headers
David Levy | 1 Oct 2011 02:02
Picon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

I wrote:

> And for a hypothetical "nudity" category, we'll have to decide what
> constitutes "nudity."  This will trigger endless debate, and whatever
> definition prevails will fail to jibe that held by a large number of
> readers.

The above should read "jibe _with_ that held by a large number of readers."

David Levy

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bjoern Hoehrmann | 1 Oct 2011 02:46
Picon

Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia

Hi,

  A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on the
english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the image.
I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.css

To try this out you would have to copy or import this code into your own
skin.js and skin.css files which are available e.g. under

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.js
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.css

This only works in recent desktop versions of Opera and Firefox and only
on devices where you can easily hover. It may show some images that it
ought to blur for boring reasons. Spoilers ahead if you want to try it.

Browsing around with that is quite interesting. Some findings: it is a
bit annoying when UI elements (say clipart in maintenance templates) are
blurred. The same goes for small logo-like graphics, say actual logos,
flags, coat of arms, and actual text, like rotated table headers. I did
expect that blurred maps would be annoying, but I've not found them to
be. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagebüll as example, the marker
and text are overlayed so they are not blurred, and I can recognize the
shape of Germany fine.

I note that there is a perceptual problem if you click around to explore
how blurring affects the experience as that does not reflect what a user
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Kim Bruning | 1 Oct 2011 02:02
Picon
Picon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 05:56:02PM -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
> For heaven's sake. This is the worst kind of cutting and pasting to
> make a point I have seen in ages (Kim's experiments
> notwithstanding)... 

:-( That was labelled, and disproved a very specific argument people were making :-/

I'm sorry if that offended people. 

I know how I feel about being filtered, and I obviously didn't
deliberately wish to invoke those feelings in others.

I merely wanted to illustrate how filtering could be selectively abused. 
I guess the demo was more effective than intended. :-(

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--

-- 

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Theo10011 | 1 Oct 2011 02:58
Picon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

Hiya Bishakha

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@...>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Theo10011 <de10011@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Bishakha, call it editorial-content, call it censorship or any other
> > euphemism - at the heart of it, it is deciding what someone gets to see
> and
> > what not.
>
>
> Theo: they are different things, and given the premium on accuracy and
> precision at wikipedia, I don't think we can claim that editorial judgments
> and censorship are the same.
>

I have said, it is a matter of perspective how you view them. But if we go
by the assumption that editorial judgement is a separate thing, whose job is
it to exercise it? WMF has long held the position that the project are
independent and it has not editorial control over what the community
decides- this would not be the case if we consider the filter an editorial
judgement. Keeping in mind the reaction that has been shown by different
communities, would it mean, WMF would be exercising that control? using an
already existing structure of categories created earlier, possibly by
editors who don't agree with the filter, to implement the said editorial
control? What about editorial independence[1]?

>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Kim Bruning | 1 Oct 2011 02:05
Picon
Picon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:12:37PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
> (though, Sarah just tactically) and the only one not from US
> (Brazil/Portugal) is against.

This is not entirely true. At least one other .us female is against.
(To wit, the one who asked me to post on foundation-l on this matter
in the first place. ;-) )

sincerely,
	Kim "TINC" Bruning

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kim Bruning | 1 Oct 2011 02:30
Picon
Picon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:10:37PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
> 
> No, we won't be. We will be putting certain categories/tags/classifications
> on images, but it will still be the readers themselves who decide whether or
> not they see the tagged images.

Well, those tags would be public, so *anyone* can decide whether or not
downstream can see the tagged images. 

Semantically and technically there's very little difference between our
current proposed implementation and that of intermediate parties.
The consequences are both obvious and chilling.

We might be just a little too close to the edge on this one. We
need some other options. :)

Fortunately, people like Erik Moeller have been considering other
implementations, where no central categories or lists are used.

Those seem MUCH more sane, and are probably the way forward here. :-)

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--

-- 

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Andreas Kolbe | 1 Oct 2011 03:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 <de10011@...> wrote:

From: Theo10011 <de10011@...>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@...>
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 1:58

> We're not suggesting that as far as I know. Nothing is being removed from
> the sites. [1]
>

No, it is only being hidden. Based on an arbitrary system of categories that
can be exploited. We are indeed hiding our content, same as any dictatorial
regime who chooses to hide works of literature, art or knowledge (I hope the
last one is not us) from its people.

You are aware, aren't you, that content is only hidden if the user specifically says they would 
like to hide content in that category? That is why it is an opt-in filter. If you don't make a point
of opting in, you won't even know it's there. 

Unless you go into your account set-up and take the trouble to specify that you personally 
do not wish to see a particular category of images, you will see everything that you see
now. Even if you have switched the filter on, you can still change your mind and view any
image. One click on it is enough to show it.  So what you are describing simply bears no
relation to reality.

If you want to make a valid counterargument, say that you are worried that some censorious 
ISPs and countries might use our category definitions as a starting point for a bolt-on 
censorship system that restricts access to these images. However, be clear that then it 
would be *them* who would be hiding our content, not us. The worst you can accuse us of 
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Kim Bruning | 1 Oct 2011 03:15
Picon
Picon

Re: 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 <lodewijk@...>wrote:
> **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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Phil Nash | 1 Oct 2011 04:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: Experiment: Blurring all images on Wikipedia

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   A while ago I made a bookmarklet that blurs images in articles on
> the english Wikipedia and reveals them when the user hovers over the
> image. I now had a chance to test this as a skin.js extension.

For a start, users would have to opt in to this, which may not be 
appropriate for casual readers brought to us from Google and other external 
links. I'm not sure it's a good idea to make it a default for unregistered 
users, many, if not most, of whom, might not want to be presented with a 
pre-filtered version of Wikipedia, and would be surprised to be so 
presented. It also presents a "slippery slope" argument in that nobody is 
realistically qualified, nor would want to be tasked with, drawing the line 
as to what images should and should not be treated thus. A similar argument 
applies to textual content of articles; however we try to achieve 
neutrality, it seems that there will always be some POV-pushers who will 
argue the toss ad infinitum, and we don't accommodate them. Neither should 
we accommodate those who do not understand that a value-neutral, world 
value, is not the same as their value. These people have their own texts, 
and I think that our response should be that they are welcome to them. 
Nobody is being forced to use Wikipedia, after all.

>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.js
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlurredImages/vector.css
>
> To try this out you would have to copy or import this code into your
> own skin.js and skin.css files which are available e.g. under
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/vector.js
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kim Bruning | 1 Oct 2011 03:21
Picon
Picon

Re: 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 <lodewijk@...>wrote:

> "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@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane