Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
The problem with the whole Censorship or not debate is... People want Just slightly pregnant, but not really.. And the problem there is, either you are pregnant, or ya ain't. There isn't a slightly variant to pregnancy. -- -- 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] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On 09/30/11 3:34 AM, Lodewijk wrote: One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because what else is the use of having these experts sit together. (probably I interpreted this with my own thoughts) And I was always thinking that Wikipedia was about masses participating in their own way - why do we trust people to 'ruin' an article for others, but not just for themselves? It's always dangerous to believe one is an expert, and worse to proclaim that view. It's even a bit arrogant. How did we get there? Mass participation and crowd sourcing are not about becoming or being experts. The content stands for itself. This is not to say that these processes are without fault, nor that at times they can't go terribly wrong. In the larger context the contents are still pretty good, and in some areas more comprehensive than what can be found elsewhere. Wikipedia's sense of inferiority with its passion to be broadly accepted by the educational community, to be more legal than God and to be so protective of brand and reputation projects the image of a neurotic character better than Woody Allen could ever portray. Ray ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in the opposite camp. I basically gave up. Yeah, tell me about it. I've commented a couple times in public and in private to no avail, since I don't want to talk about what they want to focus on. Post a link to a blog, and the thread has 95 replies. Go figure. So I do have to say that I agree with the sentiment that the discussion is not very inviting, and is actually discouraging people who want to find a solution in the middle to participate... ...Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers' actually want and/or need... Lodewijk I agree. No dia 30 de Setembro de 2011 11:40, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com escreveu: *Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and how. * You forgot the *IF*: IF the elephant will be or not implemented. Wrong thread, but there is no if. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in the opposite camp. I basically gave up. My personal reaction to the discussion: I followed it, found some implementation ideas useful, and also found the barrier to entry too high. Both the noise and the black and white-ness of the discussion. So I agree that one of the unfortunate consequences of the 'either you are for or against' the filter discussion is that other points of view and voices are being, not 'censored', but silenced, perhaps unintentionally. And that is where I think Sue's blog post is useful: in bringing in another dimension - the issue of editorial judgment, which is a more 'grey' or somewhat 'subjective' area. Whether one agrees with it or not, this is a dimension worth considering. While neutrality is no doubt a key project principle, editorial judgment or selectivity is exercised in the projects on a daily basis. (Even selecting an image to accompany a wikipedia is a selection or an editorial judgement of some sort, right?) Given that this is the case, is it any different to exercise editorial judgment on this issue than it is to exercise editorial judgment on anything else? It may be productive to discuss this issue in the overall context of editorial discussions and selections on the project, rather than in a ghetto by itself. I totally understand and get the anger emanating from the community. And, numbers apart, this does say something. But because of the anger, is this issue being 'exceptionalized' too much and being placed on a different pedestal, where no discussion beyond the black and white, on greys such as editorial judgement is possible? In that broader sense, I agree with Sue that there is a need to go back to and discuss the underlying issue: how to responsibly handle objectionable imagery. At the same time, as someone who works with images, I don't like the term 'objectionable imagery'. It's not necessarily an image, per se, that is objectionable, but a gaze that renders it such. (Two people can look at the same image, one finds it objectionable, the other does not). **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship. Anyhow, about the filter issue. I think at this stage it is very hard to determine any opinion about the filter because everybody seems to have their own idea what it will look like, what the consequences will be and how it will affect their and other people's lives. I myself find it hard to take a stance based on the little information available and I applaud the visionaries that can. Information I am even more missing however (and I think it would have been good to have that information *before* we took any poll within our own community) is what our average 'reader on the street' thinks about this. Do they feel they need it? What parts of society are they from (i.e. is that a group we are representative of? Or one we barely have any interaction with?) What kind of filter do they want (including the option: none at all). Obviously this should not be held in the US, but rather world wide - as widely as possible. I agree. I don't think we really have sufficient data on what readers want (or atleast I have not seen it) and this is another missing dimension. We are assuming we know, but we don't. We are also not hearing back on how much of a problem this is from many of the projects. Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers' actually want and/or need... Also, while we don't have reader data, we do have more than 20,000 answers to the referendum or survey or whatever it should accurately be called. As per Sue's report to the Board, which Erik referred to [1]: The referendum did not directly ask whether respondents supported the idea of the filter. It did ask this question: *On a scale of 0 to 10, if 0 is strongly opposed, 5 is neutral and 10 is strongly in favor, please give your view of the following: It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.* 24,023 people responded to that question, with 23,754 selecting a number on the scale. The result was mildly in favour of the filter, with an average response of 5.7 and a median of 6. How do we understand this? And how should this be factored into making a decision? Best Bishakha [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_the_board/en#What_has_happened_since_the_referendum ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On 30 September 2011 17:17, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote: As per Sue's report to the Board, which Erik referred to [1]: The referendum did not directly ask whether respondents supported the idea of the filter. It did ask this question: *On a scale of 0 to 10, if 0 is strongly opposed, 5 is neutral and 10 is strongly in favor, please give your view of the following: It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.* 24,023 people responded to that question, with 23,754 selecting a number on the scale. The result was mildly in favour of the filter, with an average response of 5.7 and a median of 6. This keeps coming up. Even if the median/average were useful (which they arguably aren't, with the high number of 0s), the question was not do you support the idea of this filter. The question was do you think it is important Wikimedia projects should offer this feature. Michel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
Am 30.09.2011 17:06, schrieb Bishakha Datta: ... **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship. There are two issues why this word is used. 1. The word is used for actual censorship (restriction of access) and it is used in context with hiding/filtering features. What is really meant, is often hard to distinguish. 2. Categorizing content (images, videos, text, events, ...) as inappropriate for some (minors, believers, conservatives, liberals, extremists, ...) is instead seen as a censors tool. That is one of the issues with a filter based on categories. It can be exploited by actual censors in many different ways. One hard way is to (mis)use the categories to restrict access. One soft way would be to influence the categorization itself, leaving the impression to the reader that a majority would share this view. To understand this issue, you have think about readers which see Wikipedia as a valid source for knowledge. If Wikipedia (they don't see or care for the single decisions, they trust us) labels such content as inappropriate (for some) it will inevitably lead to the believe that a vast majority sees it the same way, which doesn't need to be the case. Since this risk is real (the Google image filter gets already exploited this way), it is also described as censorship. Not a single word could be found inside the introduction of the referendum, that mentioned possible issues. Thats why many editors think, that it was intentionally put that way, or that the board/WMF isn't capable to handle this situation. It just left many open questions. For example: What would the WMF do, if they recognize that the filter, and the good idea behind it, is exploited? -- Niabot ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:36:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: **I am also dismayed at the use of the word 'censorship' in the context of a software feature that does not ban or block any images. But somehow there doesn't seem to be any other paradigm or language to turn to, and this is what is used as default, even though it is not accurate. It's been mentioned 1127 times in the comments, as per Sue's report to the board, and each time it is mentioned, it further perpetuates the belief that this is censorship. The term censorship _tool_ -however- is correctly used in the context of any of the proposed prejudicial labelling systems. In fact (in part due to the properties of prejudicial labelling) it is too easy to violate other aspects of the board resolution when implementing a form of labelling. Fortunately, labelling is *not* actually required by the board resolution. So, the solution going forward -imo- is to implement a software solution that doesn't depend on labelling. At that point, your arguments hold water; and I agree with them wholeheartedly. :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 08:47:43PM +0530, Bishakha Datta wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: 24,023 people responded to that question, with 23,754 selecting a number on the scale. The result was mildly in favour of the filter, with an average response of 5.7 and a median of 6. How do we understand this? And how should this be factored into making a decision? The distribution is strongly bimodal. Describing it as mildly in favor is not accurate. sincerly, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
