Talk:Image filter referendum/Archives/2011-08-23

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in August 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Usage of the filter

Latest comment: 13 years ago65 comments21 people in discussion

Pictures of Muhammad

How will the Wikimedia Foundation avoid that people will vote for the option to remove pictures of en:Muhammad?

The recent version of the important article ar:محمد already seems to contain no picture of Muhammad, so it is factually censored.
Some people may argue, they feel hurt by depictions of Muhammad and that for them, these are images of violence.
The voting system is very vulnerable for abuse, e.g. by voting with multiple accounts, or by external organizations orchestrating votes.
You want to ask users to give their view on how important it is "that the feature be culturally neutral (as much as possible, it should aim to reflect a global or multi-cultural view of what imagery is potentially controversial)". What will happen if the average outcome to this question will turn out to be less then 10? What will happen if the outcome turns out to be below 5?

--Rosenkohl 11:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Won't it be the users themselves who choose which type of images they want to hide, and which to view? Depictions of Muhammad may be tagged as such (instead of 'violence, etc.), so that readers who may be offended by such images may filter them out. --Joshua Issac 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How about any image of humans? we are all Gods image and therefor not to be portraited. --Eingangskontrolle 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

With a well-implemented system, (the few) people who are offended by pictures of humans could choose to not view any pictures of humans. Those who are offended by pictures of Muhammad can choose not to view any pictures of Muhammad. And the rest of us can go on merrily on our way, unaffected. What other people choose to view or not view will have no effect on the rest of us. B Fizz 18:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The rest of us ("we" the authors of Wikimedia projects) will have to do the task of categorizing the pictures of humans or categorizing the pictures of Muhammad for those who feel offended by these pictures to be able to turn them off, and will be the authors of resulting categorys. I don't see how this effect is neglectible for us or the encyclopaedia, --Rosenkohl 20:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've said before, I've said again. If we make a filter, the VERY FIRST images that need to be filtered are Muhammad. No images are causing more people more anguish than those. Christians and Porn isn't even in the same ball park, it ain't the same league. It ain't even the same sport.

It would be a colossal double-error to have a filter that didn't get those images but got less offensive ones. --AlecMeta 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Which goes being a very good reason for NOT having such a filter, except for everybody to individually opt-out from specific pictures, if he wants to not see them again. If you never show those taliban a picture of him-who-must-not-be-seen, they will never realize they´re sort of very stupid about it. There is some difference between hanging Stalins portrait on your bedroom wall, and seeing a picture of him here. --Maxus96 17:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Will this image be deleted?

File:Bruna Ferraz 2.jpg

Along with similar images?

And is it gonna affect the spanish and porutguese wikipedias as well ? Und by its out come 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No. No images will be deleted. However, the filter is universal, so readers at those projects will be able to self-select what images they'd like to see, as well. --Mdennis (WMF) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, this particular image is meant to be entertaining (pornographic), not encyclopedic or educational. commons:File:Bruna_Ferraz_with_Photographer.jpg and commons:File:Bruna_Ferraz_with_Photographer_crop.jpg are entertaining and not educational as well. --Michaeldsuarez 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They can select a filter type, but not which image will be shown and which will not. The decission for single images will be done by unknown users and their POV, which is the oposite to a fundamental rule called NPOV, which the WMF seams not to know anymore. I wonder why it wasn't deleted by now. --Niabot 14:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

They can choose what images will be shown and which will not in the same way that all of us can: by participating in categorizing. Too, if an image is hidden that they want to see, all they have to do is click on it, and it will show. Speaking from my volunteer perspective, POV is rampant through the projects. For instance, whether or not something is notable enough for inclusion is a POV; how much attention should be paid to a topic and where is a POV; whether or not a reference is reliable is a POV. We make editorial decisions all the time. :) It's part of our model. --Mdennis (WMF) 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence sound a bit ironic. Doesn't it? If you don't want to look at images you invest the effort to view it and to categorize it. Right? Of course you wouldn't do this for yourself anymore, but you will decide for others at what they shouldn't look. Also the concept behind this decision would be POV, only POV. No sources, only personal opinions. Thats definitely not part of our model. --Niabot 00:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you explain to me what sources go into making up the notability guidelines? I haven't seen these. --Mdennis (WMF) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability is way different from hiding things that are notable or or not, but "shouldn't been seen". Please don't throw apple and pears questions at me. Anyways: Most inclusions, because of notability, are based on sources. That means that articles without sources will be deleted. Articles that are sourced (a requirement) will be kept, since sources guarantee notability. Thats at least the way the German "notability"-system works. The "rules" are inclusive, not exclusive and to understood as guidelines. You may ask: What is the differentiation between including something and to hide something? If a topic is "notable" to be part of an encyclopedia, then we must assume that illustrations for that topic are also notable enough to be part of it. The filtering is the opposite. This is as saying: The topic is worthy to be described, but the illustrations aren't, because someone don't likes what he has to admit. --Niabot 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this in response to your first question but edit conflicted; I believe I've amended. Determining what constitutes notability (what makes a good source, what makes enough sources) is very much a matter of POV--the perspective of what is "encyclopedic" --and it is the first thing I mentioned above as part of the encyclopedic model. Notability is not only used to include, but to exclude (German Wikipedia has a speedy deletion criterion for "Zweifelsfreie Irrelevanz", I know, and conducts deletion debates for more borderline material.) Determining what images belong in which articles is also part of the encyclopedic model, and one which every article creator engages in as a matter of routine. Even this conversation is largely a matter of "point of view"--without reading through the entire page, I can say that I'm seeing a lot of people weighing in not from sources, but merely their own perspectives. In other words, they wish their POV to affect what others see--whether their POV is that others should see whatever they choose to upload and allow on the projects or their POV is that others should have the option to hide from themselves images they do not wish to look at. Point of view is central to the formulation of most of our policies and practices--what we agree, as a community, is appropriate for our objectives. "No sources, only personal opinions" are the underpinnings of much of this.

In terms of your note above, fortunately, people don't have to look at every image to help determine categorization. I could weigh in on the proper categorization of images without looking at them all in the same way that I can weigh in on notability without examining every subject. We form guiding principles to which content may be compared. --Mdennis (WMF) 00:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Things don't have to been viewed?

Things don't have to been viewed: Public debt
Things don't have to been viewed: Hunger in Africa
Things don't have to been viewed: Unemployment
Things don't have to been viewed: Executions in USA
Things don't have to been viewed: Holocaust
Things don't have to been viewed: Child Soldiers
Things don't have to been viewed: War Crime #1
Things don't have to been viewed: War Crime #2
Things don't have to been viewed: Torture
Things don't have to been viewed: Homosexuality
Things don't have to been viewed: Armenian Genocide
Things don't have to been viewed: Climate Change Attribution
Things don't have to been viewed: Drug use

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Widescreen (talk • contribs) 10:25, 19 August 2011.

Does this mean you're going to stop censoring Goatse?

Or are going to be even more dishonest and shitty when it suits you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radar snake (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 August 2011.

I'm in favor of restoring the image. An image would provide a concise and straightforward portrayal of what the subject is. If a visitor doesn't wish to view the image, she or he could take advantage of this new tool while allowing those who wish to view it to view it unmolested by censors. --Michaeldsuarez 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into any specific cases, mostly because i don't want to personally look at said specific cases to investigate them, I absolutely believe a filter will go hand in hand with chiseling on the wall in marble for time eternal "Wikimedia is not censored". The argument of "Delete this content because it's controversial" should become laughable and embarrassing in the filter age. That's the idea, anyway. --AlecMeta 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a special trick the deletionists have learned to help them achieve such results, which works like this:

Wikipedia must not carry content if it is uncertain that it violates copyright.
All that is needed to maintain this uncertainty is for the deletionist never to stop claiming it's so.

For further information see s:Industrial Society and Its Future. Note that Wikisource:Possible copyright violations is an oubliette that goes back two years. Wnt 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

bad proposal badly worded

The proposal is focused on the hiding functionality, which is easy enough to add I suppose, but as others have pointed out, the real problem is the labeling of images. The proposal completely avoids any discussion or feedback gathering of how labeling or tagging of images would work. Would consensus drive this? Would admins make the final call? How will this all work?

Can you immagine how difficult it is going to be to gain consensus on some images? Even within the U.S., standards on what is pornography and what isn't vary widely. Are images of fine art going to be labeled as sexual in nature? That's going to anger both sides of the argument and create a lot of wasted time effort and energy.

This proposal is counter to the mission of the foundation which focuses, rightly, on unrestricted content availability :

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

I would like to see this proposal withdrawn and reworked at least to the point that these vagaries are addressed.

Ideally this proposal should be shelved and content filtering left to the 3rd parties, there are freely available ones as well as commercial ones. This allows individuals to select the filter that meets their needs and not rely on the wiki community to decide (poorly) for them.--RadioFan 13:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Breasts

This reminds me of all the people who got banned by filters when they discussed "breast cancer." Aren't we dumbed down enough? Stormbear

I don't think they're going to that benighted extreme here, but indeed the treatment of breasts would expose some of the problems with this idea. Does Wikipedia allow a category for images with naked female breasts? And if so does it allow a category for images with naked male breasts? It is recognized in more enlightened jurisdictions - even, I've heard, in the state of New York - that prohibiting female skin but not male skin is indeed sexual discrimination. Should Wikipedia then put resources into a sexist categorization scheme? If we want an international perspective, should we have a category for women with unveiled faces? Should we have one for men with unveiled faces to balance it out? In short, does helping people avoid offense mean that we specifically designate our resources to maintaining sexually discriminatory beliefs?

The reason why this is so impossible is that we are probing the endless theorems and principles of False. 75.97.33.173 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criterion creep

As pointed out in a posting above enquiring about imagery of Muhammad, there is a huge problem with deciding what filters to implement (eligibility = arbitrary?), who gets control of the filters (do we need more quibbling admins, maybe?), or how to decide what to filter. For instance, let's assume we implement a "gross" filter. I may find tripe gross, others may find it delicious. Some people find hairy spiders cute, and what about cartoon pictures? Who draws the line for what would trigger an arachnophobic response? Do we throw out political cartoons depicting individuals with eight legs? And has anything been said about whether previously excluded Featured Pictures would see the light of day under the proposed provision?

Just try listing all the cultural groups around the planet that may have one hang-up or another about what is valid to depict. Forget about modern sects, and consider *just* all the different ethnic groups that exist, their indigenous cultures, and their diverse perceptions of the world. Are we going to cater for all of them? Or just the more populous ones, and, if so, what justifies this? Do cultures lose their vote by going extinct? And whose fault is it, anyway? (Just throwing that one in there to pre-empt handwaving.) Shall we invent another political device? Another process to decide which filters to implement and which to leave out? Another battle-ground for the various lobbying groups that are already interfering with the true, original purpose of Wikipedia? A honey-pot for them, perhaps? (Now, that would be clever!) Samsara 22:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting stricter limits and narrower, more straightforward categories

The filter should be limited to sex, nudity, blood, and guts. There's substance and form to those words, and everyone knows what sex, nudity, blood, and guts are when they see them. Cultural concerns, controversial content, and violence are too vague and too open to interpretation. There'll never be consensus on which images are controversial enough to be filtered. It would be best to drop controversial content and violence from the categorization scheme. --Michaeldsuarez 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you believe that the system should address only content widely regarded as objectionable in your culture. —David Levy 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I just saying that it's easier to come to an agreement on which images contain sex, nudity, blood, and guts than it is to agree on which images contain controversial material. --Michaeldsuarez 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's even easier to come to an agreement on which images contain trees, bicycles, fish and doughnuts. The only material distinction between those categories and yours is that the latter are commonly regarded as objectionable in your culture. Someone from another culture might have a dramatically different idea of what content is easily identifiable as problematic. —David Levy 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

At which point is something sex(ual) or nude after your impression? Is a very tight dress/swimsuit already nude? Is a fantasy picture showing angels nude? Does an act photograph or drawing fall under sex if genitals are shown?

Now, who wants to decide whats nude and whats not nude? Volunteers are welcome. Preferably one from US, one from Europe, one from Asia, one from Latin America and so on. --Niabot 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested 1 thing in my vote that there should be at least 2 levels for each category, mild and serious. For the sexual/nudity category, mild level may contain image with revealing wardrobe without showing female nipples, male genital or bare butt (4th image). -- Sameboat (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this make the decision even harder? Now you have to choose if something is nude or not. Additionally you will have to choose in which category to put it. How to distinguish between mild nudity and hard nudity? --Niabot 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The level must be as specific (nipples, genital...) as possible for easier categorization. This also allows easier search result for images with specific characteristics. -- Sameboat (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That (nipples, genitals...) means you decide just on the basis what is shown. An artistic and well known artwork would fall in the same category as the latest porn from some unknown amateur? A drawing or photograph of the human body, describing the body parts, showing nipples and genitals would fall in the "hard" category? Is it that what you want to achieve? --Niabot 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Artistic or porn (or even medical), conservatives care not. They only feel any exposure of these body parts to be offensive whatever the purpose is. -- Sameboat (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about normal people that don't want to look at porn but are very interested in art or medicine? In school art classes depictions of Greek and Roman statues are shown. They contain genitals as well, since this is part of the art to depict the human body. Do you indirectly admit that such a filter would tend to remove much more then needed and that the educational purpose would suffer? --Niabot 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the content of "purpose" of the image because coming next will be a derailed debate. But I do think we should add the subcategory under the nudity and violence such as historical artwork for user to untick its filtering. -- Sameboat (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need to do this for all other categories as well. In the result we have exploding categories or we draw an unsufficient line which makes the filtering very doubtful. It wouldn't satisfy conservatives and/or liberal people. --Niabot 16:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Something (exploding categories) has to be done. There's no way any solution could satisfy the whole world. Liberals should be aware that things they're comfortable with are constantly labelled by conservatives. This fact shouldn't be avoided, even in Wikipedia. The filter categories (or labels) may upset the liberals but they have to accept it. The very least thing they could do is to disable the filter in the first place. The detailed categories should be as objective as possible, which means subjective categories like "artistic", "educational" and "pornographic" should be avoided because they're gonna be abused. -- Sameboat (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The status quo requires no value judgements on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation or its projects' volunteers. The planned filter system, conversely, will force us to either specially categorize practically everything or draw arbitrary lines when determining what content to label "potentially objectionable."

"Liberals" and "conservatives" alike stand to feel discriminated against, depending on where those lines are drawn. For example, will this photograph be included in the optional filtering? If not, many "conservatives" will be outraged. If so, will this photograph be included as well? Otherwise, we'll be taking a formal stance that homosexual kissing is "potentially objectionable" and heterosexual kissing is not.

If we include both in the optional filtering, will we place them in separate categories (thereby affirming that a material distinction exists)? If so, what other distinctions will we affirm? Monoracial kissing and multiracial kissing? White people kissing and black people kissing?

I see no feasible means of maintaining neutrality. —David Levy 01:50/02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally just create all the categories you have mentioned, homosexual kissing, heterosexual kissing, etc. even the transgender kissing if that is stated in the file description. let the users customize their own filter combination themselves. The filter label really does no actual harm to the liberals. -- Sameboat (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That falls under the "[categorizing] practically everything" scenario mentioned above.

Do you honestly believe that it's realistic to maintain filter categories for "homosexual kissing," "heterosexual kissing," "monoracial kissing," "multiracial kissing," "white kissing," "black kissing," et cetera? Do you realize that this barely scratches the surface (even for kiss breakdowns)?

I find it strange and disconcerting that you've continually singled out "the liberals" (as though no one else conceivably could find fault with the system's implementation). —David Levy 03:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know, but it is still required to allow users to better customize their own list of filter. But category should be added if they're reasonably requested (number of users who ask for it may be a consideration, but not the highest weight.) And in order for the filter categories not being added indiscriminately, it shouldn't be open to normal users. Apart from moderators and higher user rights, new user group, image filter maintainer, may be added for handling the categorization of image filter to ease the workload of other sysops. -- Sameboat (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So we need to decide which filter requests are "reasonable." And you believe that this can be carried out in a neutral, non-drama-inciting manner?

No matter what decision is made in response to a given request, it will amount to a formal stamp of approval or rejection of a particular belief's validity. In such a scenario, I see no possible means of maintaining neutrality and collegiality. —David Levy 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
This needs to be discussed in a better ground. But giving it a second thought, tagging the race of people inside the image is not quite necessary. -- Sameboat (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize, I presume, that it's common for people to strongly oppose (and be offended by) romantic/sexual relations between persons of different racial backgrounds. Many disapprove of racial integration in general, and some even object to the very sight of humans belonging to x race or religion (particularly in certain contexts). If we set up a system intended to enable users to filter "potentially objectionable" images without tagging relevant images in a manner accommodating such individuals, aren't we effectively condemning their beliefs? —David Levy 05:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The filter labels do do harm. To suggest that someone can filter out "White people kissing" "Jews kissing" "Mixed races kissing" is to promote racism. Rich Farmbrough 03:45 20 August 2011 (GMT).

You're avoiding the reality by calling my suggestion racism. All we need is to provide visual clue of the image, not conjecture its purpose like "intimacy", "hatred", etc. -- Sameboat (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Rich is attributing your comments to racism; he's saying that the proposed setup would promote racism.

Do you disagree that a desire to filter images depicting people of certain racial backgrounds kissing likely reflects racism? No matter how pragmatic you believe such a setup would be (and I disagree on that point), do you dispute the likelihood that it would be perceived as a promotion of bigotry (and objected to) by many?

I don't believe that it's appropriate for the Wikimedia Foundation to condone or condemn such beliefs, which is part of why I see no tenable approach apart from taking no stance (the status quo). —David Levy 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘

I misspoke, but whether the categories are gonna promote hate or not is very depending on the people themselves. It is like calling someone homosexual, someone may find it inappropriate because it may constitute promoting homophobia but other may not think so. It's just a sexual preference, homo can live with it carefreely and acknowledge there is a group of considerable people who does not like it. That's why we provide means for them to avoid those scenes. -- Sameboat (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a system inherently requires us to make non-neutral, contentious decisions regarding which types of content should/shouldn't be assigned optional filters (effectively deeming beliefs "valid" or "invalid"). It simply isn't realistic to assign filter categories to everything. Conversely, Wikimedia Foundation wikis have thrived under a system assigning them to nothing (the only neutral approach). —David Levy 05:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The filter should be limited to sex, nudity, blood, and guts. -- Whoa. This is exactly the direction this whole discussion shouldn't even take. What you are suggesting is implementing exactly the kind of culture-centric bias and ideology which we should struggle to defend Wikipedia against. Opt-in filter, sure, fine by me. But there can be no default filtering (ie. by default, all images should be shown too all readers) and sure as heck there can be no "politically correct" prescription as to what "should" be included in the filter system and what shouldn't. Who are we to decide and tell people what to regard as "potentially filter-worthy" and "not filter-able"? Just to give you one first-hand example: A category-based opt-in filter would allow me to filter all spider images (I have arachnophobia). According to you, the filter should not give me the option to filter the images I want filtered. ~~Also according to you, we should default-filter that which you for whatever reason deem "easily identifiable/negotiable" sensitive material.~~ Ridiculous. No offense, but it really is. --87.78.46.49 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Who in this section said anything about filtering by default? --Michaeldsuarez 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have carried that over from another section. Struck accordingly. However, even leaving that out, there still is the huge problem that any set of predefined filter options embody an intrusion on the user's decision what they want filtered and what they don't. We can't do that. --87.78.46.49 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the arachnophobia example above is perfect, because it removes the "morality" aspect, and allows to focus on the real issue. Having been arachnophobic myself, I have frequently browsed very quickly past pages with pictures of spiders in books, and wished I could avoid them altogether. But just as I wouldn't expect a publisher of books to address my personal sensitivites in this regard, I don't think it is a worthwhile cause for Wikipedia to implement any such features. If I really wanted to avoid pictures of spiders, I would set up a proxy, which did some image recognition to identify spider-like images and replace them. I believe such filters are available commercially, at least. This type of filtering is simply not something Wikipedia should concern itself with. The possibility that someone might be offended by something on Wikipedia is not a good enough reason to implement such a feature - and the issues that implementing such a feature raises, about how to make categories etc, are very, very good reasons NOT to implement such a feature. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen --87.104.100.229 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I honestly don't see any potential advantages to including this into MediaWiki when there are perfectly viable other options. See e.g. my posting below (How is this necessary when there are userscripts?). There already is a userscript that allows people to replace all images with text that can in turn be clicked to reveal the image. --87.78.46.49 16:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Severely Negative Effects of This Feature

Within a week of an IP-optional filter going public, variations of the following will be in hundreds of schools, libraries, and churches worldwide.

COMPUTER LAB NOTICE All computer users on Wikipedia must employ the indecency filter. Directions next to computer. Any users not in compliance may lose lab privileges. Thank you!

Institutions in extremely conservative or religious communities will have authority figures enforcing this policy first. Being from the United States, I can use Bob Jones University as an example where filter use will be enforced instantly upon the school realizing it exists. A multitude of less conservative institutions may follow suit, especially if their computers are regularly in the presence of children and protective parents. Here's the problem.

People who don't own a computing device and don't have
access to alternative public computers will face de facto censorship.

Almost the entire populations of many
small, poor towns could be susceptible.

I apologize for the crass and overblown headline and fonts, but I felt this needed attention. I would love to have a feature where the individual user can decide just for themselves how much "ick" they want in their Wikipedia experience. But we can't forget that in so many places, internet usage can be dictated by figures of authority, via policies, physical supervision, and social pressure. Now I personally don't mind parents controlling what their kids can see. The worry is the hundreds of thousands of people that only have access to Wikipedia in one place (usually a school or library, which already have a predilection for dictating filter use). And if this idea is implemented, it won't just be on the English Wikipedia. Small rural towns in countries all across the world may be subjected to de facto censorship on the whim of the schoolmaster, or town librarian, or even town officials.

I think the forum and the referendum's wording dangerously downplay this feature's impact.

Question for the master-minds

Before we go forward, I have a question for the individuals spearheading the feature's creation. It's not an attempt at snark, as I do have great faith that they have the best of intentions. That gives me hope that they'll thoughtfully consider this problem.

Wikipedia operated perfectly fine without this feature for years. Why the sudden interest in implementing it? Also, who originally lobbied for its creation, and what was their rationale? Was it a group of Wikipedia editors, administrators, or outside influences such as parent groups, religious groups, educators, or general readers?

IP or Account-based?

Perhaps just applying the feature to named accounts, not IP addresses, would greatly diminish the prevalence of de facto censorship. I can see it being difficult for any authority figure to supervise each public computer and make sure the user is logged in to an account with the censor feature activated. Just instructing IP users to switch the filter on would be easier for them to enforce. Let's talk! Rodgerrodger415 02:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of problem

Thoughts, hopefully? Rodgerrodger415 02:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to this image filter, tons of people from heavily censoring nations are blocked from accessing WP in the first place. And even if they could, their computer must be installed with other kinds of content filter. Our image filter does not make those readers suffer more. -- Sameboat (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I more or less agree with the big dictatorships, but from an American perspective, it's more the small towns in Kentucky and West Virginia I'm worried about, among so many other places. Rodgerrodger415 05:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How soon can we get the content filter implemented?! I'm afraid my children might find out the Holocaust happened, or that the moon landing wasn't faked. Pothed 03:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Filter, or it didn't happen"? Rich Farmbrough 03:39 20 August 2011 (GMT).

What's the difference? Pothed 04:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough 15:42 20 August 2011 (GMT).

One-- there won't be any "one" indecency filter-- there is no one concept of indecency. So their signs are going to have to be more complex.

Two-- any organizations technically sophisticated enough to control your computer can already enforce such a policy without our help.

Three-- organizations that aren't technically sophisticated won't be able to enforce such a policy anyway.

As for why now-- I know they've been worried about the issue for a very long time. Some very bright people considered it a strategic priority to get this done-- I personally don't see it as important-- but the time of our brightest people IS important, so if only to get them off this topic, we do have a strategic resource at interest.

Also-- we do have an editor trends/demographics/openness problem, and there's this theory floating around that maybe a filter could help. I personally don't think the filter alone can even dent that problem, but maybe I'm wrong.

Another reason to build the filter is, no joke, to show the world how to build a filter properly. A lot of organizations are facing this question, and "no filters" isn't an option for most of them. they've spent 2yr+ thinking about how to do this right, in a way that is very clearly intended only for responsible, intentional self-use. There's a certain virtue in, having solved the problem, showing what the right answer looks likes. That's not a good reason, but it's a half-good reason.

I'll let people more saavy than I give you better answers, but those are some of the parts I can shout out.

--AlecMeta 03:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Harris report was delivered on or around 21 September 2010, less than 11 months ago. The report is well written and thoughtful, but is not authored by Wikimedians (this is clearly both a drawback and an advantage). The authors specifically addressed their recommendations to the community, rather than the board, showing that they realised the solutions of the problems lie in the communities hands, both in terms of understanding the issues and implementing then, for very sound reasons.

The board resolution (a request, as it is characterised) was put forward 29 May 2011 (not June as the referendum page says), and work almost immediately began on planning this survey. Therefore the maximum time the board board had to consider the issue was about 8 months not 2 years, and the amount of time spent considering "how to do it right" is I think a lot less. No one has been giving this much thought until now, and I mean that not unkindly - it was not something anyone needed to do. At first blush the idea is great, simple, doable and a quick win. (In fact it is so much all those things that a number of naive versions have already been created.) It's only the close examination, with many experienced Wikimedians, information scientists, computer scientists and other assorted experts and generalists that has pulled out a series of extreme problems, all of which need solving if we are not to run into difficulties. It may be, as some argue, that the difficulties are worth the benefits, on the other hand it may not. The crux though, is that a proper evaluation of those difficulties need s to be me made - if there were a project plan, this would be a mammoth exception report, and the project would need to be re-planned and re-costed, and it's viability re0determined. Simply because the formal process hasn't been put into place, it does not mean that the viability of the proposal necessarily still stands. Rich Farmbrough 04:10 20 August 2011 (GMT).

I agree that this is going to have to be kind of a large undertaking, and I hope the strategists realize that. It is a very big can of worms and no other organization like ours has ever attempted to tackle it, because we're one-of-a-kind. Half-measures may lead to worse community effects than no measures at all; or maybe half-measures will just slowly evolve into full measures. In terms of the total amount of time-- foundation, staff, developer, admin, and editor time that will ultimately be poured into tagging and debating, this could likely become a very major undertaking. I have no clue if it's the best use of resources, but if anyone can do it right, it's the people we've got, and I believe it can be done and done right if we really want to do it. --AlecMeta 05:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"no other organization like ours has ever attempted to tackle it" - I would say that's because no organization like this should concern themselves with this sort of thing. It's possible the other ones realize that. Maybe they didn't endeavor because they figured that even self-imposed filtering of content based on a digitally divined morality shouldn't be the concern of the content provider, but the concern of the end user. I don't believe question they should be asking is 'can it be done?' Of course it can be done. As a computer scientist and web developer myself, I have no reason to believe they couldn't do it and make it work exactly as described. Probably better. The question, rather, should be 'should this be Wikipedia's responsibility in the first place?' To that I say: Absolutely not. Pothed 05:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is no more an issue of censorship than Google Safe Search is. The boffins around here screaming censorship are ill informed twats at best. To be honest, ALOT of organisations completely block Wikipedia due to the kind of content this filter is addressing and the lack of an optional filter, particulerly educational institutions. I feel this is actually a better alternative, some wikipedia is better than no wikipedia at all and keeping in mind this is just targeting potentially offensive images, not text. Promethean 06:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ill-informed twats? Have you ever spent time in a small-town library, the inky dinky ones with small computer labs closely monitored by librarians? They don't need "technology" to be able to enforce censorship on their users, as they already have frequent visual surveillance going on to catch people circumnavigating the porn firewalls. A lot of community's depend on these computer labs, and Wikipedia may be on of their few outlets for frank pictures, especially if the rest of their surfing is controlled for "sanitation" as well. (And most people are eager to please or intimidated by authority figures, and so will obey the new "policy" just so they don't get caught looking at what are now classified as naughty pictures). Your argument is, "well, the crazy places already ban Wikipedia, so it can't get worse." We don't know that. What about the places that grudgingly allow for the photos to be seen, as they are "considered encyclopedic?" Once there is a setting, they can stamp down on that. Basically we aren't sure how many venues are on the brink. We're all making sweeping generalization about what "might happen," but we need to seriously think about the consequences from all demographic viewpoints. And again, I think this situation might be more easily solved with an account-only based feature, not a super easy, accessible IP-based one. Rodgerrodger415 15:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, with this comment: "ALOT of organisations completely block Wikipedia due to the kind of content this filter is addressing and the lack of an optional filter, particulerly educational institutions. I feel this is actually a better alternative, some wikipedia is better than no wikipedia", you just admitted that allowing schools to censor their students is one of the feature's main motivations. Please confirm or deny. Again, who was behind the lobbying for this feature? Rodgerrodger415 16:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"...some wikipedia is better than no wikipedia at all..." - I wholeheartedly disagree. If you aren't giving me the whole truth, then you can keep it to yourself. I'd also probably not come to you for any credible information in the future either. So yes, 'no Wikipedia' is absolutely better than 'filtered, compromised integrity, politically correct Wikipedia'. In fact, it's not even close. Pothed 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Relevance

So does this make it so that i can do whatever I want with Images like post an orange on an article about tomatoes? UserBassistcello

Legal/liability issues

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Does this mean that Wikimedia Foundation is taking a position on what constitutes objectionable material?

It seems to me that by creating categories of possibly objectionable material, Wikimedia Foundation would be taking a position on what can be considered objectionable. That would be unfortunate.--Wikimedes 07:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And it would contradict the main principle of NPOV. Is a picture of the pope offensive enough to be categorized? Is a religious symbol offensive enough or not? Perhaps a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche is too offensive for Catholics? Is a caricature relating to a religious topic offensive enough or not? Who can decide this without strongly infringing NPOV? Personally I wish that every picture including bananas should be categorized because I feel offended by those and it would be nice to filter them. Is there any chance that this can be realized? ;-) --78.94.169.111 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would mean the WMF is deciding anything, actually, any more than the WMF decides the content of articles (we don't). This is about making something available for editors to use, or not. -- phoebe | talk 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the WMF care for anything else then donations? I wonder which donor had this great idea. --Niabot 00:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The foundation board itself wrote a very even-handed resolution. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content . The discussion on foundation-l was also fairly even-handed. The issue is that one of the bullet-points in the resolution required foundation employee action (the result of which you see here, so far). There's actually a lot of room within the scope of the resolution to shoot down some of the more obviously hair-brained concepts people might want to implement. Even so, I've posted on foundation-l to request a clearer resolution, so that employees can better engage with volunteers, without a need for one side to shout the other down. --Kim Bruning 17:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Did that sound diplomatic enough? ;-)

Matters of principles

Latest comment: 13 years ago85 comments39 people in discussion

Neutrality

An example of what a completely non-neutral filtering tool would look like.

The FAQ for this referendum says that one of the principles behind the creation of the filtering tool is that "The feature is to be culturally neutral, and all-inclusive". However, the mock-up designs displayed show completely non-neutral filtering options. The IFR page says that "These are subject to change based on the outcome of the referendum and the realities of feature development, but it's likely that the final product would look very similar to these mock-ups". I think it would be very helpful if this were made clearer, explaining that these are just images showing what the interface style might look like, and that the actual feature will actually be neutral, giving no possible filtering setting any higher availability than any other conceivable filter, and not at all include any options like those given in the images displayed, assuming that this is the case, of course. If this is not the case, the FAQ must be corrected before the start of the referendum, in order to allow people to understand whether this feature would abolish NPOV before they vote. --Yair rand 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yair. Thanks for your comment, but I think you're likely misreading the intention behind these (admittedly vague) statements. The board specifically noted neutrality in design as a core principle -- we were thinking of things like category names. "Nudity" is pretty objective and neutral, for instance, as a descriptive category; "bad content" is not. This is important. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't pick certain categories of images to make hideable, as those that are commonly controversial across many cultures. I don't quite know what you mean about interface design; but I disagree quite strongly that the feature would "abolish NPOV" -- remember in this proposal nothing goes away permanently, and editing standards remain the same. -- phoebe | talk 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant? The reason (well, one of them) behind rejecting repeated proposals for temporary/permanent hiding of certain "objectionable" content was that "objectionable" means something different for everyone and hiding certain content would be giving preference to certain groups in violation of NPOV, which, as you helpfully pointed out, is exactly what this image filter will do, and not, as SJ suggested above might be the case, give options to hide any such images in any neutrally selected categories not giving preference to select groups. --Yair rand 20:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There will be no permanent hiding of anything. Every single reader will be able to see every single image he wants to see.
This is not a one-size-fits-all filter system. You decide what categories of material you find objectionable (if anything). It doesn't matter what everyone else wants to hide. Consequently, it doesn't matter if "objectionable" means something different for every reader.
Putting a 'click here to see the image' button on your screen doesn't impair NPOV at all. Failing to load the picture of the man jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge when the page loads the first time does not "give preference to certain groups" or "violate NPOV". WhatamIdoing 19:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a one-size-fits-all filter system, though, because the filtering categories with which the end user is presented, as well as the content of those categories, will be decided by the community. That will inevitably mean edit wars and non-neutrality. I too would much prefer the system that SJ suggested, but that is not what we will be voting on here.--Danaman5 00:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that multiple options will be presented means that it's not a one-size-fits-all system. You could choose to see everything except one type of images, and I could choose to see everything except one different type of images, and the next person could choose to see everything except four types of images. The ability to configure it means that it's not one-size-fits-all. It might well be a 5040-sizes-fit-most system (that's the number of combinations available in the sample above), but it is not a one-size-fits-all system. WhatamIdoing 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. The user can decide, that he does not want the see "extreme politicans". But who will fit to this description? Some will say Hitler, Stalin, Goebbels. Other will include Mao, Lenin and Mubarak. And still others will include Palin, Obama or George W. Bush. I predict a censors war. --Eingangskontrolle 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what was said above, nudity is not an all-or none concept. Are pictures that deliberately leave that fact ambiguous, nudity? Is a image with the genitals covered by a large X, nudity? Do we propose to differentiate between male and female nudity? And similarly with all the other categories. Anyone who thinks this is hair-splitting should see current discussions of almost anything controversial on Wikipedia. There are no world-wide standards, and any attempt to do one is likely to drift either to the current US view of people like most of our editors, or towards the most inclusive position. Or possibly to the least inclusive--certainly at least some people opposed to the general concept will try to move towards that one. DGG 16:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of categories is a problem since they would be inevitable bias in what would be included or not included in the categories. For instance Mormons may want to not having to view pictures of some underwear, how to classify that? The only unbiased system would be to have it on an per image basis where you can select to hide specific images. // Liftarn 12:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The filter system is POV. What could be obscene to someone may not be obscene to someone else. A filtering system, in my opinion is all about controlling content in an adult educational format. I do not believe that a fundamental change on Wikipedia be dictated by a few persons who are offended by some photo. I have yet to find an article on Wikipedia that is explicitly gory or contains graphic sexual content. There is currently no need for a filtering service on Wikipedia. A filtering system would destroy any neutrality in an article, since, by its very nature photos from an article would be not shown if considered obscene by some unknown persons who could be offended by this photo. There are articles that children, in my opinion, need to be supervised by an adult. Again, let the choice be for the parents to make, rather then a biased filtering system. Cmguy777 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1984

welcome to censorpedia Bunnyfrosch 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to 2011. It's opt in. B Fizz 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling this censorship is an insult to the many millions of people who have suffered under actual censorship. Real censorship does not have a "thanks, but I want to see it" button. Rd232 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This censorship is an insult to all contributers who made the Wikimedia projects in their spare time, asking no money. They believed in principles that will be thrown away once this censorship is introduced. Next step will be censorship on articles, and slowly, the project will be taken over by politicians and religious fanatics - Quistnix 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have a non-standard definition of the word censorship. From Wiktionary: "Censorship: The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated." How is anyone preventing anything from being published or propagated here? Philippe (WMF) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So, your response to my saying "calling this censorship is an insult" is to repeat the insult? And then to throw in the slippery slope claim. Except that this is not censorship so there is no slope, slippery or otherwise. No matter how often or how hysterically the claim is made, it will still not be true that this is censorship and it will still not be true that this is a slippery slope to actual censorship. Rd232 18:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Philippe We already have the first calls to make the censored version the default and to hide anything that someone could find controversial, until they "opt-out" to enable the uncensored view. Even if we make it an "opt-in" it's very likely that it sooner or later changes to "opt-out" which meats the criteria for censorship. It's the drawing of pink bunny jumping over yellow flowers. After the discussions on EN about what images might be suitable (featurable) for the mainpage I'm fully convinced that it would not stop at this point and many authors and their ideals (uncensored, neutral knowledge, accessible for everyone) would be betrayed. --Niabot 19:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232:Time will prove you're wrong. One day you'll wake up, and that day will be too late to change things - Quistnix 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Philippe: Nothing wrong with that definition. We just differ in our interpretation of it - Quistnix 20:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Your honour, it's not theft, I just disagree with your interpretation of "ownership". Is this what passes for reasoned debate round here? Meh. Count me out. Rd232 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This hypothetical discussion could actually conceivably occur if you (accidentally) steal from a lien-holder. The existence-or-not of a lien complicates matters considerably. ;-) --Kim Bruning 11:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC) _{moral of the story: don't use metaphor and simile around wikipedians. ;-) _{I haven't actually checked the sources to see if the exact quote occurred in court history_{... yet}}}

Its the first step to enable censorship by third parties. School districts, governments, internet-provider, employers... And many fundamentlists will remove tagged images from the articles, just because they are tagged. --Bahnmoeller 09:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who doubts the slippery-slope argument in this case, there has already been, on this page, a proposal to make the filter opt-in - for all values of "offensive". And indeed such a call would be hard to resist - we would be seen to be either assuming that readers are prurient/ungodly/voyeuristic, or deliberately exposing them to "unpleasant" images when we can flip a bit to "protect" them. Rich Farmbrough 14:05 17 August 2011 (GMT).

My own, belated, dismay

I suppose I should have been paying more attention. I knew a referendum was coming, and I naively expected it to be on the substance of this monstrosity, and not on implementation details — it had not occurred to me that the Foundation would even consider committing a "feature" such as this without overwhelming community support given that it goes exactly opposite everything it is supposed to stand for.

There is no such thing as "offensive" or "controversial" information, only offended points of view. It's destroying our educative mission for the sake of — well, I'm not even sure what rational objective this is supposed to serve. "Morality" as defined by a minority in some random theocracy? Some vague and ill-defined standard of "respectability" handwaved into being without thought?

Encouraging readers to blind themselves to the parts of reality they dislike is the opposite of our educative goal. It is stealth POV forking, causing people to view different articles that match their preconceptions (or, in the real world, somebody else's preconceptions as imposed to them by social pressure out outright force). There is no real conceptual difference between allowing image POV filtering and allowing text POV filtering. When does the "exclude liberal text" toggle come, then? Or the "I don't want to see 'evolutionist' articles" checkmark?

You may think I'm abusing a slippery slope argument; I don't believe there is a slope: being able to exclude images of "sex" (however you want to defined it), or that of "the prophet", or whatever is exactly the same thing as being able to exclude articles on biology, or on religions you disapprove of. The false distinction between images and articles is just a fallacy to rationalize this "feature".

That's not even getting into the problems about how easy such categorization of contents over arbitrary pigeonholes of "offensiveness" is easy to abuse by third parties — others have expounded on that aspect elsewhere and in more detail.

Yes, people are allowed to use the blinders the foundation will provide for them; I believe in freedom to self-harm. I have no desire to be a party to it. We should be the beacon of knowledge, allowing people to expand their limited vision — not giving them a comfortable experience of strictly limited points of view. That's TV's job. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Kusma 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia. The free Encyclopedia. If those filters come Wikipedia isn't free anymore. --Matthiasb 23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with this points. --Niabot 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You put it better than I could. Now if we can only overturn this mess of an idea... --Hibernian 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We always have the right to fork, and/or to set up a different foundation if we happen not to like this one anymore. Some wikipedias have done so in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre . Of course, it might be somewhat easier to just talk with the board instead, and have them modify or vacate the current position. Most of the board are pretty clueful! :-) --Kim Bruning 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

An option for reaching people is to use the foundation-l mailing list. --Kim Bruning 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Best thing ever

Finally a feature that will allow me to hide the pornographic images on Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikipedia. 84.198.50.96 02:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So then what were you doing viewing the porn articles if you didn't want to see porn? --Cybercobra 06:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Now Cybercobr, that is FUNNY and true! great observation. I havent yet accidentally seen 'racy" images on WP. I am in fact disappointed to see some of them disappear. Jack B108 19:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people would like to look up a term without seeing pornography. Britannica doesn't have graphic sexual pictures, and some people would be able to safely research things in schools or at work. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Chinese government's dream

It appears that internet censorship on China functions better if websites aren't totally blocked, but has just certain contents filtered. Of course, this is made much easier if Wikipedia itself tags such content. The Chinese government is actively looking for more ways to filter out sexual content from web sites, so this proposal is a perfect match :)

--187.40.208.90 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, nothing else than censorship

Really sick, and next week you will have the article filter referndeum... 84.119.1.200 06:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Principle of Least Astonishment" usage

At the end of this sentence:

Often, within the Wikimedia world, this is referred to as the principle of least astonishment, or least surprise.

please place a {{citation needed}} Mfwitten 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment and Principle of least astonishment. SilkTork 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

please place a {{citation needed}} Mfwitten 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understood it "Least surprise" is the benign editorial practice of not including the most potentially disturbing images that would be relevant to the article at the very top of the article. If someone clicks, for example, on a link to "torture " in the English Wikipedia, the top image is , appropriately, a display of medieval torture instruments, not of a person being tortured. (None of the other Wikipedias I checked have a really horrific picture at the top, either) It conveys the idea without being really frightening. Even children have seen such images. Should someone reach this page, a little reading will let them quickly decide how much further they want to go. Even on a 1920 X 1200 display, the first human example in not on the first screen, and even so, it's not a contemporary photograph, but an ancient monument. Almost all people who might potentially be disturbed would use much smaller screens than this--it's not perfect, but it helps considerably. I support this method. Doing anything else is, in my opinion , exploiting shock value, not conveying information. (Some subjects may not lend themselves to this, but they are generally subjects of very obvious NSW content). I am totally opposed to any compromise with censorship, but careful arrangement of material is not censorship. DGG 22:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Images are editorial choices

In wikipedia, images are editorial choices of the contributors, I see no reason why to only propose auto censuring tool for this part of the editorial choices made. Moreover, an image illustrates a topic but should (more reallisticly may) also be commented and described in the article itself; removing the illustration will make this part of the article useless or really weird.

IMO it's not our job as a community to implement a parental control solution. It's up to the parents. Does anyone want thoses kind of censoreship tools in museum or castel to not display the statue of Naked men, women and children ? To sum up, waste of time and money IMO. --PierreSelim 12:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposal isn't to be automatic; it is instead for people who don't want to see such things to be able to choose to not see them. Images aren't permanently removed; even if one person hides the picture for themselves, it will still be there for the rest of us -- and it will still be available even for the person who has hidden it. Nothing editorial is being interfered with. I just want to make sure the proposal is clear :) -- phoebe | talk 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If people dont like to see certain images, they should not use the internet. --Eingangskontrolle 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is the most asinine argument I've heard yet. The purpose of this feature is to allow more people to comfortably use Wikipedia. Your counterargument is that these people shouldn't be using the internet at all? How does that, in any way, help Wikipedia's goal to reach as many people as possible? That should be a major goal of Wikipedia, anyways. Perre said "it's not our job ... to implement a parental control system". Sure, it's not our job, but why not provide one anyways? It will be convenient for parents, and will leave everyone else unaffected. You don't have to opt in if you don't want to. B Fizz 18:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The system is not a parental control system; it doesn't take power away from the reader and put it somewhere else. The power remains with the reader, and that's as it should be. I'm not even sure, off-hand, whether it would even be possible for Wikimedia to create a parental control system. How would it identify children and parents, given that the overwhelming majority of readers are anonymous, and accounts are just screen-names with an optional email address?? Parental controls have to be on the relevant computer to work. The only link with parental controls is that parental control software might eventually use WP classification of images to enforce controls locally (but they can already do this using categories of images and pages, if they really want). Rd232 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Our proposed system is innocent, I get it, that's fine. However, I think an obvious design requirement must be that the metadata used to feed the system must also be innocent, and not be usable for evil. Since the metadata would ideally be curated by the community, I think the best way to move forward is to let community members help with the design process (also in part to help decide whether this design requirement can actually be met). --Kim Bruning 12:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)