[Foundation-l] Potential ICRA labels for Wikipedia

Sun May 9 21:13:03 UTC 2010

 *That's true. But at the moment we have nothing to defend or excuse
ourselves with. If we had decent tagging we could at least say: "You
don't want your pupils to see nude people? Add rule XYZ to your school's
proxy servers and Wikipedia will be clean. You can even choose which
content should be allowed and which not."

Much better than saying: "You don't want your pupils to see nude people?
No way! No Wikipedia without dicks and titties! Except you block all of
Wikipedia..."*

If we create a content rating system, it should be based upon individual
account settings which are decided by the editors themselves instead of
being enforced globally. I am very much against any system that takes
control away from the editor and hands it to some external party; We are not
aiming to become another Golden Shield
Project<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project>where a
handful of people can dictate what content is appropriate for its
audience. Even a system that sets top level permissions which are
overridable trough account settings is to much in my eyes, as such systems
can easily be abused.

Equally i don't believe it is up to a school or ISP to decide whether or not
they want to show certain content to its subscribers. If i don't want to see
sexual images, nudity, the face of Muhammad, evolution or religious related
content i should not be searching for it on the first place. A setting that
allows people to filter content is little more then a courtesy to them as we
would allow them to filter based upon their personal convictions. However,
there is no way my ISP can decide what convictions i should follow. If a
school decides to block Wikipedia altogether then i would say it is their
loss, not ours.

~Excirial

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:

> David Gerard hett schreven:
> > On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a
> >> page as "containing pornography", which is entirely subjective, we
> >> should rather tag the page as "contains a depiction of an erect penis"
> >> or "contains a depiction of oral intercourse".
> >>
> >
> >
> > We can do this with the existing category system.
> >
> That is possible but it will either be hacky or we'll need to be much
> more strict with our categorization (atomic categorization). I'm not
> opposed though.
> > The objection of the objectors will remain that the material is
> > present at all. No system of categorisation will alleviate this
> > concern - only actual censorship of Commons will.
> >
>
> That's true. But at the moment we have nothing to defend or excuse
> ourselves with. If we had decent tagging we could at least say: "You
> don't want your pupils to see nude people? Add rule XYZ to your school's
> proxy servers and Wikipedia will be clean. You can even choose which
> content should be allowed and which not."
>
> Much better than saying: "You don't want your pupils to see nude people?
> No way! No Wikipedia without dicks and titties! Except you block all of
> Wikipedia..."
>
> Our current strategy is censoring, but hiding the censorship under most
> possibly vague and undefined terms like "scope".
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>