subject:"Re\: \[Foundation\-l\] News from Germany\: White Bags and thinking about a fork"

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:36:18PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
 
 Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment
 and established practices in their project, Hey, reader, there's
 something here you might not want to see  ... and BTW, would you like
 to remember that choice? seems like a more straightforward
 accommodation of the concerns that we're talking about than saying

That's actually just POV-pushing :-( , albeit very politely. :-) 

sincerely,
Kim Bruning


-- 

___
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

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:57:59AM +1100, Billinghurst wrote:

 I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about
 what I get to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have 
 had
 enough of other people believing that they get to make their choices for me.

That's kind of backwards. 

We're trying to figure out how to let you do that *WITHOUT* accidentally (or
deliberately (!)) ending up making your choices for you. 

It's actually a rather deceptively hard puzzle. 

I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT
background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have had
some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own personal
background too)

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

___
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

2011-10-28 Thread David Gerard

On 28 October 2011 20:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:

 I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT
 background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have 
 had
 some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own 
 personal
 background too)


I'm actually surprised Wikimedia devs are generally so enthusiastic
for it. (or the ones who aren't, are refraining from speaking up.)


- d.

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 03:13:22PM -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
  What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
  the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
 
 1) Add a collapsible [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
 [[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]].
 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the
 reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default
 setting for all pages if desired).
 3) When absent, do nothing.

Unlike an image filter, I project that this would have limited incidental usage,
rather than having a sweeping effect across all pages.

There are still NPOV issues with having the function; but those issues can be
solved on the spot, using consensus, at the single image on a single page on a
single wiki level.  

(This as opposed to majority rule across all wikis which many others have
proposed ).

Because it is a local effect and subject to human common sense (aka. IAR) ,
unwanted emergent side effects (collateral damage) are much less likely, or at
worst limited in scope.

This as opposed to rigid software logic, which will often have side effects and
loopholes (bugs and exploits in hacker parlance).

Due to the incidental nature, it also would not be viable to harvest data for 
use
in third party filters.

In short, this seems like a fairly good wiki-like solution. :-) It's not 
perfect,
but nothing is. It seems to strike the right balance. I could certainly live 
with it.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning
-- 

___
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

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 08:49:42AM +0200, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
 
 It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
 or otherwise inadequate.

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

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

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

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

-- 

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-28 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* 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=3025813oldid=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

2011-10-24 Thread Dirk Franke

Hi Eric,

thanks for your answers. For me they were really helpful, and I hope they
can lead to some understanding-

Some of these ideas are explored here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potential_models_for_hiding_images

Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would
you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?

Right now I am afraid, the resolution has become highly symbolic, and a page
like this would mean a general acceptance of the resolution. I think you can
find people who would work on such a page. But it will impose severe social
costs to the editors if they are seen doing this - and what is more
important, I have severe doubts if they would be legitimized to speak for
the community.

Although I actually think, there are ways to reconcile the community and the
Board. As far as I understand it, there are several criteria which are
highly important to the community:

- No interference in the editorial process from outside.
- Especially not on this way, which would mean no discussion or no
possibility to react for the community.
- The only judgement on contents should be, whether they are in their given
context educational or not. Not if they are considered morally good or bad.
- Especially when this judgement is done by people who seem to be far
outside of the common value set shared by Germans.

regards
dirk/southpark
___
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

2011-10-24 Thread Dirk Franke

 With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
 this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.

 +1

d/sp
___
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

2011-10-24 Thread Dirk Franke

And another one, sorry, I cannot find the mail in which it was proposed. But
generally I think a hide/show-all solution would be acceptable to everybode.
There is still a lot of bad blood going around. And it would certainly be
easier to implement it referring to technical reasons of low bandwith, than
with morally objectionable pictures.. but still, I think this would meet all
criteria of the German community.

regards,

d/sp

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com
 wrote:


 With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
 this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.

 +1

 d/sp


___
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

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:27 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
 On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
  I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
  opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
  a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
  even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
  they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
  if I want to use it?
 
 Because a non-neutral filter would have to warp the project around
 itself to work at all, as has been detailed at length here (and

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

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

And also be completely useless.


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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
 And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
 the use case this does not serve?

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

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


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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
(84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia.
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
if I want to use it?

Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

Am 23.10.2011 08:30, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
 On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 22:56 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
 And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
 the use case this does not serve?
 Are you even trying to pretend to be serious? Use case: me reading an
 article.

 It is my impression that you are pushing for this hide/show all solution
 because you know it will be useless and thus no one will be using it.
That isn't the case. It was claimed multiple times that reading 
Wikipedia in front of bystanders can be a problem, since unwillingly 
some disturbing image might show up. If that is the case, then you can 
hide the images by default and enable them while you read. There were 
also thoughts to not hide the images entirely, but to blur them. So you 
will have glimpse on what it is about and could view it (remove the 
bluring) by just hovering it.

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

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
want, which is a huge difference.

If I feel that this judgment is inadequate, I will turn the filter off.
Either way, it is My Problem. Not Your Problem.
It is not the user of the filter that decides *what* is hidden or not.
That isn't his decision. If it is the case that the filter does not meet
his expectations and he does not use it, then we gained nothing, despite
the massive effort taken by us to flag all the images. You should know
that we already have a massive categorization delay on commons.
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.
Depending on the way it is implemented, it may be somewhat difficult for
a provider to do that. Such systems probably already exist on some
websites, and I am not aware of my provider using them to hide labelled
content. And even if my provider would start doing that, I could simply
use Wikipedia over https.
If your provider is a bit clever he would block https and filter the
rest. An relatively easy job to do. Additionally most people would not
know the difference between https and http, using the default http version.
And if providers across the world start abusing the filter, perhaps then
the filter could be turned off. I just don't see this as a reasonable
possibility.
Well, we don't have to agree on this point. I think that this is
possible with very little effort. Especially since images aren't
provided inside the same document and are not served using https.
If you want a filter so badly, then install parental software, close
It is my understanding that parental software is often too overarching
or otherwise inadequate.
Same would go for a category/preset based filter. You and I mentioned it
above, that it isn't necessary better from the perspective of the user,
leading to few users, but wasting our time over it.
your eyes or don't visit the page. That is up to you. That is your
If I close my eyes or don't visit the page, I won't be able to read the
content of the page.
That is the point where a hide all/nothing filter would jump in. He
would let you read the page without any worries. No faulty categorized
image would show up and you still would have the option to show images
in which you are interested.
But feel free to read the arguments:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
an opt-in filter.

None of the arguments is based on a filter that would be enabled as
default. It is particularly about any filter that uses categorization to
distinguish the good from evil. It's about the damage such an approach
would do the project and even to users that doesn't want or need the
feature.

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

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-23 Thread teun spaans

I completely agree :)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rswrote:

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

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


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

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-23 Thread David Gerard

On 23 October 2011 10:01, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:

 I completely agree :)


So you can address my answer, even as Nikola didn't quite.


- d.

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Neil Harris

On 22/10/11 22:56, David Gerard wrote:
 On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:

 What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
 the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?

 And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
 the use case this does not serve?

 The board have not detailed what arguments unanimously convinced them,
 both for the original resolution and, even after all the debate, to
 uphold it unanimously again after months of acrimonious objection. If
 restarting communication with people who no longer trust them is
 considered important, then, if they could please each (individually)
 do so, in as much detail as possible, that would help a *lot*.


 - d.


I agree.

A cookie-based hide all images/show all images toggle clearly 
visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with 
click-to-reveal for individual images when in the hide all mode should 
be all that is needed to deal with the various cultural concerns 
regarding images, as well as concerns about censorship.

It would also be very easy to implement.

Perhaps an exception might be made for images displayed at less than, 
say, 30x30, to allow for icons and things like small embedded symbols 
within text -- although small nav images could conceivably be used for 
image-trolling, I would imagine that just about any WP community would 
regard that as unencylopedic, and block any attempts to do so.

I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a 
proposal.

- Neil


___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Fae

 A cookie-based hide all images/show all images toggle clearly
 visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with
 ...
 I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a
 proposal.

How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key
argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public
are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a
great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.

If any person, institution, ISP or country wished to control images on
Wikipedia they can use readily available add-ons or filters, most for
free, without the Foundation having to use charitable funds to build
it in as a controversial default and take legal responsibility when it
fails.

Cheers,
Fae

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread David Gerard

On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
 images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
 complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
 software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key
 argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public
 are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a
 great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.


The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to
put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a
clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the
imposition of a filter from outside.


- d.

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Fae

On 23 October 2011 12:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 The Foundation considers de:wp's careful and thoughtful decision to
 put [[:de:vulva]] on the front page of de:wp with a picture was a
 clear failure of community judgement sufficient to justify the
 imposition of a filter from outside.

One can draw a parallel with press regulatory bodies who have a role
in interpreting legislative requirements or responding to significant
numbers of public complaints. This does not mean that the regulatory
body interferes with editorial control, policies or in any other way
claims operational responsibility for the content of newspapers.

If the WMF wishes to control content, then the role of the Foundation
moves from operational support to all content control and hence
liability. By increasing the cases where the Foundation makes such
decisions, it would be hard to continue to use the rationale that the
Foundation does not control content and a host of new and painful
legal issues arise.

PS clear failure looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?

Cheers,
Fae

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread David Gerard

On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 PS clear failure looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
 Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?


An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.


- d.

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Fae

On 23 October 2011 12:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
 PS clear failure looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
 Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?

 An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
 Executive Director. I consider this significant, you may not.

David, your statement confirms that this was an opinion, and based on
your wording I have to assume that this was not an official position
of the WMF but the personal opinion of some of the staff.

As for significance, I made no claim either way in my email, for some
reason you seem to be reading my text negatively as if I was attacking
the WMF or Sue personally. I apologise if I have used some offensive
language or phrasing that gave you such a perception but I would like
to point out that I did not mention staff or individuals, only the
organization.

I think that the opinions of the Executive Director of the WMF should
be considered significant, so we are in agreement.

Cheers,
Fae

___
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

On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
want, which is a huge difference.

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

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

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

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

Images should be served using https anyway.

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

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

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

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

But feel free to read the arguments:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Arguments_for_the_proposal
It seems to me that the arguments are mostly about a filter that would
be turned on by default. Most of them seem to evaporate when applied to
an opt-in filter.

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

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

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

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

Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-23 Thread Andrew Garrett

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
 (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).

It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
(yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and
I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in
public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the
bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.

Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.

We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced
decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a
problem?

-- 
Andrew Garrett
Wikimedia Foundation
agarr...@wikimedia.org

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Andreas K.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

  A cookie-based hide all images/show all images toggle clearly
  visible in the toolbar at the top of pages. together with
  ...
  I'd be interested in any arguments that might be made against such a
  proposal.

 How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
 images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
 complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
 software tricks? This is a solution looking for a problem, the key
 argument has always been that there is scant evidence that the public
 are asking for these options and our beloved projects already have a
 great reputation for good editorial judgement/consensus.



Media like the recent videos of Gaddafi's death customarily come with an
explicit warning that they include graphic content, and that viewer
discretion is advised. Such warnings are also given before such images are
broadcast. Viewer discretion is what the image filter is about.

Incidentally, the referendum results by project were posted yesterday, and
can be viewed at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/Votes_by_project/en

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Results/Votes_by_project/de

Andreas
___
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

Am 23.10.2011 17:19, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
 On Sun, 2011-10-23 at 10:31 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 Am 23.10.2011 08:49, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
 On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 23:35 +0200, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
 intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
 No, it is intended to let people discriminate content themselves if they
 want, which is a huge difference.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

Am 23.10.2011 17:24, schrieb Andrew Garrett:
 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:
 A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
 (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
 It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
 (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and
 I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in
 public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the
 bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.

 Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.

 We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced
 decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a
 problem?

At some time i should set up an record player, looping the same thing 
over and over again, or set up a FAQ.

We don't have a technology to do this. It comes down to personal 
preferences of some editors that do the categorization. Some might agree 
with their choice, others won't. But who are we to judge about content 
or over other people and their personal preferences and taste? Thats 
what we start to do, as soon we introduce 
controversial/offensive-category based filtering. That was never the 
mission of the project and hopefully it will never be.

nya~

___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Neil Harris

On 23/10/11 16:24, Andrew Garrett wrote:
 On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:27 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:
 A neutral all-or-nothing image filter would not have such side effects
 (and would also neatly help low bandwidth usage).
 It would also make the project useless. I don't want to see the 0.01%
 (yes, rhetorical statistics again) images of medical procedures, and
 I'd avoid seeing the (much higher) X% of images that are NSFW while in
 public. That does not mean that I want to throw the baby out with the
 bathwater and not see any images whatsoever.

 Given the choice, I would not use such a filter.

 We have the technology and the capacity to allow users to make nuanced
 decisions about what they do and don't want to see. Why is this a
 problem?


I think this has been dealt with before.

Firstly, images should only be in articles to which they are directly 
relevant -- we should be able to rely on the community to remove images 
which are irrelevant to articles. This is no more, but also no less, 
reasonable an expectation than to expect them to keep images correctly 
categorized in sufficient detail to allow your personal preferences to 
be catered for.

Secondly, the title and context alone is usually enough to suggest what 
topic an article is about.

Just to give an example: I'm pretty convinced that if I click on, say, 
the article for [[Stoke Poges]], that I will not be presented with an 
image that offends my personal sensibilities. Likewise with [[Calcium]] 
or [[Astrolabe]]. On the other hand, if I were offended by medical 
images, I might think twice about viewing [[Splenectomy]] or 
[[Autopsy]]. (Note that all of these examples are sight-unseen -- if I'm 
wrong about any of this, and, say, [[Calcium]] contains an unpleasant 
image, please let me know.)

Given that, if you are concerned about distressing medical images, it 
seems obvious to me that you can get almost 100% effectiveness at 
preventing this by just turnin on the global image filter before 
browsing Wikipedia on medical topics. If you believe the pictures are 
safe to view, based on the image captions, one click turns them back on 
again.

The same applies to browsing Wikipedia for articles that might contain 
images that might offend your religious sensibilities, or non-work-safe 
images.

If you're not sure about the topic of an article (what's an 
[[Ursprache]]? Could it be some kind of nasty-looking injury?), you can 
play safe and turn the filter on, and be absolutely 100% sure of not 
being offended, or leave it off and still be _almost_ sure of not being 
offended because most articles do not contain images that offend anyone.

The rest of the time, just leave it turned off -- which is also one click.

Where would the difficulty be in that?

- Neil


___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Ilario Valdelli

On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:

 The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
 allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
 censorship tool.
 Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
 software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
 unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?

 We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We
 decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't
 forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be
 imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit
 of the project. Point.

 nya~


Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?

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

Ilario

___
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

Am 23.10.2011 19:32, schrieb Ilario Valdelli:
 On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
 The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be
 allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a
 censorship tool.
 Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of
 software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is
 unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what?

 We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We
 decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't
 forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be
 imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit
 of the project. Point.

 nya~

 Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons?

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

 Ilario
That does not mean that the German community is willed to show a button 
on it's pages to enable it. It will just be disabled and all 
flagged/marked/categorized/discriminated/... images will be copied from 
commons to the local project to remove the flagging, if necessary.

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

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

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

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

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-23 Thread MZMcBride

David Gerard wrote:
 On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 With that said, the mobile site already has a generic Disable images
 view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main
 site as well.
 
 I just tried it. It lacks the click to show feature. Add that and
 I'll start using the mobile interface by default at work immediately.

Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla? If not, where's the current ticket? :-)

 If both options were available (marking images as
 collapsible in a standard way,  show/hide all for all media),
 communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework
 as they see fit.
 
 Collapsibility, and various variants on a per-image show/hide filter,
 was rejected on en:wp in 2005 or 2006 when the [[autofellatio]]
 controversies were at their height. (I went looking for the link
 recently and couldn't find it, but it ran for quite a while and got
 quite a lot of votes - anyone?) Making it available will require a
 proper on-wiki poll on each project, rather than imposition from
 above.

I don't have a link, but the autofellatio discussion is mentioned at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline. If anyone
finds a link, please post it there.

MZMcBride



___
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

2011-10-23 Thread MZMcBride

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.
 [1]
 
 [...]
 
 [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html

What does partnership with the community mean here? In a subsequent
mailing list post to this list, you propose a detailed solution:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069909.html

Some might think, given your position, that this is what the engineering
department will soon start working on. Is this the case? Was there any
partnership with the community on this idea?

I think any serious consultation with the community starts and ends on-wiki.
If only there were some sort of meta-wiki where people from the Wikimedia
projects could come together and discuss brainstorming ideas for a workable
filter...

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming

MZMcBride



___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-23 Thread MZMcBride

Erik Moeller wrote:
 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
 And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
 the use case this does not serve?
 
 Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a show/hide all solution
 inadequate. Are folks from those communities on the list? It would be
 interesting to hear from them as to why they ended up with the
 collapsing approach they took.

Clearly nothing, Erik. You know not to make irrational and unfounded jumps
like this when examining a phenomenon. You're a programmer, FFS.

There's nothing to suggest that the Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedias found a
show/hide solution inadequate. There's quite a bit to suggest that such a
solution is much more difficult to (decently) implement, though. There's
also quite a bit to suggest that wiki-editors work with the tools available
to them generally, not the tools that could be available to them.

Collapsing has been used in navboxes at the bottom of the page for ages. I'm
not sure if it's the German Wikipedia or the English Wikipedia that started
it, but the history is surely in MediaWiki:Common.js or
MediaWiki:Monobook.js, for those who are interested. In any case, the
English Wikipedia, at least, used to do the exact same with certain images.
There were even a few helper templates. I think Template:Linkimage was
one; Template:PopUpImage appears to be another, looking through the
revision history of Autofellatio on the English Wikipedia. I don't believe
any such templates are used (legitimately) to obscure or obfuscate images on
the English Wikipedia today. They were tossed out some time ago.

This was the technology available to wiki-editors, so this is what they
chose to use. Necessity and opportunity are the parents of all hacks,
surely.

Drawing a conclusion such as Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a 'show/hide
all' solution inadequate from the historical evidence doesn't make any
sense to me. If there's evidence of this conclusion (beyond relying on the
absence of implementation), I'm sure many people on this list would be
interested in it.

It should be noted that there are also on-wiki resources for plotting
actions and events related to controversial content:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline. I strongly
urge you and others to add information (with cites, as necessary and
appropriate). :-)

MZMcBride



___
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

2011-10-23 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* 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

2011-10-22 Thread emijrp

So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with
image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it
is your choice.

I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.

Good luck.

2011/10/22 Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com

 Dear Mailinglists,

 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.

 In longer:

 http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html

 regards,

 Dirk Franke/Southpark
 ___
 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-22 Thread Etienne Beaule

Lets just disable the filter for the german wikipedia and make the decisions
wiki per wiki.  Ebe123


On 11-10-22 3:52 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with
 image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it
 is your choice.
 
 I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.
 
 Good luck.
 
 2011/10/22 Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com
 
 Dear Mailinglists,
 
 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.
 
 In longer:
 
 http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html
 
 regards,
 
 Dirk Franke/Southpark
 ___
 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

If something is useful or not, shouldn't be the question. Alt least the 
WMF seams to see it that way, because it is very doubtful that the image 
filter is useful for the project, for its goals, growth and development.

I would invite the Board to view the movie Schoolbreak Special: The Day 
They Came To Arrest The Book. Well - I know it is old and i know that 
isn't such deep. But in some way it wraps up all the ill logic behind 
the current discussions. If you have a copy, maybe at your local 
library, then you should watch it. For everyone else is still Youtube:

http://youtu.be/Pt_n3cBYCVA
http://youtu.be/Z7qoo4kbcV4
http://youtu.be/5pguP16g5NM
http://youtu.be/4EtKZbEDKl0

nya~

Am 22.10.2011 20:52, schrieb emijrp:
 So, we are going to have virtually two cloned German Wikipedias, one with
 image filter extension enabled and other disabled. Not very useful, but it
 is your choice.

 I hope you enable the Semantic MediaWiki extension in the new fork.

 Good luck.

 2011/10/22 Dirk Frankedirkingofra...@googlemail.com

 Dear Mailinglists,

 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.

 In longer:

 http://www.iberty.net/2011/10/news-from-german-wikipedia-white-bag.html

 regards,

 Dirk Franke/Southpark
 ___
 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-22 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
dirkingofra...@googlemail.com wrote:
And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to think
and say it loud.

Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are
seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be
done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered
unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia
projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one
which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved
and protected nonetheless.

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.
[1]

I am sorry but this is purest echo chamber talk, you are dealing out.
You hear what you are saying, but you don't hear a thing anyone else
is saying, There has always been a consensus that what you are
proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content
site
stand for. There has never been the slightest consensus we should
take one step on the road you want us to embark on. Period,

The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date,
have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as
part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and
mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for
different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring
all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).

Some of these ideas are explored here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potential_models_for_hiding_images

The resolution was always against long held perennial proposal
opposition. It never was going to fly. Walk away from the dead horse.

--
--
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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 If not, would
 you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
 there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
 community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
 that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?


http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter/en#Result
, the official translation of the de:wp poll, says:

Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
(84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia.

This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of
the vote. I think that says should be scrapped pretty blindingly
clearly.

Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case?
Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?

I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the
should we actually have this at all? question on the referendum
generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake
- I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum
questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without
running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent
whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having
people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely
natural.

I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered
at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and
reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the
filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when
the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not
actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed
non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and
this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and
this is what has happened).

It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.


- d.

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
 image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
 additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of
 the vote. I think that says should be scrapped pretty blindingly
 clearly.

The literal translation of what was being voted on:

Persönliche Bildfilter (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von
Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet
werden können, vgl. den vorläufigen [[Entwurf]] der Wikimedia
Foundation) sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der
Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht
eingeführt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf
dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden.

Personal image filters (filters, which hide illustrating files based
on categories and which can be turned on and off by the reader, see
the preliminary [[draft]] by the Wikimedia Foundation) should,
contrary to the Board's decision, not be introduced in the German
Wikipedia, and no filter categories should be created for locally
uploaded content.

The [[draft]] link pointed to
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter

So it was pretty closely tied to the mock-ups, just like the referendum was.

Erik

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
 There has always been a consensus that what you are
 proposing is evil and against what we as a non-profit free content
 site stand for.

What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal
I've made as part of this debate is here:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html

And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically or otherwise.
Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia have implemented their own personal image
hiding feature (http://ur1.ca/5g81t and http://ur1.ca/5g81w), and
even paintings like The Origin of the World are hidden by default
(!) e.g. in Hebrew Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81c ) , or images of
the founder of the Bahai faith in Arabic Wikipedia (
http://ur1.ca/5g81s ).

Do you think that the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedians who implemented
these templates are evil?

Do you think that it is evil to leave it up to editors whether they
want to implement similar collapsing on a per-article basis (and to
leave it up to communities to agree on policies around that)? Because
that's what I'm proposing. And I don't think it's particularly evil,
nor inconsistent with our traditions.

Erik

___
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

Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb David Gerard:
Unless nuances of the translation are inaccurate - is this the case?
Do you see wiggle room in the original German phrasing?
There is no room for interpretation. It clearly says that no category
based filtering of any illustrative media will be accepted.

Filters, for illustrative media based on categories that can
be enabled or disabled by the readers, ...

Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der
Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden
können, ...

This also includes that there will be no filter-categorization of any
media stored inside the local project.

... and there shall not be any filter categories for files/media stored
localy on this Wikipedia.

... und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser
Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden.

I suspect (I have no direct evidence) that the glaring lack of the
should we actually have this at all? question on the referendum
generated a backlash. It's not clear to me how to correct this mistake
- I fully accept and understand the process by which the referendum
questions were generated (quickly dashed-off by three people without
running them past anyone else), and that there was no intent
whatsoever to spin the result - but from the outside view, having
people take them as intended in bad faith is, unfortunately, entirely
natural.
Correctly. The referendum itself was described as manipulative wording.
This does not only apply to the DE community. Here are some examples:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Portal/Archivo/Noticias/2011/08#Referendo_sobre_filtro_de_im.C3.A1genes

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Image_filter_referendum#Riassunto_delle_puntate_precedenti

I also have to note that Sue's blog post was profoundly ill-considered
at best - it has left a lot of people feeling highly insulted, and
reads like an official staff stance to ignore opposition to the
filter. Using the tone argument was, I think, the fatal element - when
the powerful side of a dispute pulls out the tone argument, it may not
actually neatly divide the powerless side; instead, the claimed
non-targets may get just as offended by it as the claimed targets (and
this is what happened), and take it as the nuclear option it is (and
this is what has happened).

It is not clear in what world any of this was ever a good idea.

- d.

It was clearly insulting to everyone that participated inside the
opposition, just being ignored, despite the arguments and project policies.

It would be even more insulting to ask the german community to work out
a filter proposal. All you can expect is white bag or an empty page. The
decision is clear: No filter at all!

(filter = selective display of content)

___
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

Am 22.10.2011 22:21, schrieb Erik Moeller:
 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:16 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com  wrote:
 This would appear to indicate the opposition is to *any* personal
 image filter per the Board resolution, and the category-based proposal
 additionally as an example of such rather than as the main topic of
 the vote. I think that says should be scrapped pretty blindingly
 clearly.
 The literal translation of what was being voted on:

 Persönliche Bildfilter (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von
 Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet
 werden können, vgl. den vorläufigen [[Entwurf]] der Wikimedia
 Foundation) sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der
 Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht
 eingeführt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf
 dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden.

 Personal image filters (filters, which hide illustrating files based
 on categories and which can be turned on and off by the reader, see
 the preliminary [[draft]] by the Wikimedia Foundation) should,
 contrary to the Board's decision, not be introduced in the German
 Wikipedia, and no filter categories should be created for locally
 uploaded content.

 The [[draft]] link pointed to
 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Personal_image_filter

 So it was pretty closely tied to the mock-ups, just like the referendum was.

 Erik
It is strongly worded against any filtering based on categories. The 
referendum proposals where only mentioned as an example, since it 
illustrated an example. Please refrain from weakening the point the poll 
made. Otherwise we will have to set up another poll with very strong 
wording like: Es soll verboten werden Inhalte jeglicher Art in 
irgendeiner Weise zu Filtern, wenn dabei nicht alle Inhalte gleich 
behandelt werden.

It shall be forbidden to filter content of any kind by any method, if 
it does not treat every content as equal.

nya~

___
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

Am 22.10.2011 22:31, schrieb Erik Moeller:

 What am I proposing, Jussi-Ville? So far, the only material proposal
 I've made as part of this debate is here:

 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069077.html

 And, I don't think you're being accurate, historically or otherwise.
 Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia have implemented their own personal image
 hiding feature (http://ur1.ca/5g81t and http://ur1.ca/5g81w), and
 even paintings like The Origin of the World are hidden by default
 (!) e.g. in Hebrew Wikipedia ( http://ur1.ca/5g81c ) , or images of
 the founder of the Bahai faith in Arabic Wikipedia (
 http://ur1.ca/5g81s ).

 Do you think that the Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedians who implemented
 these templates are evil?

 Do you think that it is evil to leave it up to editors whether they
 want to implement similar collapsing on a per-article basis (and to
 leave it up to communities to agree on policies around that)? Because
 that's what I'm proposing. And I don't think it's particularly evil,
 nor inconsistent with our traditions.

 Erik
No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working 
solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global, 
solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.

nya~

___
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

2011-10-22 Thread Nikola Smolenski

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

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


___
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

On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:

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


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

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


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

2011-10-22 Thread Andreas K.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Dirk Franke
 dirkingofra...@googlemail.com wrote:
  And people who talked privately about a fork for some time, start to
 think
  and say it loud.

 Thanks for the update, Dirk. I think it's good that people are
 seriously discussing what it would mean to fork and how it would be
 done. Forking the project if WMF policies or decisions are considered
 unacceptable is one of the fundamental ways in which Wikimedia
 projects are different from most of the web; it's a key freedom, one
 which should be exercised judiciously but which should be preserved
 and protected nonetheless.

 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.
 [1]

 The vote in German Wikipedia, and most of the discussions to date,
 have focused on the specific ideas and mock-ups that were presented as
 part of the referendum. But as Sue has made clear, those ideas and
 mock-ups are just that, and the Board resolution creates room for
 different ideas as well, ranging from the simple (disabling/blurring
 all images) to the complex (like a category-based filtering system).

 Some of these ideas are explored here:

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en#Potential_models_for_hiding_images

 Is there a similar brainstorming page on dewiki already? If not, would
 you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
 there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
 community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
 that the resolution itself should be scrapped altogether?



Erik,

There was a little bit of brainstorming around this at

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#thumb.2Fhidden

That idea was added to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#thumb.2Fhidden

Neitram has since come up with another proposal that's at

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Simple_personal_category-based_filtering

Andreas



 Thanks,
 Erik

 [1]
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069472.html

 ___
 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] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

Am 22.10.2011 23:23, schrieb Nikola Smolenski:
On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 21:16 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Both the opinion poll itself and its proposal were accepted. In
contrary to the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation, personal image filters should not be introduced in
German-speaking wikipedia and categories for these filters may not be
created for files locally stored on this wikipedia. 260 of 306 users
(84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid. 357 of 414
users (86.23 percent) do not agree to the introduction of a personal
image filter and categories for filtering in German wikipedia.
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
even if 99.99% of editors are against the filter, well, it is opt-in and
they don't have to use it. But why would they prevent me from using it,
if I want to use it?

Why? Because it is against the basic rules of the project. It is
intended to discriminate content. To judge about it and to represent you
this judgment before you have even looked at it. Additionally it can be
easily exploited by your local provider to hide labeled content, so that
you don't have any way to view it, even if you want to.

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

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

nya~

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

Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
 solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
 solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.

The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution asking for the
implementation of a filter based on categories.

The Board asked Sue in consultation with the community, to develop
and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers
to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to
view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through
preference settings.

Based on the consultation and discussion that's taken place so far, I
think it's pretty safe to say that a uniform approach based on
categories has about a snowball's chance in hell of actually being
widely adopted, used and embraced by the community, if not triggering
strong opposition and antagonism that's completely against our goals
and our mission.

With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.

There are, however, approaches to empowering both editors and readers
that do not necessarily suffer from the same problems.

Erik

___
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

Am 22.10.2011 23:44, schrieb Erik Moeller:
 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:
 No one said it would be evil. But since we already have working
 solutions for this projects, why do we need another, now global,
 solution, based on categories? Thats when it becomes hairy.
 The Board of Trustees didn't pass a resolution asking for the
 implementation of a filter based on categories.

 The Board asked Sue in consultation with the community, to develop
 and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers
 to easily hide images hosted on the projects that they do not wish to
 view, either when first viewing the image or ahead of time through
 preference settings.

 Based on the consultation and discussion that's taken place so far, I
 think it's pretty safe to say that a uniform approach based on
 categories has about a snowball's chance in hell of actually being
 widely adopted, used and embraced by the community, if not triggering
 strong opposition and antagonism that's completely against our goals
 and our mission.

 With that in mind, I would humbly propose that we kill with fire at
 this point the idea of a category-based image filtering system.

 There are, however, approaches to empowering both editors and readers
 that do not necessarily suffer from the same problems.

 Erik
I gladly agree that category based filtering should be off the table. It 
has way to many problems that we could justify it in any way.

What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and 
the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?

nya~


___
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

On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:

 What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
 the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?


And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does not serve?

The board have not detailed what arguments unanimously convinced them,
both for the original resolution and, even after all the debate, to
uphold it unanimously again after months of acrimonious objection. If
restarting communication with people who no longer trust them is
considered important, then, if they could please each (individually)
do so, in as much detail as possible, that would help a *lot*.


- d.

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
 the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?

1) Add a collapsible [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
[[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]].
2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the
reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default
setting for all pages if desired).
3) When absent, do nothing.

[*] The exact UI language here could be discussed at great length, but
is irrelevant to the basic operating principles.

Advantages:
* Communities without consensus to use collapsible media don't have to
until/unless such a consensus emerges. It can be governed by normal
community policy.
* One community's judgments do not affect another community's.
Standards can evolve and change over time and in the cultural context.
* Readers of projects like Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia (which are
already collapsing images) who are currently not empowered to choose
between collapsed by default vs. expanded by default would be
enabled to do so.
* Readers only encounter the notice on pages that actually have
content where it's likely to be of any use.
* Respects the editorial judgment of the community, as opposed to
introducing a parallel track of controversial content assessment.
Doesn't pretend that a technical solution alone can solve social and
editorial challenges.
* Easy to implement, easy to iterate on, easy to disable if there are issues.

Disadvantages:
* Doesn't help with the specific issues of Wikimedia Commons (what's
educational scope) and with issues like sorting images of masturbation
with electric toothbrushes into the toothbrush category. Those are
arguably separate issues that should be discussed separately.
* Without further information about what our readers want and don't
want, we're reinforcing pre-existing biases (whichever they may be) of
each editorial community, so we should also consider ways to
continually better understand our audience.

Erik

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
 And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
 the use case this does not serve?

Clearly Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia found a show/hide all solution
inadequate. Are folks from those communities on the list? It would be
interesting to hear from them as to why they ended up with the
collapsing approach they took.

To the extent that there's a discernible institutional view as to why
these options are being discussed in the first place, it's not about
morality of the images, but it's about helping our audience to not be
freaked out, alienated or pissed off by the editorial choices we make
in our projects. And they might be so because they're in a public or
professional setting, or because they're using our projects together
with their kids, or they don't know what to expect when looking up a
given topic, or because they have particular sensibilities.

A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful
piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.

True, most of the time it's fairly self-evident what images an article
might contain and you could make the choice to show/hide before
looking it up. Not always, though, and of course it's somewhat
illusionary to think that Wiki[mp]edia consumption always follows a
highly predictable, intentional pattern.

Making it easy for editors to say, based on normal editorial judgment
and established practices in their project, Hey, reader, there's
something here you might not want to see  ... and BTW, would you like
to remember that choice? seems like a more straightforward
accommodation of the concerns that we're talking about than saying
We're not censored! Click here to turn off images if you don't like
it.

With that said, the mobile site already has a generic Disable images
view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main
site as well. If both options were available (marking images as
collapsible in a standard way,  show/hide all for all media),
communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework
as they see fit.

Erik

___
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

On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
 these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
 want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
 annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful
 piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.


... That's the convincing use case? But I might have to click for a
software screenshot? Really?

That's really not an even slightly convincing justification for a huge
and controversial infrastructure addition to all Wikimedia projects.

I say this keeping in mind that this thread is about people who
already don't trust the Foundation, and how to get them back, rather
than have the Board's insistence on an image filter catalyse a fork.
You (and they) will need actually convincing examples.

My use case for work is actually pretty close to this, and
click-to-show would be just fine (and is exactly what I want). I
realise I'm speaking only for me personally. Though I note it also
solves the case for Sarah Stierch's example of looking up [[human
penis]] at work.


 With that said, the mobile site already has a generic Disable images
 view and something similar would definitely make sense on the main
 site as well.


I just tried it. It lacks the click to show feature. Add that and
I'll start using the mobile interface by default at work immediately.


 If both options were available (marking images as
 collapsible in a standard way,  show/hide all for all media),
 communities could evolve standards and practices within that framework
 as they see fit.


Collapsibility, and various variants on a per-image show/hide filter,
was rejected on en:wp in 2005 or 2006 when the [[autofellatio]]
controversies were at their height. (I went looking for the link
recently and couldn't find it, but it ran for quite a while and got
quite a lot of votes - anyone?) Making it available will require a
proper on-wiki poll on each project, rather than imposition from
above.


- d.

___
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

Am 23.10.2011 00:13, schrieb Erik Moeller:
 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
 tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com  wrote:
 What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
 the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
 1) Add a collapsible [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
 [[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]].
 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the
 reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default
 setting for all pages if desired).
 3) When absent, do nothing.

 [*] The exact UI language here could be discussed at great length, but
 is irrelevant to the basic operating principles.

 Advantages:
 * Communities without consensus to use collapsible media don't have to
 until/unless such a consensus emerges. It can be governed by normal
 community policy.
 * One community's judgments do not affect another community's.
 Standards can evolve and change over time and in the cultural context.
 * Readers of projects like Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia (which are
 already collapsing images) who are currently not empowered to choose
 between collapsed by default vs. expanded by default would be
 enabled to do so.
 * Readers only encounter the notice on pages that actually have
 content where it's likely to be of any use.
 * Respects the editorial judgment of the community, as opposed to
 introducing a parallel track of controversial content assessment.
 Doesn't pretend that a technical solution alone can solve social and
 editorial challenges.
 * Easy to implement, easy to iterate on, easy to disable if there are issues.

 Disadvantages:
 * Doesn't help with the specific issues of Wikimedia Commons (what's
 educational scope) and with issues like sorting images of masturbation
 with electric toothbrushes into the toothbrush category. Those are
 arguably separate issues that should be discussed separately.
 * Without further information about what our readers want and don't
 want, we're reinforcing pre-existing biases (whichever they may be) of
 each editorial community, so we should also consider ways to
 continually better understand our audience.

 Erik

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

Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category 
inappropriate content? Will it not leave the impression to the reader 
that we think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be 
easily used by providers to filter out this images?

I would add the answers to this questions to disadvantages.

nya~

___
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

2011-10-22 Thread Billinghurst

On 22 Oct 2011 at 15:36, Erik Moeller wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
  And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
  the use case this does not serve?
 
 A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
 these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
 want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
 annoyed at having to un-hide a fabulous screenshot of a wonderful
 piece of open source software in order to mitigate that risk.
 

Plus for the occasions that some kind vandal adds similar images to your user 
talk page so 
that you don't even know or have control over what is being displayed let along 
an ability 
to stop it.  An unfortunate eye opener in the workplace, or similarly at home 
when working 
with the family.  :-/

I do wish that this discussion can just move to implementation. This is about 
what I get 
to filter for what I get to see, or when I get to see it. I have had enough of 
other 
people believing that they get to make their choices for me.

Regards, Andrew

___
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

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category
 inappropriate content? Will it not leave the impression to the reader
 that we think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be
 easily used by providers to filter out this images?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Censornamespace=1limit=500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_men

Simply in the process of doing our normal editorial work, we're
already providing a number of ways to identify content in the broad
area of someone might be upset of this or even in specific
categories, and of course censorship also often relies on deriving
characteristics from the content itself without any need for
additional metadata (keyword filters, ranging from simple to
sophisticated; image pattern matching, etc.).

It's not clear that a low-granularity identification of content that
some editors, in some projects, have identified as potentially
objectionable to some readers, for a wide variety of different
reasons, adds meaningfully to the existing toolset of censors. A
censor who's going to nuke all that content from orbit would probably
be equally happy to just block everything that has the word sex in
it; in other words, they are a reckless censor, and they will apply a
reckless degree of censorship irrespective of our own actions.

Erik

___
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