Image hiding feature on hold ..., Subject to a revote, but no date set ... Options

[HRIP7]

The image filter, part of the WMF board's 2011 Controversial Content Resolution, and designed to bring Wikimedia's handling of adult and other controversial content in line with other top websites, seems to be indefinitely on hold. WMF secretary Phoebe Ayers has advised that

Project development was put on hold over the winter in favor of more pressing priorities, with the agreement of the Board. There is currently an open proposal on the table for the Board to vote on whether to continue with our original request for an image hiding feature; and the ED will take direction from the Board on the matter. We have put that vote off however due to the more time-sensitive and generally all-consuming financial discussions of the past couple of months. ... It seems clear however that regardless, there is both much technical and social work that needs to be done around controversial content that has nothing to do with image hiding, e.g. to improve Commons search, rigorously get model releases, etc. etc.; and also that for any particular technical proposal around image hiding there would be many, many (perhaps insuperable) issues and details to work out.

The question is whether this apparent back-pedalling means that the Foundation should now give up any pretense that it is capable of guiding and directing content development in Wikimedia projects.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Mooby]

Dumb question perhaps, but if image filtering is something people want, why aren't there enterprising third party software developers raking in money by churning out plugins for that?

If I had kids I'd probably spring for a $10 plugin to keep the images of autofellatio and whatnot from showing up on the family PC. It'd be nice if WP did it themselves but it's not like if they don't do it no one could... or is it?

-Mooby

[HRIP7]

Dumb question perhaps, but if image filtering is something people want, why aren't there enterprising third party software developers raking in money by churning out plugins for that?

If I had kids I'd probably spring for a $10 plugin to keep the images of autofellatio and whatnot from showing up on the family PC. It'd be nice if WP did it themselves but it's not like if they don't do it no one could... or is it?

-Mooby

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

Welcome to Wikipedia Review! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

I'd have to assume local image-blocker plugins already work for those sites, don't they? I'm concerned that you didn't understand what he's suggesting.

[HRIP7]

That's a completely stupid idea (apart from also being in the wrong discussion thread). Can you see that approach working for Flickr, or Google, or YouTube?

I'd have to assume local image-blocker plugins already work for those sites, don't they? I'm concerned that you didn't understand what he's suggesting.

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

[Somey]

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

Well, maybe Mr. Mooby can clarify, but since he mentioned that as a parent he'd be willing to buy an add-on for this, I assumed this was a browser plugin, not something that image-hosting sites would be involved in themselves (i.e., Flickr's rules wouldn't change).

If so, then in theory the plugin developer could also maintain a list of WP categories known to contain lots of porn, and make it available on a free server for users of the plugin to connect to... but since the images themselves are not tagged in the article pages, the plugin would have to do a bandwidth-intensive load of the image's own page to see if it's in one of those categories. And of course, those categories could be changed or removed at any time.

And I can say with some assurance that software developers don't enjoy making products that are dependent on the whims of others over whom they have little or no influence, because their customers aren't going to complain to those others, they're going to complain to the developer. You might make a few bucks selling the add-on to a few people, but then you might go into negative value just trying to deal with the support calls.

[HRIP7]

I thought he was suggesting that Flickr, for example, would have all their porn in plain sight. (At present, you have to opt in to see it.) And then, someone could program a third-party bolt-on so that, even though all their porn is in plain sight, you won't see it. Which would strike me as supremely daft. Did I miss something?

Well, maybe Mr. Mooby can clarify, but since he mentioned that as a parent he'd be willing to buy an add-on for this, I assumed this was a browser plugin, not something that image-hosting sites would be involved in themselves (i.e., Flickr's rules wouldn't change).

If so, then in theory the plugin developer could also maintain a list of WP categories known to contain lots of porn, and make it available on a free server for users of the plugin to connect to... but since the images themselves are not tagged in the article pages, the plugin would have to do a bandwidth-intensive load of the image's own page to see if it's in one of those categories. And of course, those categories could be changed or removed at any time.

And I can say with some assurance that software developers don't enjoy making products that are dependent on the whims of others over whom they have little or no influence, because their customers aren't going to complain to those others, they're going to complain to the developer. You might make a few bucks selling the add-on to a few people, but then you might go into negative value just trying to deal with the support calls.

Quite. The reason I reacted with ill temper to the suggestion was that this is one of the gambits always made whenever there is an image filter discussion on the Foundation list. "Oh, if people really were so keen to have an image filter for Commons / Wikipedia, someone would program one and make millions!"

Now, could you imagine Yahoo!, Flickr's owners, making that argument to the world? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif)

Thanks for the welcomes and apologies for posting in the wrong thread (had two tabs open... I promise to get the hang of this quickly!)

-Mooby

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Mooby]

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

No worries, I'm sure it's irritating to have a n00b say "hey what about this?" if it's already been discussed to death previously. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

-Mooby