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

[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.

[Mooby]

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

[Somey]

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!)

Ah, I've just fixed that. Should have done that earlier, sorry...

[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?

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.

[Mooby]

Yes, I was thinking about a browser-side plugin. But let me be the first to admit I have no clue about Internet economics. I use all sorts of free Firefox plugins that seem to get updated regularly... seems like it would be simple enough (well, maybe not simple, but not rocket science either) to set up something that would parse the html coming from WP and see if any of the images the page wants to load match a blacklist downloaded from somewhere. Quite possible I'm not thinking of an important step in the middle, though.

-Mooby

[TungstenCarbide]

Yes, I was thinking about a browser-side plugin. But let me be the first to admit I have no clue about Internet economics. I use all sorts of free Firefox plugins that seem to get updated regularly... seems like it would be simple enough (well, maybe not simple, but not rocket science either) to set up something that would parse the html coming from WP and see if any of the images the page wants to load match a blacklist downloaded from somewhere. Quite possible I'm not thinking of an important step in the middle, though.

It's true, sometimes you can use duct tape and bailing wire to do a shitty job of repairing someone else's fuckup.

[Mooby]

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy.

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.

-Mooby

[HRIP7]

No probs. Sorry I was grumpy.

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.

-Mooby

You may enjoy this page (or looking at it may cause you to rapidly lose interest in the topic).

[lilburne]

They need a few controls flickr has 3 setting which aren't quite enough as they only really deal with sex and nudity, and some don't mind hardcore porn but don't like violence. So you want filters.

• mild nudity
• pornography
• mild violence
• gore
• religious personages

Can't decide whether X is in group A or B. Crowd source it. flickr does it by allowing users to flag an item as being wrongly flagged.

[Fusion]

I'm impressed.

I'm not.

Dogfight!

[dogbiscuit]

I'm impressed.

I'm not.

Dogfight!

Mine was an edit down of a longer post that someone who I am entirely unsure of due to being involved in ED was prepared to take a proper stance on this. Even if it is ineffective, it becomes a record of the determination of Commons to take a stance that is entirely at odds with the real world custom and practice on these matters.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68144400

The people on Commons are advocating the blocking of whistleblowers. If you find unsettling or disturbing facts about a person on Commons, they'll block you for revealing such information. They'll block you for stating facts that they're uncomfortable about hearing.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Sat 10th March 2012, 7:48pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68144400

The people on Commons are advocating the blocking of whistleblowers. If you find unsettling or disturbing facts about a person on Commons, they'll block you for revealing such information. They'll block you for stating facts that they're uncomfortable about hearing.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68148893

They favor creating a chilling effect.

[EricBarbour]

Pierre Selim is one of the worst Commons "editors". So far as I can tell, he posts thousands of sports photos
that no one ever uses in any WMF project, uses bots to reformat/rename/recategorize images,
and argues with people on talkpages. That's all. He uses Commons as a hobby.

And they made him a Commons administrator last month.....

It seems to me that the talkpage in question resembles a gang of bullies, meeting during recess
in the boy's toilet, and calmly discussing whether to beat up the new kid after class.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sat 10th March 2012, 10:33pm

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68186246

Commons is expressing some xenophobia as well.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...page=Pedophilia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...9&oldid=3563311

Nemo_bis has protected and blanked the page.

[Tarc]

Avraham e-mailed me this morning asking me to redact my last reply to Stefan, but I guess the blanking saved me the trouble of telling him to go fuck himself.

This post has been edited by Tarc: Mon 12th March 2012, 11:46pm

[SB_Johnny]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...7&oldid=3546718

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...8&oldid=3556546

They're trying to relabel the "Meta:Pedophilia" page as some evil, cancerous infection from enwiki.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=68186246

Commons is expressing some xenophobia as well.

You mean Xenaphobia, I presume?

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik.../News_and_notes

Here's the Signpost's report on the issues.