Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about most viewed articles in 2011
* Frédéric Schütz wrote in gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation: >On 11.01.2012 22:04, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> So the numbers are rather rough and won't really tell you anything you >> did not already know (Sex> Astrobiology, no surprise there), and you >> can't really say Steve Jobs> Justin Bieber based on this data without >> explaining all the caveats anyway. The data is more useful if you look >> for general trends like in http://katograph.appspot.com/ which tells >> you things like that articles on people in Film are viewed much more >> often than people in Sports which is at least slightly non-obvious. > >That's another question: what is the easiest way to know which articles >belong to a given broad category ? > >Categories do not work well: try to take a top category such as >Category:Sports and go down the category tree; you'll probably get most >of the Wikipedia pages (at least, you'll definitively get many pages >that have nothing to do with sports). WikiProjects seem better, but >there are many of them (including sub-projects, etc), so it is not easy >to automatize. It depends on whether the system actually is a tree. When I made the app above, the category system of the german Wikipedia was not a tree, but it was easy enough to fix, and so only 10% of the articles end up being in Kategorie:Sport or a subcategory. Kategorie:Wissenschaft (science) is more of a problem, about 75% of articles can be found under that. To me, the bigger problem is coming up with a list of these "broad categories", if you want something more granular than people, places, events, things, concepts, other, or whatever. If you had that, you could at least run a couple of experiments (things to consider would be, for instance, how deeply nested an article under "sports" is, categories of linking and linked articles, how many articles are in or under some category). As an example, Angela Merkel is in `German chemists`, but most of the linked articles are in political categories, so a rule "person + politics => politician" if "politician" is a broad category in the system, that'd be fairly easy to implement. -- 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] Questions about most viewed articles in 2011
* Frédéric Schütz wrote: >So, why would "404 error" and "File:Hardy_boys_cover_09.jpg" be ranked >so high ? "404 error" is constant through the year (it may be a link >from a 404 page on a web server, but I'd be still surprised that it is >clicked so often), but the other is viewed in bursts (see e.g. >http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/File:Hardy_boys_cover_09.jpg). Any idea ? As I understand it, the access counts are derived from frontend cache log files without much of an attempt to filter out abnormalities like someone putting a stone on their keyboard to keep the F5 press down, which would cause their web browser to load the same page again and again. More realistically, you have malfunctioning bots that end up in a loop causing them to request the same page many times, and there probably are deliberate attempts to push certain topics (even if you keep it down and request only once per minute, that would still be half a million per year, quite enough to get into "top" lists on the smaller Wikipedia versions, for instance). If you look further down in your list, you'll probably find that Special:Export/* is extremely popular even though it's a very obscure feature, but apparently some articles are exported hundreds of thousands of times. You would need access to additional data, like the IP addresses from where the requests come, or Referer header in requests, and so on, to attempt individual guesses (that data however cannot be published for privacy reasons, I do not know if it is collected at all or in what form). For the 404 error you could probably verify that the page is #1 for queries about it on various search engines in many locales (if you assume there are 2 billion Internet users, and 6.6% bing the error and get to the Wikipedia page, that would already explain the number). So the numbers are rather rough and won't really tell you anything you did not already know (Sex > Astrobiology, no surprise there), and you can't really say Steve Jobs > Justin Bieber based on this data without explaining all the caveats anyway. The data is more useful if you look for general trends like in http://katograph.appspot.com/ which tells you things like that articles on people in Film are viewed much more often than people in Sports which is at least slightly non-obvious. -- 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] Loriot
* Risker wrote: >Well, given that you've been repeatedly directed to the WMF staff members >who are able to answer your questions, you seem to be working awfully hard >at *not* asking the people you've been directed to. Have you even made an >attempt to post to Geoff Brigham's MetaWiki talk page? While I cannot >speak for the manner in which Geoff would respond to you, I don't think you >have grounds to complain that he is not responding to you directly and >publicly if you have not contacted him directly and publicly. By the looks of it, the Wikimedia Foundation has received legal advice that the Commons community has an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the legal status of a class of images and deleted some as a result. What it should have done is inform the community of their reasoning, or inform it that an explanation is forthcoming but delayed, alongside in- formation on possible remedies, like whether hosting the images on the german Wikipedia instead of Commons would be okay, or not, or that they have yet to look into that question. Otherwise it would be putting the members of the community and possibly also the Wikimedia Foundation it- self in legal jeopardy. Instead it seems to have done nothing to inform the community until it was asked about the matter, and since then could only suggest that any- one who wants details might try e-mailing some address, where they may or may not learn anything which they may or may not share with the rest of the community. Someday. Which even days later has not resulted in any more information, other than that someone asked someone to maybe post somewhere something. What's not to complain about that? We most likely wouldn't be talking about this if the Foundation had posted "The information on the legal status of some images in this class of images is possibly misleading; based on legal advice, we have decided to remove several images on Commons; our legal counsel is currently working on an explanation that will be posted here, but it may take up to two weeks; please do not restore them on local wikis while we review the situation further" or something along those lines and had linked that in the deletion log summaries. I would think that is what the community expects, and it'd seem telling the Foundation the approach here irritated the community would be the first step towards improving the Foundation's behavior. -- 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] Show community consensus for Wikilove
* Mateus Nobre wrote: >Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature? > >This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, >there's no reason to disagree improvements. If you create a new account and edit a bit, on some projects odds are some other editor will place on your Talk page some template saying they saw you editing and wanted to personally welcome you. Some might find that nice, others might feel they are being stalked because someone is monitoring them, ridiculed as there is nothing personal about placing templates, most probably with a single click, on talk pages, and exposed as the first thing anyone visiting the talk page would see is that they are a newbie. Some may think of http://www.despair.com/motivation.html when they find themself as recepient of this kind of Wikilove. And they would have a hard time showing their discomfort because society expects you to appreciate when someone appears to try to be nice to you, which would add to their discomfort. Some editors just want to edit articles and regard the "social" and "meta" dimensions of the project as annoying distractions, while other editors see those as the main attractions. Some prefer "You are nice.", others are far more motivated hearing "You did a good job." Some might be thrilled if they see someone clicked them a kitty, others might find it far more meaningful if another editor takes the time to manually go to their talk page and manually write, say, "I signed in this morning and saw you added a great picture to the article I created yesterday. That made me smile, thank you." without hearts and beers and single clicks (similarily, adding the picture might be a far better show of appreciation than a clicked kitty with thanks for the new article.) It's hard to smile online. -- 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
* Dirk Franke wrote: >the cultural homogenous group of Germans tends to discuss in German. So to >give you a short update on what is happening: > >A White Bag protest movement against the image filter is forming. > >And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think >and say it loud. "The Wikimedia Foundation is not going to impose something on the German Wikipedia, against the will of the German community." -- Sue Gardner in http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=3025813&oldid=3025365 today. -- 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
* Nikola Smolenski wrote: >Who is this "we" you are talking about? No one is going to force anyone >to categorize images. If some people want to categorize images, and if >their effort turns out to be in vain, again that is Their Problem and >not Your Problem. When your filtering or categorization choices affect others in any way then your choices have moral and ethical implications that people find it hard to ignore. Few people would stand idle by when they learn you flag images they find very appropriate as inappropriate. You can claim not standing idle by is their choice; and you would be mistaken. >Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of >software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is >unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what? Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't be able to use some software. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto: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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
* Erik Moeller wrote: >With that said, I also think it's important to remember that Sue has >explicitly affirmed that the development of any technical solution >would be done in partnership with the community, including people >who've expressed strong opposition to what's been discussed to date. There was a plan for that, "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". Pretty logical question to ask, if a majority opposes the feature there is not much point in developing it, and when a majority supports it, development would be much easier. The community would likely have rejected the proposal if it had been given the chance to do so and had been properly informed of criticism, so the community was instead told the matter is already decided, was not informed of any criticism as part of the referendum, and wasn't given the option to clearly express opposition. That's how Sue Gardner understands partner- ship with the community. I don't think the community wants more of 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] Is random article truly random
* Andreas K. wrote: >The median and quartiles are on page 7 of the report: > >---o0o--- > >Valid responses were received from respondents between 10 – 85 years. >Overall, the average age of the Wikipedians that participated in the survey >is 25.22 years. Half of the respondents are younger than 22 years. The most >frequent age that can be observed within the respondents is 18 >years. Splitting the respondents in four equally large age groups shows that >25% are younger than 18 years old, 25% are between 18 and 22, a further 25% >are between 22 and 30 (e.g. half of the respondents are between 18 and 30 >years) and the remaining 25% are between 30 and 85 years old. There is a >slight age difference between readers and contributors - readers are, on >average, 24.79 years old while contributors show an average age of 26.14 >years. Finally, female respondents are younger (23.79 years) than male ones >(25.69 years). > >---o0o--- You made a point about editorial judgement and age, so I looked at data on editor age. As far as I can tell, the above only mentions the average age of "contributors", it does not say "The median age of contributors is 30 years" or some such thing. -- 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] Is random article truly random
* Andreas K. wrote: >Sounds good. I was going by last year's United Nations University survey, > >http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf > >which is older, but had a much larger sample size (176,000 vs. 5,300, >comprising both readers and editors). I think the earlier study concluded some time in November 2008 while the more recent one concluded in April 2011, so there are about 2 1/2 years between them. Unfortunately the earlier study, at least in the report a- bove, only has average age for contributors, no median or quartiles or other groups that would allow for a meaningful comparison to the current study. It's normal and expected that younger people are more likely to make extensive use of an encyclopedia as they study the most. With only 7.42% regular contributors in the 2008 study, the age distribution does not tell us much about possible bias due to age in editorial judgement. There may be more detailed results but I could not immediately find any. -- 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] Is random article truly random
* Andreas K. wrote: >I wasn't actually saying that à propos the image filter, more in relation to >the general point about editorial judgment. > >Cultures differ, and like attracts like. You know our demographics. They're >still far from ideal. > >* Half of our editors are 21 or younger. > >* Only a quarter are 30 or older, yet this is the demographic with the most >expertise. Per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011/Profiles you seem to be quite mistaken, only 27% are 21 or younger, and 47% are 30+. With various statistical caveats that I haven't researched, and this is "us" as in editors, I am not aware of a representative study of readers, and they would count as editors when they get involved in editorial matters. -- 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
* Andreas K. wrote: >I see our vision and mission as entirely service-focused. We are not doing >this for our own amusement: You are talking about the Wikimedia Foundation while I was talking about Wikipedians. I certainly "do this" for my own amusement, not to satisfy. >That's a fascinating piece of work. :) If I understand it correctly, the >colour of each rectangle reflects average number of page views per article >in this category (blue = low, orange = high), and the area of each rectangle >reflects the number of articles in that category. What do the dropdown menus >do? I can't figure them out. Do you have an FAQ for this application? http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikide-l/2010-January/022758.html has some additional information. By default, the rectangles are sized according to the number of articles in the category and coloured by the median number of requests per article in the category. So a very big rectangle with a cold colour indicates there are many articles under it that nobody reads, while small rectangles with a warm colour indicate categories with few articles that draw a lot of traffic. If you set the colour to "Anzahl" and the size to "(inv) Anzahl Artikel", the smallest category will be in the left top and the colours get warmer towards the bottom right corner. The third dropdown specifies the layout algorithm. -- 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
* Andreas K. wrote: >Satisfying most users is a laudable aim for any service provider, whether >revenue is involved or not. Why should we not aim to satisfy most our users, >or appeal to as many potential users as possible? Many Wikipedians would disagree that they or Wikipedia as a whole is a "service provider". The first sentence on the german language version for instance is "Wikipedia ist ein Projekt zum Aufbau einer Enzyklopädie aus freien Inhalten in allen Sprachen der Welt." That's about creating something, not about providing some service to others, much less trying to satisfy most people who might wish to be serviced. I invite you to have a look at http://katograph.appspot.com/ which shows the category system of the german Wikipedia at the end of 2009 with in- formation about how many articles can be found under them and the number of views of articles in the category over a three day period. You will find for instance that there are many more articles on buildings than on movies, many times more, but articles on movies get more views in total. -- 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
* Andreas Kolbe wrote: >Personality conflicts aside, we're noting that non-sexual search terms >in Commons can prominently return sexual images of varying explicitness, >from mild nudity to hardcore, and that this is different from entering a >sexual search term and finding that Google fails to filter some results. That is normal and expected with a full text search that does not filter out "sexual" images. Even if you search for sexual content on Commons it is normal and expected that you get results you would rather not get. It is possible to largely avoid this by using, say, Google Image Search and a site:commons.wikimedia.org constraint and the right SafeSearch setting if you want for the simpler cases, but I would not want to search for, say, "penis", on either site when unprepared for shock. I do not think Commons is relevant to the Image Filter discussion, the image filter is for things editors largely agree should be included in context, while on Commons you lack context and editorial control. If there was a MediaWiki extension that is good at emulating Google's SafeSearch, installing that on Commons might be an acceptable idea, but there is not, and making one would be rather expensive. -- 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
* Bob the Wikipedian wrote: >Zooming out may work for individuals like you, but for folks like me, >it's actually a distraction, and I try to see what the tiny picture is, >staring at it until it makes sense. Yay for ADHD:-\ Zooming out is something that works for me pretty much everywhere with no changes needed to any web site. I did not suggest telling Wikipedia users that's their only option and putting this issue to rest. Rather, I suggested that shrinking all images would be an option so that users who regularily encounter images on Wikipedia they have issues would be less affected by them. You cannot have a personal image filter without expending considerable effort on selecting the images you personally do or do not want to see, it is this very effort that makes it personal. -- 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
* David Gerard wrote: >Not sure the blurring system would do the job for a workplace. At a >distance, the blurred penis still looks exactly like a penis ... There are many alternatives to a blur effect. A much simpler effect would be a Small Images option that shrinks all images to icon size. The information you get is about the same as with a blur effect, but the images would be even easier to ignore and couldn't be recognized at a distance. There would be problems with maps as the point over- lay depends on the size, but that should not be that hard to fix. It would also match what I do when I am unsure whether I am about to load some web page which I am not sure I want to see the images on, I tell my browser to zoom out, load the page, and then decide whether it's okay to zoom in, or if I should go View -> Images -> No Images, or close the page or whatever. It's interesting to note that advocates of discriminatory schemes do not discuss, as far as I am aware, how to communicate the tagging of some images as somehow controversial to users who do not filter. I'd wonder how they feel about adding some notice like "Seeing this image makes some people feel bad" to the image caption for all images that would be filtered by one of the discriminatory filter options. -- 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
* 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
* 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. 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 war with the community, and it does not want people to >fork or leave the projects. The goal is a solution that's acceptable >for everyone. Well, then the Board should not have commanded implementation before an idea what to implement had been developed, the development should not have happened way out of reach of the community, there should not have been a referendum without a proposal that enjoys some meaningful level of community support, the referndum should have asked more meaningful questions, and the whole thing should have been very clearly branded as an experiment participation in which will be genuinely optional. It'll be necessary to move a few steps back to re-synchronize with the rest of the com
Re: [Foundation-l] Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia
* church.of.emacs.ml wrote: >On 10/01/2011 02:46 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only >> on devices where you can easily hover. > >How good are chances it can be implemented in a feasible way for other >browsers? Webkit-derived browsers support the blurring but do not seem to support removing the filter via :hover so that would need some mouseover script to compensate which is easy, for Internet Explorer the proprietary CSS filter extensions would have to be used probably in combination with the mouseover scripting needed for Webkit, so for the mainstream browsers on the desktop I'd say give it two hours. The minimum you need to blur on the client side is scripting, access to image data (likely via ) and a way to render in-memory image data (likely via data:image/png,), below that you would some fallback, like showing a single-color image as temporary replacement instead of the blurred images. So, quite good. -- 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
[Foundation-l] Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia
Hi, A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on the english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the image. I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.css To try this out you would have to copy or import this code into your own skin.js and skin.css files which are available e.g. under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.js http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.css This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only on devices where you can easily hover. It may show some images that it ought to blur for boring reasons. Spoilers ahead if you want to try it. Browsing around with that is quite interesting. Some findings: it is a bit annoying when UI elements (say clipart in maintenance templates) are blurred. The same goes for small logo-like graphics, say actual logos, flags, coat of arms, and actual text, like rotated table headers. I did expect that blurred maps would be annoying, but I've not found them to be. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagebüll as example, the marker and text are overlayed so they are not blurred, and I can recognize the shape of Germany fine. I note that there is a perceptual problem if you click around to explore how blurring affects the experience as that does not reflect what a user would do. I noticed that my impression changed a lot when switching from actually paying some attention to the articles to randomly moving to the next article just looking at the images. Pages, or parts of pages, that largely lack content (say all you get on a screen is lone line of lead, table of contents, and image plus map on the side, or a stub that has four sentences and an image). There it's a bit odd, in stark contrast to an article like BDSM where I felt blurring is very unobtrusive. Another thing I've noticed is that I pay a whole lot more attention to the images when I focus them, decide to hover over it, reveal it, and then look at it, maybe read the caption and so on. I also noticed I do not really bother to read the captions before I hover and rather decide based on the blurred picture itself (I ignore most captions usually, so this is unsurprising). There are also many surprises, where images do not come out in the clear as you would have expected from the blur. My impression is that it actually makes it much easier to think about if an image is well placed where it is. If there are several images, you can focus more easily on just the one, and you remove to some degree the "status quo" effect, where you may be biased to agree with the placement because someone already placed it there. Images where red tones are used a lot seem to be rather distracting when they are blurred. Blue and green and yellow and black and white and so on are no problem, and the red tones are no problem when the image is crisp. Not sure what's up with that, I have not noticed this before. It would of course be possible to manipulate the colours in addition to the blurring. Largely black and white bar charts and tree diagrams and illustrations of data like them are also annoying when blurred, in part because there is inconsistency as some of them are not blurred because they are made not as image but using HTML constructs. They are perhaps too much like text so unlike a photo with many different colors they are harder to just ignore using one's banner blindness skills. There is also a noise factor to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction for instance compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code -- in the former the graphic in the infobox is fine blurred while the latter irks me when blurred. Generally though the added nuisance is hardly worth mentioning, it works surprisingly well (well, this was the first thing I thought about when I learned of the image filter, but it does work a bit better than I had expected initially, and some issues would be easily fixed, like blurring only images larger than 50x50 would take care of most of the UI graphics for instance). So having conducted this experiment, I think the need to have some images hidden while having others in the clear, where the com- munity as a whole decided to show rather than hide, as in omitting them for all users, is not a legitimate need. regards, -- 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] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
* Keegan Peterzell wrote: >http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/ I don't think this is contributing much to the discussion. The point in the blog post is basically just that people should discuss how to make articles better. Everybody agrees. That, in the sense of the blog post, the existing decision making processes, including demographies of those who would participate in discussions, is insufficient is asserted but as far as I can tell rather unproven. There are three examples. First: When an editor asks if the image cleavage_(breasts).jpg really belongs in the article about clothing necklines, she shouldn’t get shouted down about prudishness: we should try to find better images that don’t overly sexualize a non-sexual topic. I checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckline and it's Talk page. The only edit there since March 2011 was by CommonsDelinker renaming a file (the one in question in fact). The Talk page has not been edited since July 2007 and there is no mention of this image, much less anyone being shouted down about it. The second example: When an editor writes “you can’t be serious?!” after vagina,anus,perineum_(detail).jpg is posted on the front page, the response shouldn’t be WP:NOTCENSORED: we should have a discussion about who visits the homepage, and we should try to understand, and be sensitive to, their expectations and circumstances and needs. This discussion took place beforehand, people quite firmly decided the article would be featured and would feature and image on the front page. I am quite sure if you conducted a representative survey among Wikipedia users in D-A-CH these two decisions would be rather uncontroversial. The image selection process did not work so well, but I rather doubt people who would write "you can’t be serious?!" in response would be affected notably by the image choice. Clearly this is not without friction, but that is by design. Society has a need for this kind of friction, a gray area where you can explore the boundaries, to tell what our current cultural norms are. Monty Python's Life of Brian helped us learn where we stand with satire with respect to religion and politics when it was released, for instance, with friction, a lot, but now it's one of the greatest comedy films of all time. When we get thousands of angry e-mails about our decision to republish the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, we should acknowledge the offence the cartoons cause, and explain why, on balance, we think they warrant publication anyway. This case is entirely different. If there was no controversy there would be no fair use rationale. They are published there due to offence. There is no balance, people's sensitivities are what put them there. It's nice to explain this, but has nothing to do with any kind of process failure. The conference Sue Gardner mentions in the blog posting, to take another example, was accompanied by a presentation where the german article on Arachnophobia was shown featuring some huge spider image. Turns out that was an old revision that had long since been changed. It is not entirely surprising that those who see a problem that needs to be solved have trouble providing evidence in sufficient quantity, if you can actually persuade the community there is a problem, they will go and fix it. What's left, in turn, going by the argument, is where the normal editorial process has failed, but examples of that cannot be given to the established community as they wouldn't agree there is a problem else it would fall into the first category, unless the problem is so enormous the established community could not hope to address it, in which case we would not be talking about this either as examples would be unnecessary. So that leaves the argument about the demographics of the established community, saying the established community cannot address the problem because it does not understand it on an emphatic level. This is true of course in as much as there is a problem that cannot be explained. It is normal and expected that communities reject solutions to problems they are told they cannot understand, especially when the communities are expected to participate in the implementation of the solution which they cannot as they do not understand the problem to begin with. So the image filter proposal is largely kafkaesque in this sense. I will note in passing that Sue Gardner is quite wrong in my opinion on the distinction between editorial judgement and censorship. We all use and expects others to use some restraint to make living togehter easier. There are laws, there are social norms, we may refrain from expressing ourselves in a certain way due to the sensitivities of others without calling that self-censorship. Laws and widely accepted social normas are authorities in a broad sense of the word. Without authority to consider, deference to the sensitivities of others is self-censorship, harmf
Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter
* m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: >I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven >everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review >process would never have been created if a long discussion would have >preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raised so many >seemingly valid concerns that they'd buried the idea deep. I'm feeling >that a group of worst-case scenarioists are leading the discussion to >a point where the image filter is buried just because everybody is >bored about the discussion. Make a category system, set up a web site where people can see an image and select which categories it belongs to, and then let people fill the database. Let's say setting the site for doing this up takes a man-day, and it should take only about a man-year to categorize all images. Simple example: let's say 4791 users categorize on average 1 image per second, then each user would have to spend less than 40 minutes on this to categorize all of Wikimedia Commons. That's the number of people who agreed the most strongly to the first "referendum" statement. You could add another man-day to make a user script that people can add to their vector.js file or whatever that uses the data to hide images. So that's something like $100 for server setup, a weekend spent coding, and less than an hour of work by those who feel the most strongly about offering this feature. Plus whatever it takes to design the categories. As a rule of thumb based approximation -- this is not business planning. Discussing this in terms of whether the Wikimedia Foundation should host the categorization system, whether Wikimedia Foundation funds should be used to develop the system, whether the categories should be maintained as part of existing Wikimedia projects like Wikimedia Commons, etc., is a choice that the proponents of this feature have made. And they appear to be getting what they asked for. They can ignore the objections, build it outside Wikimedia infrastructure, outside the Wikipedia community. -- 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] A possible solution for the image filter
* WereSpielChequers wrote: >For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available >set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop >other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate. This cannot be prevented. You just need a bot that emulates a reader who has the desired filter settings enabled and then load all the images or articles or whatever and check what is blocked and then you have a list. > 1. Hide all images and just show caption and description. (recommended > for users with slow internet connections) (I note that it's trivial to blur images on the client side and reveal them on hover or tapping or whatever input method would be appropriate.) > 3. Show all images except ones that I or another editor have decided not > to see again This will not work unless you introduce some process to block editors who put too much on their filter list for some definition of "too much". -- 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] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows
* David Gerard wrote: >233 would be a *large* turnout on en:wp. What is a large turnout on de:wp? Most Meinungsbilder have between 100 and 300 editors participating and the 300s are seen regularily. Participation maxes out at around 500 so "large" probably begins somewhere in the 300s. This largely matches the number of participants in admin elections, to offer a comparison. -- 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] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote: >> The poll asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond >> the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided >> against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on >> a case-by-case basis which articles to feature on the main page without >> additional formalized selection criteria that would disqualify certain >> articles. Put differently, they decided that if someone disagress that >> a certain article should not be featured, they cannot point to policy >> to support their argument. >> >That isn't true. Since the policy states that all terms are treated >equal (NPOV) there is only a discussion if the date might be suitable >(topics with correlation to a certain date get precedence). Otherwise it >is decided if the quality (actuality and so on) is suitable for AotD, >since there might be a lot of time between the last nomination for good >articles and the versions might differ strongly due to recent changes. >If a topic is offensive or not does not play any role. Only quality >matters. This rule existed from the beginning and it did not change. What I meant to say is: "if someone disagrees with featuring a certain article, they cannot point to policy that restricts which subjects can be featured to support their argument" as there is none and editors de- cided against introducing any. -- 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] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows
* Sue Gardner wrote: >Does it mean basically this: deWP put the Vulva article on its front >page, and then held a poll to decide whether to i) stop putting >articles like Vulva on its front page, because they might surprise or >shock some readers, or ii) continue putting articles like Vulva on the >front page, regardless of whether they surprise or shock some readers. >And the voted supported the latter. The poll asked whether there should be formalized restrictions beyond the existing ones (only good articles can be proposed). Voters decided against that and to keep the status quo instead where it is decided on a case-by-case basis which articles to feature on the main page without additional formalized selection criteria that would disqualify certain articles. Put differently, they decided that if someone disagress that a certain article should not be featured, they cannot point to policy to support their argument. >If I've got that right, I assume it means that policy on the German >Wikipedia today would support putting Vulva on the main page. Is there >an 'element of least surprise' type policy or convention that would be >considered germane to this, or not? Among editors who bothered to participate in the process, featuring the article at all was not particularily controversial, but there was a rather drawn out discussion about which, if any, image to use. I have read much of the feedback at the time and my impression is that this was not very different among "readers", most complaints were about the image they had picked (and possibly some about images in the article itself). Keep in mind that continental europe's attitude towards sex is quite different than north america's. I read this the other day and found it quite illustrative, "While nine out of 10 Dutch parents had allowed or would consider sleepovers once the child was 16 or 17, nine out of 10 American parents were adamant: “not under my roof.”". >I'd be grateful too if anyone would point me towards the page that >delineates the process for selecting the Article of the Day. I can >read pages in languages other than English (sort of) using Google >Translate, but I have a tough time actually finding them :-) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD:Hauptseite/Artikel_des_Tages -- 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] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows
* Sue Gardner wrote: >> Yes we put the "vulva" on the main page and it got quite some attention. >> We wanted it this way to test out the reaction of the readers and to >> start a discussion about it. The result was as expected. Complains that >> it is offensive together with Praises to show what neutrality really is. >> After the discussion settled, we opened a Meinungsbild (Poll) to >> question if any article/image would be suitable for the main page >> (Actually it asked to not allow any topic). The result was very clear. >> 13 supported the approach to leave out some content from the main page. >> 233 (95%) were against the approach to hide some subjects from the main >> page. > >Can you point me towards that poll? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Beschränkung_der_Themen_für_den_Artikel_des_Tages -- 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] Possible solution for image filter - magical flying unicorn pony that s***s rainbows
* Kanzlei wrote: >Your assumtion is wrong. The 8.000 daily are neither neutral nor >representative for all users. Put the picture on the main page and You >get representative results. We had that in Germany. That's missing the point. Putting an image on the front page is putting it out of context, so you get complaints about an image appearing there where people do not mind the image appearing in the article, and people do not get to decide whether to open an article that might feature some content they are uncomfortable with and consequently do have their mind in a "I do not know what to expect" state. -- 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
* Andre Engels wrote: >Thereby giving those who have objections nothing just because there are >others who we can't give what they want. If we had the same attitude towards >article creation, we would not have published Wikipedia until we had >articles on all subjects we could think of. They are given plenty, in fact there are all sorts of filters already in place that lead to people not being exposed to media they do not wish to be exposed to, starting with laws, what people regard as appropriate for encyclopedic content, and local cultural norms affecting the latter, to name just a few examples. They also get to see images they do not object to without additional effort, and they have the option to hide them all, and they can be careful which articles they load, avoiding those likely to feature media they do not want. Exposure to things you are uncomfort- able with, where the feeling is not overwhelmingly shared, like when you click a link to a foreign Wikipedia, is also giving them something, most likely something good (consider images that cannot legally be displayed publically in some jurisdiction; they will be so displayed in others in- cluding on Wikipedias where they are relevant, with no filtering for the users from the jurisdiction that banned it, up to where it's likely that a court that Wikimedia cares about orders the image to be taken down). You can consider the last point from the other direction: if you don't like to see media with human suffering, horror, graphic violence, so you filter them, what should you see when reading about Nazi concentration camps? Profile pictures of Nazi leaders, architecture, maps maybe, but please, not the prisoners? What about people who find it wrong to make it easy for others to scroll down a Wikipedia article without the reader being visually confronted with human suffering if there is a consensus to display it at all in the article in this manner? Or, for that matter, that in this context it is wrong to require the reader to tell the com- puter "Yes, please show me piles or rotting corpses of starved people!"? Note that it may be the user of the filter who thinks this, in which case not giving them a filter that would do this is addressing one of their needs aswell (while failing to address another need; giving them a context-aware filter that avoids this problem would work of course, but then the system would be harder to use making it worse, and so on). So we already do plenty so people are not overexposed to media that they reasonably do not wish to be exposed to (note that I use "wish" broadly, someone suffering phobiae for instance has more of a need than a wish to avoid certain kinds of media). To a point really where I am unsure what is left that can realistically be optimized even further, and I am some- what surprised the "referendum" had so many people voting that this is of the highest priority (whatever that means given that this wasn't com- pared to other things that should be of high priority), though since it was already decided to introduce a filter because there is a problem, it can be assumed that some of the votes are subject to confirmation bias. (I do not know people who would say they frequently encounter articles on Wikipedia featuring images that would disturb them no matter where they appear and would thus prefer to have those pictures hidden for them, though I do know people who would prefer that medical articles concerning humans feature images that go beyond nudity, like showing the symptoms of a disease, or a corpse that has been cut open, towards the end in a specially labeled section, and people who do not like insects much, and thus do not browse around articles on insects. Neither of the two examples leads to me thinking a filter as proposed is the solution.) >We don't say they're unreasonable, we say that we don't cater to it, or at >least not yet. That may be non-neutral, but no more non-neutral than that >one subject has an article and the other not, or one picture is used to >describe an article and the other not, or one category is deemed important >enough to be used to categorize our articles, books, words and images and >another not. > >Or even clearer: that one language has a Wikipedia and another not. Wid we >make a non-neutral choice that only certain languages (the ones for which >Wikipedias exist) are valid languages to use for spreading knowledge? These analogies are all invalid as individual preference is rejected as argument in all of these cases, while the filter is solely concerned with individual preference (rather: aggregated individual preferences). Tagging an image with tag X, knowing that this will lead to the image being hidden to users who chose to hide all X images, is a matter of whether these users want the image to be hidden, who are in a minority, because if the majority agrees an image should be hidden, it would not be shown at all, no need for a personal filter; with the added problem th
