on
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011/en .
I think it was the right choice because it was the most effective
action realistically able to save both Wikipedia integrity and
Wikipedia accessibility from Italy (in case law gets approved, if
wikipedia denies to amend the article in the requested way, police may
obscure it).  Now, after this experience, I think that, to avoid these
strikes to happen, we, WMF and language wikipedias shall provide more
informations about IP privacy policy and about proxies.  For example,
why dont translate http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tor and/or
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:No_open_proxies in more and more
languages to make people aware on how to edit freely wikipedia when it
isnt allowed by laws? Why dont allow Ip block exemptions for TOR when
wikipedians are strongly biased by local laws?
Nickanc

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Risker]

On 10 October 2011 16:47, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy 
> wrote:
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >
> >> Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
> >> is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
> >> the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
> >> would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the system to all its
> >> delight. Please come up with something more realistic.
> >
> > Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults).
> >
> >
>
> Gladly. If you sense a little frustration on my part, it is purely
> because most of us have been round this track more than a
> few times... Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very
> nicely vulnerable to being hijacked by downstream users. So
> from a perspective of not helping censorship by own actions,
> it is a strict no-go. I am being succint and to the point here.
> The fact that some people have been offered this quite clear
> explanation, and still keep acting as if they had not even
> heard it... without hurling any insults, their behaviour does
> make some of us frustrated.
>
>
>

So does the current categorization system lend itself to being hijacked by
downstream users?

Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system, which
is obviously necessary in order for people to find types of images, does not
have the same effect.  I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Levy  wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
>> is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
>> the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
>> would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the system to all its
>> delight. Please come up with something more realistic.
>
> Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults).
>
>

Gladly. If you sense a little frustration on my part, it is purely
because most of us have been round this track more than a
few times... Any (and I stress *any*) tagging system is very
nicely vulnerable to being hijacked by downstream users. So
from a perspective of not helping censorship by own actions,
it is a strict no-go. I am being succint and to the point here.
The fact that some people have been offered this quite clear
explanation, and still keep acting as if they had not even
heard it... without hurling any insults, their behaviour does
make some of us frustrated.




-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:39:43PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:32:57 +0200, Kim Bruning 
> wrote:
> 
> > I'll (re)join the community discussion.
> > Which page(s) are being used atm?
> > 
> None I know of.

That's ok. I'll leave the initiative to MzMcbride && join there.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:32:57 +0200, Kim Bruning 
wrote:

> I'll (re)join the community discussion.
> Which page(s) are being used atm?
> 
> sincerely,
>   Kim Bruning
>
 
None I know of.

Cheers 
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:18:23PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >> I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
> my
> >> impression is that we are going nowhere.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I think what should come next is that one of the filter proponents
> would
> >> come up with a suggestion for a workable scheme. (I guess the opponents
> >> of
> >> the filter would not be so much interested). 
> > 
> <...> 
> > If there are but few additions, we can go straight to bugzilla. If
> people
> > feel that
> > adjustment is needed, we can take this to meta first, before moving to
> > bugzilla.
> > 
> > sincerely,
> > Kim Bruning
> 
> We definitely must have the page on Meta discussing it. There have been
> some objections raised already, and there have been other solutions
> suggested earlier, and other objections raised. Bringing it straight to
> Bugzilla makes no sense at this point. 

Roger that,

I'll (re)join the community discussion.
Which page(s) are being used atm?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:37:05 +0200, Kim Bruning 
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and
my
>> impression is that we are going nowhere.
>> 
>> 
>> I think what should come next is that one of the filter proponents
would
>> come up with a suggestion for a workable scheme. (I guess the opponents
>> of
>> the filter would not be so much interested). 
> 
<...> 
> If there are but few additions, we can go straight to bugzilla. If
people
> feel that
> adjustment is needed, we can take this to meta first, before moving to
> bugzilla.
> 
> sincerely,
>   Kim Bruning

We definitely must have the page on Meta discussing it. There have been
some objections raised already, and there have been other solutions
suggested earlier, and other objections raised. Bringing it straight to
Bugzilla makes no sense at this point. 

Cheers
Yaroslav

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Sue Gardner]

On 10 October 2011 11:56, Möller, Carsten  wrote:
> Sue wrote:
>> It is asking me to do something.
>> But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>> voted against.
>
> I may translate:
> As the German community has voted against filters,
> I was ordered to circumvent this vote by making some adjustments to the 
> wording.
>
> That will not work. The vote was very clear agaist all image filters.
> The referendum was a farce, as we clearly see.
>
> Sorry, somebody is playing games with us.


Truly, Carsten, nobody is playing games with you. The Board's
discussion was sincere and thoughtful.

This is how the system is supposed to work. The Board identified a
problem; the staff hacked together a proposed solution, and we asked
the community what it thought. Now, we're responding to the input and
we're going to iterate. This is how it's supposed to work: we mutually
influence each other.

I'm not saying it isn't messy and awkward and flawed in many respects:
it absolutely is. But nobody is playing games with you. The Board is
sincere. It is taking seriously the German community, and the others
who have thoughtfully opposed the filter.

The right thing to do now is to accept the olive branch, and work with
the Wikimedia Foundation to figure out a good solution. You want to
train the Wikimedia Foundation that listening to you is the path to a
successful outcome :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

[Foundation-l] IRC office hours with Sue Gardner on Friday, Oct. 14th

[Steven Walling]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note that this Friday (Oct 14th) at 17:00 UTC, Sue Gardner will
be in #wikimedia-office to have an open discussion. As usual, instructions
and time conversion links are on Meta.[1]

Also, for those of you who have asked about office hours with someone *other
* than Sue, we heard you. The next meeting after Sue's this week is with
Chief Community Officer Zack Exley, in order to discuss the annual
fundraiser. After that, myself or Community Liason Maggie Dennis
(User:Moonriddengirl) are happy to take requests for other senior staff.

-- 
Steven Walling
Community Organizer at Wikimedia Foundation
wikimediafoundation.org

1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:49:04PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> 
> > I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to 
> > unblur,
> > would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
> > many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus fairly 
> > quickly.
> 
> 
> Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
> distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...

Fair dinkum. We could have a "blur or black-out" option for
different occaisions. For further discussion, I think MZMcBride
was suggesting centralising discussion at mediawiki.org or meta.
:-)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

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

[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Möller , Carsten]

Sue wrote:
> It is asking me to do something.
> But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
> voted against.

I may translate:
As the German community has voted against filters,
I was ordered to circumvent this vote by making some adjustments to the wording.

That will not work. The vote was very clear agaist all image filters.
The referendum was a farce, as we clearly see.

Sorry, somebody is playing games with us.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: David Gerard 
> On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> > I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to 
> > unblur,
> > would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
> > many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus fairly 
> > quickly.

> Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
> distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...

> - d.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:27:59AM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
> I found this e-mail very helpful and insightful. Thank you for writing it,
> Phoebe.

Idem. Phoebe++ :-)

> I'm curious if there
> are any central brainstorming pages about an image filter, either on
> Meta-Wiki or mediawiki.org. If not, I'd be happy to start one.

Me 3! I'll definitely help. :-)

>  For example, if 90% of viewers in your country have hidden a
>  particular image and you've set your personal threshold at 50%,
>  an image might be automatically obscured.  This isn't a perfect
>  idea, but discussing and debating the merits of each idea might
>  reveal a solution that's tenable.

There are well known standard attacks against pretty much any
current user-facing data-collection system [1]. :-/ But perhaps there
are even other ideas!  :-)



sincerely,
Kim Bruning
[1] http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/27/moot-wins-time-inc-loses/
-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Gerard]

On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to 
> unblur,
> would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
> many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus fairly 
> quickly.


Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a
distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ...


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hubert, 

The fact is that the English word "violence" has a quite different etymology, 
and a much narrower meaning, than the German word "Gewalt", which historically 
also means "control", or even "administrative competence".

The scope of the English article is indeed appropriate to the English word 
"violence", because that word lacks several shades of meaning that the German 
word "Gewalt" has.

Andreas 



From: Hubert 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:58
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?

Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.

to say it simply: hitting someones head, to shoot s.o. is in en: WP the
primary part of the article (this is very simplifying, indeed). The
German article is a far greater degree of philosophical and sociological
issues of violence.

This difference alone makes it clear that a single definition of what
violence is or may be, and how it manifests itself in images, can not
even enter.

Quite frankly, I do not want that maybe people who are socialized to a
far greater degree in a culture of violence than other cultures can be
categorized by images of tens of thousands to impose his concept of
violence.

Even though we are all Wikipedians, even within the German Wikipedia,
there are significant cultural differences.

And violence is - contrary to religion and sexuality - just the smaller
problem.
h

Am 10.10.2011 12:22, schrieb David Gerard:
> On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert  wrote:
>> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
> 
>>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> 
>> dear Anneke,
>> +1
>> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
>> meaning of violence.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
> 
> 
> I don't understand what point is being made here.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> 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
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Kim Bruning]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:44:09PM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and my
> impression is that we are going nowhere.
> 
> 
> I think what should come next is that one of the filter proponents would
> come up with a suggestion for a workable scheme. (I guess the opponents of
> the filter would not be so much interested). 

I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to 
unblur, 
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus fairly quickly.

While we're on the business of perhaps putting these options in a right-click 
menu,
we could also make other images tools (more explicitly) available
like adding the option to add image-maps, and making explicit the options
to view license details and full size versions of the image.

If there are but few additions, we can go straight to bugzilla. If people feel 
that
adjustment is needed, we can take this to meta first, before moving to bugzilla.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: Sue Gardner 
Yes, I hear you. The Board didn't specifically discuss yesterday what
to do if there is no acceptable solution. So I don't think they can
make a statement like this: it hasn't been discussed. I hear what
you're saying here, but my hope is that even in the absence of such a
statement, people will be willing to join with the Wikimedia
Foundation to engage seriously on the topic and figure out a solution
that works.




Quite. We have a responsibility to the thousands of people who voiced the 
opinion that it was important for Wikimedia to offer this function to readers, 
as well as a responsibility to those editors who are unhappy with the proposals 
so far put forward.

Two valid objections that have been brought forward to date and have stuck in 
my mind are (1) the
use any categories or tagging systems could be put to by censors wishing to 
block *all* access to media files within the scope of the filter, and (2) the 
amount of work involved. 

The first objection is something the Harris study actually addressed in its 
recommendations:
 
"10. That, by and large, Wikimedians make the decisions
about what is filterable or not on Wikimedia sites, and consequently, that
tagging regimes that would allow third-parties to filter Wikimedia content be
restricted in their use."

I suggest we could profitably give that matter some thought, and try to think 
of technical solutions that would address this specific concern.

The second objection, the amount of work involved, could also benefit from some 
thought. It should be possible to make the work easier by creating gadgets that 
automatically present likely, and as yet unassessed, candidates to an editor 
for assessment. 

I still feel that *readers* – i.e. the wider public – should be asked as well 
whether they would like to see a function like that implemented, or not. If it 
turns out that the population of readers differs in its views from the 
population of editors in statistically significant ways, that could lead to an 
interesting discussion. In general, I would like to see more reader surveys – 
giving readers an opportunity to tell us what they like and dislike about the 
projects we provide, so we have some feedback informing our internal 
discussions.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Gerard]

On 10 October 2011 18:58, Hubert  wrote:

> David, did you read the german article completely?
> have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
> and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
> wp did not occur?
> Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.
> to say it simply: hitting someones head, to shoot s.o. is in en: WP the
> primary part of the article (this is very simplifying, indeed). The
> German article is a far greater degree of philosophical and sociological
> issues of violence.


Ah, I only read German badly, via babelfish :-)


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Rob Schnautz]

I'd like to emphasize Carsten's point there-- many users (though I can't say
how many) don't mind the otherwise shocking images when displayed in certain
contexts; particularly medical, war, or art subjects.

A filter that is sensitive to whether a user has such a preference would be
more ideal than one that blindly blocks each image for a certain user no
matter the context.

Bob

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Möller, Carsten  wrote:


> To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as
> censorship by serious journalists.
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

David, did you read the german article completely?
have you compared the contents of which part of the concept of violence
and more attention is paid to what portion of the term violence in en:
wp did not occur?

Gewalt ist nicht unbedingt in gleicher Form Gewalt.

to say it simply: hitting someones head, to shoot s.o. is in en: WP the
primary part of the article (this is very simplifying, indeed). The
German article is a far greater degree of philosophical and sociological
issues of violence.

This difference alone makes it clear that a single definition of what
violence is or may be, and how it manifests itself in images, can not
even enter.

Quite frankly, I do not want that maybe people who are socialized to a
far greater degree in a culture of violence than other cultures can be
categorized by images of tens of thousands to impose his concept of
violence.

Even though we are all Wikipedians, even within the German Wikipedia,
there are significant cultural differences.

And violence is - contrary to religion and sexuality - just the smaller
problem.
h

Am 10.10.2011 12:22, schrieb David Gerard:
> On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert  wrote:
>> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
> 
>>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> 
>> dear Anneke,
>> +1
>> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
>> meaning of violence.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
> 
> 
> I don't understand what point is being made here.
> 
> 
> - d.
> 
> ___
> 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: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: "Möller, Carsten" 
To: "foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org" 
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01
Subject: [Foundation-l]  Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
> Mon Oct 10 11:16:21 UTC 2011
>
> But when it comes to discussing whether a specific illustration or media file 
> should be added 
> to an article, the one criterion nobody seems to raise is whether this is the 
> type of image or 
> video a reliably published educational source would include. Instead, we 
> often hear that 
> because Wikipedia is not censored, we *must* keep an image or media file in 
> the article, 
> *especially so* if it is controversial.

Quite on the contrary:
To include a specific image in a specific article is part of the editing 
process.
Everyone can follow this process in the history of the article.

To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as censorship 
by serious journalists.
It doesn't make much difference if the censor is part of the government or the 
owner of the publishing house.


For what feels like the 1000th time: you do realise that 

1. images would only be hidden if the user says in their preferences that they 
don't *want* to see this type of image? It's essentially a display option or 
gadget, to be used or not at the discretion of the user. 
2. the user can display even a hidden image just by clicking on it?


Zum gefühlten 1000. Mal: du bist dir doch wohl darüber im Klaren, dass

1. Bilder nur dann nicht gezeigt werden, wenn der Benutzer in seinen 
Einstellungen ausdrücklich angegeben hat, dass er solche Bilder nicht sehen 
*will*? Es ist im Grunde nichts weiter als eine Display-Option, oder ein 
Helferlein. Ob Leser die Funktion benutzen wollen oder nicht, liegt ganz in 
ihrem Ermessen.
2. Benutzer selbst ein nicht angezeigtes Bild jederzeit einblenden können, 
indem sie einfach auf das Bild klicken?


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

very strong support!

hubertl.

Am 09.10.2011 22:29, schrieb Tobias Oelgarte:
> That means it will be pushed in no matter if wanted/needed or in respect 
> to the local communities? I think that will push over the line of 
> acceptability.
> 
> I also want to remember you that the "referendum"/referendumm
> 
> 1. asked the wrong question(s)
> 2. did not mention any of the possible issues beforehand (biased 
> formulation)
> 3. left much room for possible implementations
> 
> !!! IM STILL WAITING FOR RESULTS PER PROJECT !!!
> Im very, very disappointed to see that this data is still not released. 
> I requested it a dozen times. Every time i got rejected that it will be 
> released later on and that we should stay patient. How many weeks ago 
> this request was made? I did not count anymore...
> 
> Seriously pissed off greetings from
> Tobias Oelgarte / user:niabot
> 
> Am 09.10.2011 16:12, schrieb Ting Chen:
>> Hello Tobias,
>>
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> Am 09.10.2011 15:43, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml:
>>> Hi Ting,
>>>
>>> one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
>>> image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
>>> communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
>>>
>>> We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty. Tensions
>>> in the community are extremely high (too high, if you ask me, but
>>> Wikimedians are emotional people), speculations and rumors about what
>>> WMF is going to do prevail.
>>> A clear statement would help our discussion process.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tobias / User:Church of emacs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 

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

[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Möller , Carsten]

> Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
> Mon Oct 10 11:16:21 UTC 2011
>
> But when it comes to discussing whether a specific illustration or media file 
> should be added 
> to an article, the one criterion nobody seems to raise is whether this is the 
> type of image or 
> video a reliably published educational source would include. Instead, we 
> often hear that 
> because Wikipedia is not censored, we *must* keep an image or media file in 
> the article, 
> *especially so* if it is controversial.

Quite on the contrary:
To include a specific image in a specific article is part of the editing 
process.
Everyone can follow this process in the history of the article.

To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as censorship 
by serious journalists.
It doesn't make much difference if the censor is part of the government or the 
owner of the publishing house.



--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 3673 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 October 2011 15:27, MZMcBride  wrote:
> I think the issue of "I'll put down my gun when you put down yours" is still
> being a bit side-stepped, but it isn't really the responsibility of a single
> Board member (or even the Board) to make agreements not to impose this
> feature on a particular wiki community. That has to come from the Executive
> Director in this case, I think.

The bit of the board resolution that Ting quoted (and confirmed as
still standing) says "all" projects. That means the Board has already
made that decision and Sue has no choice in the matter. The resolution
leaves Sue a lot of discretion in terms of how the feature will work,
but not on the subject of whether the feature will be implemented.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Community Appeal

[Ivay Martínez]

It's a great idea, I will ask to WM-MX guys to participate.
And I support the idea of MZM, we need to do most in social media. I don't
know if we have a strategy for content in FB, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.

Warmly.

2011/10/10 MZMcBride 

> Megan Hernandez wrote:
> > The fundraising team has been testing new messages over the past couple
> of
> > months and we're happy to report we've found some new voices that will
> allow
> > us to move away from our dependence on Jimmy to appeal to readers for
> > donations. This year we want the fundraiser to rely as much as possible
> on
> > voices of many different members of our community.
>
> Hi.
>
> Are there any plans to broadcast this a bit more widely, particularly to
> readers? I think using social media (the "wikimedia" microblogging account,
> Facebook pages, etc.) to get banners or banner ideas from outside the
> Wikimedia (editing) community would be great. There are a lot of creative
> people who love Wikimedia projects. A few tweets or status updates calling
> for banner submissions might go a long way... assuming people can figure
> out
> Meta-Wiki.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
*Atentamente:

Iván Martínez
Coordinador General
Wikimedia México
mx.wikimedia.org

Imagina un mundo en donde cada persona del planeta pueda tener acceso libre
a la suma total del conocimiento humano.
Eso es lo que estamos haciendo . *
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Community Appeal

[MZMcBride]

Megan Hernandez wrote:
> The fundraising team has been testing new messages over the past couple of
> months and we're happy to report we've found some new voices that will allow
> us to move away from our dependence on Jimmy to appeal to readers for
> donations. This year we want the fundraiser to rely as much as possible on
> voices of many different members of our community.

Hi.

Are there any plans to broadcast this a bit more widely, particularly to
readers? I think using social media (the "wikimedia" microblogging account,
Facebook pages, etc.) to get banners or banner ideas from outside the
Wikimedia (editing) community would be great. There are a lot of creative
people who love Wikimedia projects. A few tweets or status updates calling
for banner submissions might go a long way... assuming people can figure out
Meta-Wiki.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[MZMcBride]

Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Actually, I don't foresee these types of issues becoming overly contentious,
> at least not in the context of the image filter as proposed (opt-in).
> 
> Editors would eventually realise that the choices they make only affect the
> small proportion of readers who actually switch the filter ON, and decide they
> have better things to do than to edit-war over whether such a user will need
> to click on the image to see it, or not.

Yes, because rational thought like that is a hallmark of wiki discussions.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[MZMcBride]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
 On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen  wrote:
> The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
> to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
 
 How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were opposed or
 not.
>>> 
>>> I fear this point will need restating every time someone claims the
>>> "referendum" shows support.
>> 
>> I wonder what the image filter referendum results would have had to look
>> like in order to get anything other than a rambling "we march forward,
>> unabated!" letter from the Board.
> 
> Hi MZM and all! Greetings from the end of a long -- but productive and
> inspiring -- meeting weekend.
> 
> "Marching forward unabated" is not, in fact, what we are saying. The
> board, and individual members of the board, are quite aware of all of
> the criticisms from the vote and from the conversations on and off
> list -- believe me. This is not an official report on behalf of the
> board, but here is what we discussed doing:
> 
> * not going ahead with the category-based design that was proposed in
> the mockups; it is clear there are too many substantive problems that
> have been raised with this. Although this design (or any other) was
> actually not specified in the resolution, it is obvious that many of
> the critical comments were about using categorization in particular,
> and we hear that.
> * we are asking the staff to explore alternative designs, e.g. for a
> way for readers to flag images for themselves, and collapse individual
> images. This isn't fixed yet because it shouldn't be: we need to have
> a further period of iterative community & technical design.
> * not changing or revoking the Board resolution, because we do still
> think that there is a problem with our handling of potentially
> controversial content that needs to be addressed. We don't want to
> ignore the criticism, and we *also* don't want to ignore the positive
> comments from those who identified a problem and thought such a tool
> would be helpful and useful in addressing it. Our view is holistic.
> The Board discussed amending the resolution (we think, in particular,
> that the word 'filter' has led to many assumptions about design), but
> decided that for now the language of the resolution is broad enough
> that it leaves room for alternative solutions. And we also do not want
> to ignore the rest of the resolution -- the parts that call for better
> tools for commons, and that lay out that we respect the principle of
> least astonishment.
> 
> [...]

I found this e-mail very helpful and insightful. Thank you for writing it,
Phoebe.

I think the issue of "I'll put down my gun when you put down yours" is still
being a bit side-stepped, but it isn't really the responsibility of a single
Board member (or even the Board) to make agreements not to impose this
feature on a particular wiki community. That has to come from the Executive
Director in this case, I think. As others have said, it might go a long way
toward more open and honest dialogue if people don't feel as though their
efforts will inevitably be futile. (And, it isn't as though this is without
precedent. Even less controversial new features like the Vector skin were
made optional on a per-wiki basis.)

With the categorization scheme now being re-thought, I'm curious if there
are any central brainstorming pages about an image filter, either on
Meta-Wiki or mediawiki.org. If not, I'd be happy to start one. I've had some
ideas about filtering based on thresholds and percentages. For example, if
90% of viewers in your country have hidden a particular image and you've set
your personal threshold at 50%, an image might be automatically obscured.
This isn't a perfect idea, but discussing and debating the merits of each
idea might reveal a solution that's tenable.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: Hubert 

Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.

I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to be hidden
category because of atrocious violence or not.

Hubertl.



Actually, I don't foresee these types of issues becoming overly contentious, at 
least not in the context of the image filter as proposed (opt-in).

Editors would eventually realise that the choices they make only affect the 
small proportion of readers who actually switch the filter ON, and decide they 
have better things to do than to edit-war over whether such a user will need to 
click on the image to see it, or not.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Béria Lima]

Julius, I do understand your feelings (believe me: I do) but screaming and
offend the board (Like call them "highly confused and amateur") will not
help you in your cause.

I do understand your anger against the board and their decision (even
because your wiki decided to NOT have the filter.) but I think is better to
try solve that with discussion first, and after - as a last change - you can
start a war if you want.

Please note that the board didn't said yet (and I hope they never say) that
they will placed any filter in all wikis. I do agree that a statement saying
they will not impose the filter in wikis who voted against (fr and de so
far) would be better, but lest work with what we have now.
_
*Béria Lima*
(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer .*


On 10 October 2011 13:00, Julius Redzinski wrote:

>
> That can't be meant serious anymore. You first make a Board decision and
> then
> want to research how big the problem is or if it at all exists, after you
> already made
> the decision about the solution? The Board seems to act on a highly
> confused
> and amateur level ... it is not to understand anymore what is going on
> there.
>
> On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision
> researched
> really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different
> regions and
> the understanding that germany maybe has different needs than the arabic
> room and
> that a making them all the same is not a good idea, and not empathic at
> all. Before a
> Board decision there would have been to be a poll that really ask the right
> questions,
> not this fake thing with no impact at all. The way the Board acted on this
> and now not
> even says "yes, we fucked it up, we take the decision back and start at
> point zero
> again" is a shame for teh complete Wikimedia world and community.
>
> Second last point: Give back to the editors the responsibility to amke the
> choice how the can
> present their educational content to the readers. That is no Board
> decision. If a
> community says we don't need the filter, then the Board doesn't know any
> better
> about the needs and wishes of teh users of this project and shouldn't act
> into it
> this way.
>
> Last point: The Board should start fisrt thinking and then deciding. It
> would reduce much
> the danger of splitting the communities an the Wikipedias. The Board seems
> a little
> bit too american, first shooting by feeling threatend and then asking ...
> That is not
> the way the Board should work. So act responsible and take back the
> decision
> until a really good decision process would have been made through ...
>
> Julius Redzinski (de:Julius1990)
>
> > On 10.10.2011 13:24, wrote Ting:
> >
> > Hello Fae,
> >
> > thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit
> > the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some
> > plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment
> > what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because this
> > often can be seen as an intervening of the staff activity. But I think
> > it is ok for me to spoil this a bit now: So Sue suggests a two step
> > approach. In the first step we will only collect reader reactions on
> > images, to see if there is a problem at all, how big is the problem, and
> > where are the problems. And on a second step, when we have those data
> > and can work out an understanding of it, then we can go on to work out
> > dedicated solutions for the problems, as I said in my letter, together
> > with the community.
> >
> > Greetings
> > Ting
> >
> > On 09.10.2011 23:55, wrote Fae:
> > > Hi Ting,
> > >
> > > Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
> > > appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
> > > the board is acting from "belief", I recommend you consider how this
> > > can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
> > > analysis.
> > >
> > > I suspect that any proposal for change will be strongly resisted and
> > > continue to divide our community until well understood and well
> > > communicated facts underpin the board's resolution rather than
> > > personal belief.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Fae
>
> ___
> 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: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Julius Redzinski]

That can't be meant serious anymore. You first make a Board decision and then
want to research how big the problem is or if it at all exists, after you 
already made
the decision about the solution? The Board seems to act on a highly confused
and amateur level ... it is not to understand anymore what is going on there. 

On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched
really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different regions 
and
the understanding that germany maybe has different needs than the arabic room 
and
that a making them all the same is not a good idea, and not empathic at all. 
Before a
Board decision there would have been to be a poll that really ask the right 
questions,
not this fake thing with no impact at all. The way the Board acted on this and 
now not
even says "yes, we fucked it up, we take the decision back and start at point 
zero 
again" is a shame for teh complete Wikimedia world and community.

Second last point: Give back to the editors the responsibility to amke the 
choice how the can
present their educational content to the readers. That is no Board decision. If 
a 
community says we don't need the filter, then the Board doesn't know any better
about the needs and wishes of teh users of this project and shouldn't act into 
it
this way.

Last point: The Board should start fisrt thinking and then deciding. It would 
reduce much
the danger of splitting the communities an the Wikipedias. The Board seems a 
little 
bit too american, first shooting by feeling threatend and then asking ... That 
is not
the way the Board should work. So act responsible and take back the decision
until a really good decision process would have been made through ...

Julius Redzinski (de:Julius1990)

> On 10.10.2011 13:24, wrote Ting:
> 
> Hello Fae,
> 
> thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit 
> the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some 
> plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment 
> what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because this 
> often can be seen as an intervening of the staff activity. But I think 
> it is ok for me to spoil this a bit now: So Sue suggests a two step 
> approach. In the first step we will only collect reader reactions on 
> images, to see if there is a problem at all, how big is the problem, and 
> where are the problems. And on a second step, when we have those data 
> and can work out an understanding of it, then we can go on to work out 
> dedicated solutions for the problems, as I said in my letter, together 
> with the community.
> 
> Greetings
> Ting
> 
> On 09.10.2011 23:55, wrote Fae:
> > Hi Ting,
> >
> > Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
> > appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
> > the board is acting from "belief", I recommend you consider how this
> > can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
> > analysis.
> >
> > I suspect that any proposal for change will be strongly resisted and
> > continue to divide our community until well understood and well
> > communicated facts underpin the board's resolution rather than
> > personal belief.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fae
  
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

From: Ting Chen 

Hello Fae,

thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit 
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some 
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment 
what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because this 
often can be seen as an intervening of the staff activity. But I think 
it is ok for me to spoil this a bit now: So Sue suggests a two step 
approach. In the first step we will only collect reader reactions on 
images, to see if there is a problem at all, how big is the problem, and 
where are the problems. And on a second step, when we have those data 
and can work out an understanding of it, then we can go on to work out 
dedicated solutions for the problems, as I said in my letter, together 
with the community.



Ting,

I do think that asking *readers* in different parts of the world for their 
views is the way to go here.

This being a feature designed for readers' use, we should primarily be guided 
by readers' wishes, not editors' wishes.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Thomas Morton]

On 10 October 2011 12:16, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture
>

I would; but someone added it to this pesky image filter...

(too soon? sorry :P)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Levy]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> Given comments like this, it seems the contingent in support of filters
> is utterly and completely delusional. That proposal mitigates none of
> the valid objections to enabling other forces from just taking what we
> would be foolish enough to supply, and abusing the system to all its
> delight. Please come up with something more realistic.

Please elaborate (ideally without hurling insults).

David Levy

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Ting Chen]

Hello Fae,

thank you very much for pointing this out. Yes, I think you indeed hit 
the nail. We discussed this problem on our meeting and Sue provided some 
plans on how to work on this problem. I am normally reluctant to comment 
what the staff is doing or what they are planning to do, because this 
often can be seen as an intervening of the staff activity. But I think 
it is ok for me to spoil this a bit now: So Sue suggests a two step 
approach. In the first step we will only collect reader reactions on 
images, to see if there is a problem at all, how big is the problem, and 
where are the problems. And on a second step, when we have those data 
and can work out an understanding of it, then we can go on to work out 
dedicated solutions for the problems, as I said in my letter, together 
with the community.

Greetings
Ting

On 09.10.2011 23:55, wrote Fae:
> Hi Ting,
>
> Thanks for explaining the position of the board in your own words. I
> appreciate the board is listening. I am concerned that you state that
> the board is acting from "belief", I recommend you consider how this
> can move to proposing a strategy based on facts and non-controversial
> analysis.
>
> I suspect that any proposal for change will be strongly resisted and
> continue to divide our community until well understood and well
> communicated facts underpin the board's resolution rather than
> personal belief.
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard  wrote:
> On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>>> the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>>> requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
>>> something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>>> voted against.
>>
>> There is nothing useful to be learned from the Letter to the Community.
>
> The problem is that what is usually called "the Board" on this list is
> not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons.
>
> And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within
> "the Board" about what to exactly do or not do.
>
> Accordingly, it is probably tough for "the Board" as an entity to issue
> statements or letters or recommandations without bumping in the fact
> that they do not have a single common position.
>
> Consequently, there is nothing really useful in any statements they can
> issue.

That may well be the case but since it was the WMF board that decided
we should have this feature, they need to come to a clear decision on
how they want to proceed. If they can't find a solution that satisfies
all of them and the decision has to be made by a vote with a slim
majority, then so be it.

If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you
are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a
decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is
really not the way a board of trustees should work.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

Taking a step back, to look at the bigger picture -- one thing that has always 
struck me 

as odd is how different our approach to text and illustrations is.



For text, we are incredibly "censorious", insisting that any material presented 
to the reader 

must reflect what is found in reliable sources. Anything unsourceable is 
deleted. No one in 

the community has a problem with that. The occasional newbie who complains that 
their

original research has been "censored" generally gets very short shrift.



But when it comes to discussing whether a specific illustration or media file 
should be added 

to an article, the one criterion nobody seems to raise is whether this is the 
type of image or 

video a reliably published educational source would include. Instead, we often 
hear that 

because Wikipedia is not censored, we *must* keep an image or media file in the 
article, 

*especially so* if it is controversial.



The underlying assumption seems to be that reliable sources somehow *are* 
censored when 

it comes to illustrations, and we are not. But if we assume that about 
illustrations, why don't 

we assume it about text? It doesn't make sense.



The whole of Wikipedia is built on the premise that its text should reflect the 
editorial 


judgment of reliable sources. It's not built on the premise of forging ahead of 
reliable sources, 

of breaking new ground, or of being a subversive force in society (beyond the 
arguably 

subversive idea of presenting a free summary of the world's knowledge, as 
collected in 

reliable sources).



The logical thing to do would be to take more of a lead from reliable sources 
in choosing a 

style of illustration. And given that reliable sources differ in their 
editorial standards depending 

on region, philosophical stance, intended audience, etc., an optional image 
filter, used or not 

used at the discretion of the reader, would be a useful complement to adjust to 
these differences.


Andreas



From: phoebe ayers 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 4:47
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
>>> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen  wrote:
 The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
 to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
>>>
>>> How do you know? The "referendum" didn't ask whether people were opposed or
>>> not.
>>
>> I fear this point will need restating every time someone claims the
>> "referendum" shows support.
>
> I wonder what the image filter referendum results would have had to look
> like in order to get anything other than a rambling "we march forward,
> unabated!" letter from the Board.
>
> MZMcBride

Hi MZM and all! Greetings from the end of a long -- but productive and
inspiring -- meeting weekend.

"Marching forward unabated" is not, in fact, what we are saying. The
board, and individual members of the board, are quite aware of all of
the criticisms from the vote and from the conversations on and off
list -- believe me. This is not an official report on behalf of the
board, but here is what we discussed doing:

* not going ahead with the category-based design that was proposed in
the mockups; it is clear there are too many substantive problems that
have been raised with this. Although this design (or any other) was
actually not specified in the resolution, it is obvious that many of
the critical comments were about using categorization in particular,
and we hear that.
* we are asking the staff to explore alternative designs, e.g. for a
way for readers to flag images for themselves, and collapse individual
images. This isn't fixed yet because it shouldn't be: we need to have
a further period of iterative community & technical design.
* not changing or revoking the Board resolution, because we do still
think that there is a problem with our handling of potentially
controversial content that needs to be addressed. We don't want to
ignore the criticism, and we *also* don't want to ignore the positive
comments from those who identified a problem and thought such a tool
would be helpful and useful in addressing it. Our view is holistic.
The Board discussed amending the resolution (we think, in particular,
that the word 'filter' has led to many assumptions about design), but
decided that for now the language of the resolution is broad enough
that it leaves room for alternative solutions. And we also do not want
to ignore the rest of the resolution -- the parts that call for better
tools for commons, and that lay out that we respect the principle of
least astonishment.

The speculation on this list the last few weeks about what individual
board members think and want has generally been wildly, hilariously
off base -- I have seen many statements about board membe

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

Am 09.10.2011 16:56, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
> On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen  wrote:
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
> 
> So you do intend to force this on projects that don't want it? Do you
> really think that's going to work? If the WMF picks a fight with the
> community on something the community feel very strongly about (which
> this certainly seems to be), the WMF will lose horribly and the
> fall-out for the whole movement will be very bad indeed.

hi Thomas, I would say, it is a perfect example of one of the Parkinsons
law. They did´nt diskuss how it may work and how many man-hour it will
need to achieve the escape of maybe hundreds of today hard working editors.

And how much money it will really need. Because, implementing this
software is just a fractional amount of overall costs.

“The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion
to the sum involved.”

Because the wars in Commons, which Categories at least will fit
violence, will be unmanageable.

I don´t want to confront myself with fundamental christian groups in
categorising cruzification and holy cross as to become a to be hidden
category because of atrocious violence or not.

Hubertl.
> 
> ___
> 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: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[David Gerard]

On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert  wrote:
> Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:

>> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt

> dear Anneke,
> +1
> and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
> meaning of violence.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence


I don't understand what point is being made here.


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Hubert]

dear Anneke,

+1

and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

hubertl.

Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
> 
> Anneke
> 
> Am 09.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Ting Chen:
> 
>> Hello Tobias,
>>
>> the text of the May resolution to this question is "... and that the
>> feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for  
>> both
>> logged-in and logged-out readers", and on the current board meeting we
>> decided to not ammend the original resolution.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Ting
>>
>> Am 09.10.2011 15:43, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml:
>>> Hi Ting,
>>>
>>> one simple question: Is the Wikimedia Foundation going to enable the
>>> image filter on _all_ projects, disregarding consensus by local
>>> communities of rejecting the image filter? (E.g. German Wikipedia)
>>>
>>> We are currently in a very unpleasant situation of uncertainty.  
>>> Tensions
>>> in the community are extremely high (too high, if you ask me, but
>>> Wikimedians are emotional people), speculations and rumors about what
>>> WMF is going to do prevail.
>>> A clear statement would help our discussion process.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tobias / User:Church of emacs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>>> foundation-l
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Ting
>>
>> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>>
>> ___
>> 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
> 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

I was following the discussion without ever giving my own opinion, and my
impression is that we are going nowhere.

Imagine we make another poll, properly prepared, and the poll shows, say,
that 65% support the filter and 35% oppose. So what? Concluding then then
the community rejecting the filter would not be a good way of looking at
things. We should not decide such things by majority vote, since the
majority vote leaves underrepresented groups out. We should be looking for
a consensus solution. The poll could still be an important indication on
what solutions are clearly outside the consensus, but we have already many
indications to this point. 

I think what should come next is that one of the filter proponents would
come up with a suggestion for a workable scheme. (I guess the opponents of
the filter would not be so much interested). We had already on this list
for the last couple of weeks a number of schemes proposed, what should
happen now is that somebody summarizes the main suggestions and the
criticism of these suggestions. This will be a good starting point to think
in the further directions and see what is doable and what is acceptable. 

I believe continuing to discuss whether the board should have use
different wording in the statement or whether the poll should have gone
differently is not really constructive. In the end, if we come to the
result that any kind of filter is incompatible with the Wikimedia movement
mission - let it be like this. Then we can discuss pro-filter and
anti-filter forks. But my impression is that we are not yet at this point.

Cheers
Yaroslav



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Florence Devouard]

On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with
>> the community to develop a solution that meets the original
>> requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do
>> something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has
>> been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans
>> voted against.
>
> There is nothing useful to be learned from the Letter to the Community.

The problem is that what is usually called "the Board" on this list is 
not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons.

And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within 
"the Board" about what to exactly do or not do.

Accordingly, it is probably tough for "the Board" as an entity to issue 
statements or letters or recommandations without bumping in the fact 
that they do not have a single common position.

Consequently, there is nothing really useful in any statements they can 
issue.

Florence




> What we can assume is that someone on the Board raised the issue about
> people complaining about images, someone suggested if there are images
> people don't like, they should have the option to have them hidden from
> them, and then they agreed that someone should figure that out. Board
> members do not thing they have to contribute to the solution and they
> don't think the community should have any say in whether the feature is
> actually wanted by the community. Whoever is tasked with figuring this
> out isn't actually taking useful steps towards solving the problem.
>
> Instead we are burning goodwill by arguing the finer points of what is,
> exactly, censorship, how there are provocateurs in our midst, and how
> important, relative to not, it is that users have this feature whether
> they are logged in or not, and any number of other things. This is not
> an issue where you can hope to get everyone on board by appealing to
> people's empathy and understanding, people do not know whether they are
> to board the Titanic or the QE2, so you get a lot of talk about how the
> ship will sink if you build it incorrectly or steer it badly.
>
> It would be easy for the Board to resolve that at this point they ex-
> pect whoever they tasked with it to come up with a technical proposal
> in coordination with the community which might then be implemented on
> projects who volunteer to test it and then there will be an evaluation
> also in coordination with the community before any further steps are
> taken, for instance. But the Chair has chosen to instead inform the
> community that it's far too late to argue about this feature and there
> is no reason for the Board to do as little as hint at the possibility
> that this feature will not be imposed on projects by force.
>
> We can read the Letter to the Community carefully if you want. I note,
> e.g., "deliberately offending or provoking them is not respectful, and
> is not okay". This is insinuating a notable group of people is taking
> the opposite position, which is not true. That part starts "We believe
> we need, and should want, to treat readers with respect. Their opinions
> and preferences are as legitimate as our own". The list of opinions and
> preferences humans have held throughout history that today "we" would
> find abhorrent is very, very long. "The majority of editors who
> responded to the referendum are not opposed to the feature." I do not
> see how one can have followed the discussion without running across the
> fact that this statement is regarded as invalid inference from the poll.
>
> Like I said, it does not really matter what he wrote, the people who've
> expressed concern about the filter do not care about random claims how
> the Board is listening and hearing and paying attention and wants us to
> work with "you" despite the Board being openly hostile towards the com-
> munity, whether it means to be or is just exceptionally bad at dealing
> with the community in a manner that is well received. What they want is
> that this issue goes away, whether that is by abandoning the project or
> a brilliant idea that nobody has thought of so far or whatever.
>
> Clearly an image filter can be developed and maintained. Having one has
> costs and benefits. It may well be that no filter can be developed such
> that the benefits outweigh the costs. Without knowing that it is not
> reasonable to command implementation of the filter. If this had been
> framed as some explorative feasibility and requirements gathering study
> with an open outcome and proposals sought, we would have a different
> kind of discussion.
>
>> The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to
>> easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's
>> resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe
>> this will not be possible, but it's the goal. The Board definitely
>> does not want a w