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: Mon 5th March 2012, 5:28am

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

[HRIP7]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

[TungstenCarbide]

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Yes, more or less. I did make a point of mentioning it on the list (see link above).

thank you, I missed it first time around.

Isn't this exactly what Greg (i think) predicted?

Out of curiosity, I looked back to see where I actually predicted this sort of outcome. I guess this post serves as well as any on that matter.

They did go further than you suggested and apparently did pass resolutions which they are now not fulfilling because they have got more important things to do.

What have WMF actually done in the last year?

Greg pretty much nailed the big picture - even if the details weren't 100% prescient;"... will drain the life from this initiative in a stepwise fashion" [through bureaucratic means.] Then again, he nailed a couple of the details too.

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Mon 5th March 2012, 4:09pm

[HRIP7]

HRIP7 said;

As for POLA, the "principle of least astonishment" that the Board supported in its controversial content resolution, it may be enough to say that User:Fæ was threatened with removal of his filemover rights in Commons just the other day, by an admin who objected to his "pushing POLA on Commons". To state this clearly: this is a Wikimedia UK director being threatened with having his filemover rights removed by a Commons admin, because he was seen to be doing something that the Wikimedia Foundation board had endorsed. Even in Wikipedia there are many who say that the Board's resolutions are irrelevant, because the community simply does not agree with them.

Was that the toothbrush thing? heaven forbid searching commons for 'toothbrush' returns a woman masturbating with one right at the top.

Yes, that was the toothbrush thing. Fæ, to his credit, was trying to fix it. An important thing to note here is that the search results in Wikipedia are much the same as those in Commons. And seeing these search results under the Wikipedia logo is perhaps even more astonishing.

For example, Natka from the Stop Pornography on Wikipedia Facebook page just added the search term "human" to the Meta page listing all these "unusual" Commons search results (a page that could do with expansion).

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

By the way, I think that Facebook page could prove really useful. The Fox reporter who wrote the recent article showed up there a few days before his piece appeared. Facebook and Twitter are generally a much more effective medium for campaigning than a closed and somewhat insular site like WR. Natka is doing a really good job over there, and WR should really be doing more on Facebook as well.

[thekohser]

Now this is the result of a Multimedia search for "human" in Wikipedia. It's largely the same as in Commons, and within the first 500 search results, more than half of all user-made photographs of the human body are photographs of the ano-genital area (usually male).

Even worse, check out the ano-genital ratio on a multimedia search for "male human".