Talk:Requests for comment/Image filter on Wikisource

attribution

This RFC is based on the text from de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter/en. John Vandenberg 01:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

process

Before any voting or comments, I would like some time for the community to develop arguments, for and against, like the German Wikipedia process. John Vandenberg 01:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the "for" and "against" should have a maximum of 10 bullet points, and a word and link limit. 500 words and 50 links should be sufficient. John Vandenberg 01:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kinda odd for you to set a limit when the first "for" is claiming that librarians don't censor. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - there are more than ten arguments for both sides, and who are we to judge for everyone which points are more valid than others? Rather, I'd say that each side should be allowed to field as many point as they wish to, in the interest of fairness and equal chance at good representation. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that there shouldn't be any for/against section but only a summary of the rationale behind the proposal. If we decide to have them, however, they obviously have to be limited, or are we going to reproduce here some hundreds (thousands?) KiB of discussions on the filter?

I agree with David on #First, frame the discussion your way: I don't think we need a new general RfC or poll on the virtues of the filter; the point here should be to explain why Wikisource is in a particular condition and shouldn't be subject to such a filter in any case, and show that the Wikisource community, who knows its project, agrees with such a representation. Only Wikisource users should vote (what's a reasonable limit? I don't know the customs of all projects, but the bare minimum seems 50 edits before the RfC started, while 500 perhaps would be better). The final text of the proposal and its rationale, after an initial discussion, should be agreed by such users or, if this proved to be impossible, we should just have some initiators who agree on the process and language of the poll (I think most projects have polls submitted by initiators?).

This shouldn't be too difficult, I hope: after all, it's quite obvious that the WMF and its counsellors didn't and don't care about Wikisource, and we're not even sure they actually want to implement the filter on Wikisource: I would be surprised if the did. I think the process can continue on Meta, but if there were problems it should be moved to oldwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium. Nemo 07:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

for and against

I guess someone copied this over from another source? I've corrected, updated, npovised it based on current best knowledge. --Kim Bruning 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC) but forgot to log in while doing so... oh well, it's pretty obvious which edits are mine ;-)

Considering that you lean more toward the "for" section, I really wouldn't qualify your changes as moving comments to a neutral point of view... Also, these are arguments - they are going to have a point of view attached to them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe some arguments can go both ways, or might belong in one column or the other, or might be presented even more neutrally.

However, the sales-pitch rhetoric is definitely not something that we want in any of the arguments.

Also, statements that are known to be untrue should not be used in arguments. --Kim Bruning 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For arguments that can go both ways, there's no need to fight, we can just give them their own heading. :-) --Kim Bruning 02:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps have rebuking arguments bulleted under them... but we might as well just begin discussion in that case. I don't think, however, that taking an "against" comment, adding a rebuke at the end and moving it to the "for" section is a good thing to do. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me where you think I did that? Sorry if I did, I didn't mean to do it that way on purpose. Can you correct it? --Kim Bruning 02:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is one example, though a good half of your changes on that page have been moving something from against to for and modifying it a bit to fit your views. Again, not what I'd call NPOV when you are modifying comments to be more agreeable with your standpoint on this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, that was definitely misleading. I just went to fix it, but apparently it has already been corrected. Thanks if it was you. :) Let me see if I've made other mistakes like that. --Kim Bruning 02:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The WMF supports Free content. Free content is defined as being "Free as in speech" (with specific legal licensing, and a very small set of specific political goals to ensure that this remains possible, as put forward by CC and FSF) --Kim Bruning 03:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Free speech and free content are two very different things. The US's first amendment is one of the few with "free speech" but still has copyright. Free content is copyleft. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you read their mission statement, free content is defined as freely licensed and free of charge. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

-citation-. This citation does not support the statement. Are you looking at a different source perhaps? See also: Free as in speech. --Kim Bruning 03:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That citation doesn't support your statement. I quote: "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain" "available on the Internet free of charge". Where is it talking about censorship or lack thereof there? Quite to the contrary, it is supporting what I am saying about their mission statement referring to the no-cost and copyleft status of the content, and has nothing to do with censorship. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You have the facts correct, but I can't quite see how you reach your conclusion yet. At any rate, censorship interferes with each of the 4 freedoms embodied by copyleft, and is therefore very problematic for a free content movement organization. --Kim Bruning 03:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, complete censorship would. However, simply giving users the choice to censor the information themselves in no way violates those four freedoms. They can still have access to all content, if they wish. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That is once again largely correct. The image filter software itself -as proposed- is mostly unproblematic.

On the other hand, the prerequisite category system would be classified by ALA as a "censorship tool". It would be similarly classified by Canadian and International library organizations. Because it will be public, such a tool can just as easily be employed as a means for censorship by 3rd parties, irrespective of our own filter or users' choices. --Kim Bruning 04:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Such 3rd parties already have this option available to them by restricting access to Wikipedia altogether, making your argument null. In fact, this proposed filter will allow some of those heavy restrictions to be replaced with lighter ones, hence making this a good thing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with your facts. So far, anytime someone decided to block all of wikipedia, people protested, and the blocks have (by and large) been lifted in most countries. Obviously, if more fine-grained blocking becomes available, countries and organizations will start using those instead, thus making our current strategy moot. This makes it easy for these people to violate NPOV (a founding issue for our movement), without us being able to do anything about it. --Kim Bruning 04:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"classified by ALA" The ALA is a very liberal political organization and has been since the 1960s. They do not adequately represent a majority of librarians or anything but their own political ideology regardless of the name. But even they say giving children access to porn is not okay, as per the Wikipedia article: 'Sharon Presley said, however, that Schlessinger "distorted and misrepresented the ALA stand to make it sound like the ALA was saying porno for 'children' is O.K."' Which strong implies that it is not what they believe. Thus, they believe that it is right to restrict access to certain material. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

They have been since the 1960s? I guess it's when they stopped supporting the segregation of libraries by race is when they earned the "very" part of that "very liberal"?--Prosfilaes 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the 80s they were promoting LGBT topics that had nothing to do with libraries, like gay marriage. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "speech" does not appear in the first link. The second link does not prove that all uses of "free" are comparable. Otherwise, "free speech" would mean being able to speak without being monetarily charged which was not the intent of the First Amendment. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• "censorship interferes with each of the 4 freedoms embodied by copyleft" Actually, it is the opposite. "the freedom to modify the work" gives us the right to "censor", i.e. modify the image to remove inappropriate details. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• You can do that if you want. You can also make a commercial service out of it. But no one gives you the right to modify or paint over the original to hide it, since you need to reference the original. It has to be kept intact by you (not the original author) to comply with the licenses. --Niabot 19:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• 1. There are no limits to modification, so you can do whatever you want. 2. You overrode many images on Commons to make a political statement. If what you claim is true, you had no right to do it. Thus, you contradict your own actions. The original license allows us to alter it any way we want no matter what. According to WMF philosophy, all things uploaded here will be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will". You cannot refuse that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. *ROFL*

2. I am the author of this modified images and have any right, regardless of the license, since I'm the author. I can do whatever i want, since i don't need to follow any license. The original was always available in the history. This has nothing to do with my previous comment. (bending of facts again)

3. I don't refuse that, since i have given anybody (including you) the right to modify the images. The only rights retained are that you must attribute me, the source, the license and you have no right to state my name in any way that i would support some action. Legalcode

I conclude: You have the right to censor the image. But this is not the point of the license. The license guarantees that the original stays uncensored. Once the permission is given the author can't revoke it or enforce some kind of version of an work. He can only insist to not be named together with the modification, if he does not support it's intention. --Niabot 10:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Once you upload an image, you have no rights to that image except to be said to be the uploader. You cannot control the content or distribution of that image. It specifically says that it can be edited and modified in anyway. If you don't like it, there are other websites that allow you to have more control. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

you have no rights to that image except to be said to be the uploader - Well, that depends on the law. PD and CC0 is not in according to the swedish law. I will always and forever be the author if I create something. I can give away any permission I like, but I will always be the author. -- Lavallen 13:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for German law. You have no legal way to give away authorship. You will always be the author, whatever you do or whichever license you choose. --Niabot 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"no legal way to give away authorship" I said that your only right is to be credited. But you can't refuse any alterations of the image once it is uploaded. That is the way Wiki works. You sign away those rights. And it doesn't matter what any other law but US law says on the matter because you are uploading the image to a US server and it conforms to US law. If you don't like it, it wont be changing anytime soon, so the best option is to not upload anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You should know that i have uploaded my images under this assumption. But if someone wants to create derivative versions he has to stick to the license, which means that he has not the right to override/hide/destroy the original. --Niabot 19:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"that he has not the right to override/hide/destroy the original" Nope. You do not have the right to keep your image from being deleted. You have the right to have derivatives attribute you as the originating author, but not for the image or the actual work to be displayed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean deletion with destroy or hide. --Niabot 12:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you lack all rights except to be credited if there is the image there or if there is a derivative. You do not have the right to stop any and all altering, which includes complete removal. This is the same with text, hence why vandalism is removed at will. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple versions

"Wikisource deals partially with texts that have been entered into the public domain because of age, and many works that may contain objectionable content would also have versions that do not."

Can someone at wikisource verify that this is true? I've never heard of it myself!

--Kim Bruning 02:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many "censored" versions of famous works in which they were edited. Thomas Hardy's publications all had major alterations by editors before they were published. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikisource allows multiple editions if they are different. Sometimes they are different because one version was bowdlerised ;-) John Vandenberg 05:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

IP Removals

POV removals is a little inappropriate. No? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima is banned on my home wiki. --Kim Bruning 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is pertinent to the discussion... how? Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

He is a known troll, I will not be engaging in discussion with him. If he makes trouble here, I'll report him immediately. --Kim Bruning 02:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To call everything that he does "trolling" is inflammatory and counterproductive, as well as just plain wrong. If Ottava starts trolling I'm sure that he'll be blocked, but until then, I'd ask that you refrain from assuming bad faith. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My fellow editors and I have previously assumed good faith with Ottava Rima for very long periods of time indeed in other forums, especially en.wikipedia. He has been banned by the english arbitration committee. This is public history, and anyone can look it up . In the mean time, I do not intend to waste time on him here. Whatever happens here will be of his own doing. --Kim Bruning 03:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That same link shows that I was a great content editor and banned only for a year by only 6 to 2. I have 12 FAs, over 40 GAs, and over 200 DYK. Odd for a "troll". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And there we go, Ottava has been straight reverting. I'll just leave it at 1RR and wait for others to step in now. --Kim Bruning 03:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Step in? You were removing things without discussion in an area that you clearly disagreed with. It was for arguments that people have put forward on that view point. You cannot just remove them because you disagree with them. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

ALA, Claims about Librarians, etc

The ALA does not represent all librarians nor a majority. They are a political organization like the ACLU and similar institutions. Also, "librarians" do categorize material - librarians in schools do not contain pornographic content or other age inappropriate material. Furthermore, libraries in the Middle East, China, India, etc., all remove content deemed inappropriate. A generic claim about librarians lacks evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Librarians do an awful lot of classification work. They maintain some of the oldest classification systems that are still in use. Thanks for coming. I think you need to go back to school, because my school library (at a conservative independent "Christian" school, no less) contained books with images of naked people, dead people, spiders, and Muhammad. John Vandenberg 05:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "naked people" and pornography, and merely having the works does not mean that those under 18 have access to them, that they are on display, etc. People would have go to and find the work and search for the naked pictures directly. There is very little surprise. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please stop with your blatant lies and bending of facts? Is that possible for you? --Niabot 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wikisource is a free digital library, and librarians do not label or censor the content in their libraries."

I disagree with the above point. If an eight year old child were to walk into a library, would the librarian direct him to the porn DVDs or to the children's books? Same principle applies here, especially since the filter affects only the one using it, and not the overall content. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Under US law, parents who have provided their children pornography have gone to jail. All librarians know that they will be potentially prosecuted if they provide direct access to the material to children and even check IDs to verify someone is 18 or older to surf the internet unprotected. If a librarian is prosecuted, there is a high chance they will be labeled a sex offender for the conviction and be unable to work in a library again. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Everywhere where I've ever been to the library (.nz, .au, .nl) , I was allowed to take home books from the adult section if I wanted to. I wasn't exactly interested in pr0n at that age, but there are definitely a lot of works fiction that do contain sex and violence. --Kim Bruning 03:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I assume that you also had the option of avoiding the obviously marked books which contained adult content? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ajraddatz, more important: He would not have been able to do that in the US, the Middle East, China, etc. All places with librarians. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Libraries do not themselves mark books in that manner. --Kim Bruning 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Where do you live? Any library organizes it's books into sections, and each book is labeled with what category it is in. Adult books are clearly visible by the "adult" label on the side, and the section that the book is in. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource uses Library of Congress Classification on its portals which serve as virtual locations for our books. e.g. s:Portal:Sexuality is H & Q. John Vandenberg 05:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Yes as a visitor of a library you have the choice to avoid such books. First you can read the title. If it is clear by the title that the content might offend you, you don't have to pick it up. If you can't judge the content by the title you can open it, take a quick look inside and decide if you want to continue or put it back. If you start reading it and it gets more offensive over time, you can stop reading it and put it back. Or you could decide to read it even if it is offensive to you. Thats all your choice.

At Wikipedia you will first see the name of the article. If you know what you have to expect, you won't need to open it. If you decide to open it, then you can take a quick look and decide to read further or to close the page. It's absolutely comparable to the library example. Open your mind and try to understand the message behind the words of Philip Pullman: Short video

A library does not label it's content as R-18 and so on. It labels it by categories to support the reader to find information. If he is interested in history, he will go to the history section where he will most likely find books about history. But there is no such thing as an indication that some historical books might contain violent depictions, nudity, sexual activity, religious critic beliefs or generally provocative. Please have a look at this article to understand the difference between "viewpoint-neutral directional aids" and "prejudicial labels". --Niabot 07:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"label it's content as R-18 and so on" Not true. 1. Very few libraries carry pornographic content. 2. Libraries that carry movies mark which movies are for what age, especially what information is for children. 3. All libraries I've been to, if they were public, specifically mark which areas are for children and require proof of being over 18 if you are using the internet to go to restricted content. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You and me do not visit the same libraries! :) -- Lavallen 14:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You've never been to a library with a children's section? That is odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I was in many libraries with a "children book" section, but none of them had a barrier to deny children the access to other sections and no book or other resource (e.g. Computer) had an age restriction or visible label that it might not appropriate for minors. Thats the way it is and should be. --Niabot 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And the pornography you find in the library is far more accurate than that you may get on the internet or in the seven-eleven. I would recomend my children (if I had any) to search in the library instead of asking their friends. -- Lavallen 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say pornography of any kind is "accurate". Or why you would give children pornography when it is against the law to do that in just about every nation including Germany. Most libraries would not even carry pornography as they don't see it as important to their mission or educational. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of "pornography". If you want to know how naked bodies looks like and how intercourse is performed, that is not illegal to tell children. Films that has been made for educational purpose in Sweden has been used as pornography in the US. -- Lavallen 16:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"That depends on the definition of "pornography"." No, it doesn't. When people discuss pornography, we should assume the most graphic and cultural taboo form. Why? Because if you want to argue that -nothing- can be banned, then we have to discuss the most objectionable thing. And Germany, along with most countries, bans minors from having access to hard core pornography. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if its not inside educational context. You should remember that it is only seen as "pornography" if it does not serve the educational/cultural/artistic context. Otherwise it does not even fall under pornography. --Niabot 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

German schools don't show hard core pornography to their young children. No matter how you try to redefine the word, it has a very clear meaning and it has nothing to do with education. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that they would. I also didn't redefine the word. Depictions of sexuality (intercourse, bondage, etc.) in educational/artistic/cultural context is simply no pornography. That is the definition, it is not my definition, it is the definition by German law. --Niabot 09:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"in educational/artistic/cultural context" Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. People have claimed all sorts of things are educational or art without it being so and the law not recognizing it as so. It could be "educational" for two teachers to have sex infront of young students but they would still be arrested in Germany. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In your extreme example it should be clear that it isn't seen as "in educational context". But to come back on earth you should ask yourself the questions: How many pictures/videos with two teachers having sex infront of young students do we have? How many school books depict the sexual act, but not two teachers having sex infront of young students? --Niabot 16:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arbitrarily declaring things uneducational without any clue, further undermining your claim that there is such a thing as that justification. Commons has hundreds of pictures of hard core pornography that are hard core pornography and banned to be given in a classroom regardless of the claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The image filter is a violation of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Letting some users to block Wikipedia content is NOT a good way to "disseminate it effectively and globally". Allowing this type of self censorship is imposing a point of view. It's a waste of time and resources to support the POV that certain content should be censored. --Fajro 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

By not giving a filter, many people will be unable to see the images because of cultural/country bans or things like school bans. We will be giving far more people the ability to see the images and only those who opt in will not see the image unless they click. There is no proof that we will be giving less people information. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fajro: There's still enough time to edit the page. I tried fixing earlier, but got reverted by Ottava. --Kim Bruning 03:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't "fix" things by censoring view points you disagree with. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: I think that a filter that is "off by default" would have literately no effect on this topic. Filtering by third parties is done to deny access on some kind of material. A filter that has to be enabled by the user (not the provider of access) doesn't fulfill this initial wish and will most likely not lead to the result you expect. Given that the filter categories are freely available we came to six possible reactions by possible "censors":

1. A country or ISP that currently does not censor access to Wikipedia switches to access without the categorised images, removing choice from users (net loss for free access to information; this might extend even to basic anatomical images of vulvas, penises etc.).
2. A country or ISP does not unblock Wikipedia because he doesn't think that it's a usable alternative for a full block, even if he could filter the images based on the filter. (It already works, why step down...)
3. A country or ISP that only hides certain topics/articles could decide to also hide images marked by the filter.
4. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to Wikipedia completely makes Wikipedia available again, but without access to the images covered by the personal image filter categories (net gain for free access to information).
5. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to all Wikimedia images restores access to all images outside the personal image filter categories (net gain for free access to information, but it would be useful to have confirmation as to how many ISPs currently block all Wikimedia images -- at the moment we only have an unsourced statement in [1] claiming that some Chinese ISPs do this).
6. A country or ISP that currently blocks access to Wikipedia completely, or currently blocks access to Wikimedia images globally, restores access, using the personal image filter as designed, i.e. leaving it at the user's discretion.

This are six options and #6 is very unlikely to happen as Andreas Kolbe pointed out at the mailing list: [2] --Niabot 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You say unlikely up above but also claimed before that with the filter 3rd party groups could use it to filter all of the content. If the 3rd party groups do that (say, the Chinese government) then that would mean they would then allow their people to have access to the text. Thus, either way, more people are getting it without any loss of people. You verified the win win of this filter in addition to giving people a choice. Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but i have to ignore you. What you write is just crazy and bears any real perspective. Shame on your comments. --Niabot 14:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which project is this RfC about?

Which project is this all about? Please, be more specific in the title of this page! Last time I counted, there were 61 Wikisource-projects. -- Lavallen 06:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All Wikisource projects. See the Proposal section which says "Personal image filter .. should not be implemented on any content page of any Wikisource project". --John Vandenberg 06:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then my Q is why we on svws have to search on RC on meta to be informed that this RfC has been set? Are the other subdomains informed? -- Lavallen 06:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I sent an email to mail:wikisource-l, and Kim has emailed mail:foundation-l. This page is still under construction. All wikisource projects will be notified before the RFC is opened for comment/vote. (I havent notified English Wikisource yet). John Vandenberg 06:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Will there be a possibility to opt out from this opt out? Each subdomain maybe have an opinion of its own? -- Lavallen 07:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC) (Hmm, I think I lost contact with wikisource-l, when I changed ISP.)

This RFC will look for global opinion on whether Image filter is appropriate on Wikisource projects, so Board and WMF can know if there are other projects like German Wikipedia which dont want this feature. I hope that the image filter will be an extension which each project can install or uninstall by local consensus and bugzilla request. John Vandenberg 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to know if it is even technical possible to use the filter in the Page:-namespace. -- Lavallen 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That could be a big problem. If the djvu/pdf/tiff contains a page with bad content, how would we say only one page is bad content. The "File:" page would be categorised, and all pages would need to be filtered. If wikisource software finds a way around this filtering, are we breaking WMF resolution? John Vandenberg 07:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It would also violate the Wikisource-definition of NPOV to remove parts of a book. Then the whole document has to be removed. But that is maybe a completly different subject... -- Lavallen 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned the NPOV aspect in the arguments. John Vandenberg 07:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"NPOV to remove parts of a book" I would say the opposite - it would remove Neutral Point of View by putting forth a cultural view that is biased. If there was a book that depicted Mohamed in Germany, do you honestly think a publisher of the book making it for Iran in Iran would contain the depiction? Publishers respect cultural differences because publishers wish to have an audience that is as large as possible. Wikisource is a publisher. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously... can it get any more stupid?! Wikisource is a library and no publisher. It does not write it's own books. --Niabot 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Libraries do not allow their books to be edited. Libraries also do not have authors. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Our Wikisource has authors. -- Lavallen 14:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Different use of "author". Every time you edit a page like this, you are authoring text. The point is that Wikisource is not a library. It has a different function. There are translation projects there, afterall. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. You have authors for translations, but not to write new/own books. Do you change essential content (the meaning of the words) while translating sources? --Niabot 15:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Translations are new entities and are published as derivative works that are original creations here. 2. Libraries do not translate books. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Is the goal of a translation to introduce new facts or different meaning to content? If a translation would be an original creation why it is forbidden by copyright to create translations of original works without permission by the original author? No translation is an original work.

2. Some do provide partial translations if needed. But it's not there main duty like it is not the main duty of Wikisource to create translations. --Niabot 15:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not introduce "new facts or different meaning" but it is a new and unique source. Thus, putting forth a standard like the above in regards to Wikisource has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Derivative does not mean the same. If it was a copy of something else, then it would be a copyvio. We create new material, and translations are new material. Libraries do not create any material. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you compare Wikisource to a Library? A library for me is a place where I can order copys of articles or search in databases. And when I am on travel, I can use it as an internet café. I have never done that in Wikisource.

On Wikisouce, I am proofreading, I never do that in a library. -- Lavallen 15:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Lavallen. :) I'm not the one trying to say Wikisource is a library so we are in agreement. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

@Ottava: Sorry but i will have to stop at this point. You just started to bend facts and words again. We are talking about translations and not new articles that gather sources. EOD - because it is useless to have words with a POV warrior. --Niabot 15:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First, frame the discussion your way

This page appears to have serious problems with prematurely hitting Meta mainspace. Hence the edit-warring over arguments and where to place them. So it turns into a political dispute, where the way to win is to frame the questions your way. This is bad for convincing people who don't already agree with you.

I suggest whether arguments are "for" or "against" be worked out on this talk page first. This should hopefully alleviate the framing and at least get the frame into a state people can agree is fair - David Gerard 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The For and the Against should represent the arguments that have been put forward. There shouldn't be any edit warring over "politics" or anything like that because we should be honest and put forth what was already said regardless if we believe it is true or not. If you noticed, no one has been removing John Vandenberg's original points in the For. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely - everyone is sincere. I'm talking about human cognitive biases and how to alleviate them. I wrote the above after looking at the history. As someone who has a strong interest in and opinions on the question, I really really want a survey or poll or RFC or whatever that would actually convince people on the other side of whichever way it came out - David Gerard 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Premature? It is worse than premature, it is an imposition of a point of view that has not even been put to the Wikisource community, nor a wish that I have seen expressed by the community. The bulk of this discussion here is by activists, and mostly those active outside of the community.

The proposal is wrong primarily due to the fact that the use of image filter is a personal choice matter, not something imposed or not imposed by the community. Giving someone the right to make their choice is exactly that, to exclude the community members from that choice is an imposition. Giving people that choice is not censorship, allowing someone to make that choice is not censorship. Allowing people to make their choices is the purpose of the filter, and that individual choice should be allowed to stand, and there is ZERO need for the community to take a collective position. billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how many active editors the wikisource-community has got. Of 327 active users for the en.version, how many are involved in community activities? Maybe 100? Since the most oppressive version of the proposed imagefilter - for 282 local wikipedia projects - will not work without a previous labeling of files on commons and source, this decision cannot be left in the hands to those two, rather small, communities alone. Alexpl 09:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how possibly Wikisource could come into this; Wikisource has local files, but so does many Wikipedias and other projects, and Wikisource doesn't host files for other projects. If all the work is to be done on Commons, I don't see why any other project is concerned; as billinghurst says, this is a tool for users to control their experience on Wikimedia projects, and for users alone to decide.--Prosfilaes 14:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on wikisource. But to allow readers to block all images which contain "violence" would mean to allow OTHERS to define in advance what images are labeled or categorized as "violent". The problem with that is obvious - we would allow very few people to force their personal views on others. Giving readers the option to view no images at all, seems to be the only way to prevent us from providing a fruitful platform for all sorts of extremists and their restrictions.

In this very moment, a hand full of active editors on commons is enough to enforce almost every category they want on an image - so if a commons-based-filtersystem is activated, it wont be long until that system is dominated by small, but highly motivated groups. And any wikipedia reader, scared of violence or nakedness, will have to trust in the judgement of those few people. Thats scary. Alexpl 23:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In this very moment, a handful of active editors is enough to enforce adding almost any picture to any article. Any one editor can add an image to any article. Any Wikipedia reader scared of violence or nakedness will have to avoid Wikipedia right now. Every Wikipedia reader trusts in the judgement of a very few people to pick which images appear on a page and which don't and which subjects are covered on a page and which aren't. If we can't generally trust the editors, Wikipedia wouldn't work at all.--Prosfilaes 07:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But a category or label for an image on commons, placed by one editor, works for 282 wikipedias. A decision for a specific image in an article works for only one of them. Alexpl 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The works that Wikisource loads are parts of the work so it becomes obvious what they are and if they are missing. Presumably that an image is block by a filter is clearly demonstrated and the page formatting works around the image size. This presented argument is becoming tenuous. billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomies and more

A few observations:

First, re Billinghurst's point that the WSs haven't even said they want this and it's imposing it on us. It's presented by a very active Wikisourcer and the question is philosophically common to all Wikisources even if they won't necessarily all agree. Unfortunately, there is no meaningful all Wikisource forum. Where would you prefer the question be raised?

Second, setting this up on the basis of pro and con arguments prior to voting seems highly problematic. Users are bound to come by with new arguments after voting starts. Why don't we just put the proposal out there and state our positions as part of the vote? Are we really trying to come to consensus on what the pro and con should be? If so, we got what we deserved.

Third, Library vs. Publisher is a false dichotomy. We are both and we are neither. We are very much publishing works in a wholly new medium and we are typesetting them, laying them out, and we occasionally have to decide is this layout or that character necessary and meaningful (e.g. images won't always easily place where the original had them, long-s is problematic and of arguable importance, r-rotund doesn't exist in unicode (nor v-umlaut, which exists in many older German works), ligatures are generally removed or at least not displayed to satisfy search engines and few would complain if you modernize v and u - though not everyone would do it). Furthermore, not all Wikisources are as strict as others about sticking to the scans. fr.ws adds missing diacritics - especially on capitals - on the theory that they were left out due to printing limitations, de.ws adds line numbers to poems, and most of us make the corrections that are in the errata rather than displaying the errors. There aren't enough editors to argue about it but on la.ws some write ae and some write æ, some write ū and some write um, some write q; and some write que (I've recently created a qz template to address this as there is no qz ligature in unicode). No traditional librarian ever argued with his or her colleagues over whether to display long-s. At the same time, we catalog thousands of works for free distribution to the entire world and generally we try to keep as close to the originals as is practicable. We think of the projects as virtual libraries and think of ourselves as back office librarians, curators preserving ancient (or not so ancient) works and making them available. And unlike Wikipedia and some of the other projects, our "editors" have very little editorial discretion regarding content - we even try very hard to show images of the original to prove that our works are authentic and unabridged. Unlike either, our content is neither limited by any particular philosophy or profit motive nor is limited by shelf space or budget. Likewise, we are affected by copyright in a wholly different way from traditional libraries, which buy the contents of their stacks, as well as from publishers which normally purchase the rights - though they may occasionally publish older works in folio (basically what IA and Commons are doing) or use in house personnel to edit them to modern publishing standards. We are subject only to U.S. copyright law and the arbitrary copyright policy of the WMF. Arguing about this is a red herring.

Fourth, Ottava Rima is a red herring. This is a discussion about a proposal, not about an editor.

Fifth, libraries do organize their works and put the adult works in different section from the children's books and even in "the Western World" the reference-desk librarians try to guide youth towards age appropriate content. We have no reference-desk folks really, just card catalogs of a sort, our search engine, and referrals from Google, et al. Applying the category erotica to Fanny Hill is perfectly appropriate and plenty of warning what you'll get. The same applies to more modern and more image oriented works.

Sixth, which brings us to the fact that images are secondary to us. Additionally, our content is not NPOV, it's the POV of authors who's works have fallen in the Public Domain (and, on en.ws, often the POV of the US Gov't - since its works are all PD). Thus frequently our text may be as offensive or more so than our images (consider An Alle, Alle!)

Seventh, When I create or edit and article on Wikipedia, I, together with whomever else from the community who cares, decide what images to use and we might not have the same taste or opinions as another person who doesn't edit Wikipedia and, say, is looking up a topic about anatomy or the Holocaust with their 10 year old for a fifth grade research paper. Wikisource, contains books. Books may have deceiving titles but books have the content that someone else chose for them - generally a fair number of years ago. Moreover, books normally contain text and images that go together. If you open the works in which the pictures John Vandenberg mentions Jimbo deleting originate, you are already reading text that is, uh, racy ;-) if you don't see the accompanying images, that's when you should be offended!

I don't think this filter is going to stop people from accessing our 18th and 19th C. porn. However, the real issue here I believe - which is mentioned a few times above but overshadowed by red herring arguments over our purpose or whether OR is a troll - is whether this is potentially going to change the content of an individual book. Users who want an abridged version of a book are free to download or import the content to another site and edit it themselves. Users who think others would want to read such works are free to set up the Readers Digest version of Wikisource on their own private wiki and cut out all the images of violence and sexuality and most of the text about such things too and publish it themselves - that's the point of our projects being CC-BY-SA and for more than 99% of the works on Wikisource they are better than CC, they're PD, so people can do whatever they want to them and even leave out the authors name - somewhere else. If the filters would actually prevent the display of images in the middle of works then the filters are acting as content editors for works that have been faithfully set up to precisely reproduce the intent of the author (and maybe the intent of a previous editor/publisher) and backed up with scans. This is very bad - not because it's censorship but because it's altering the original work. Do this elsewhere. If the filters would potentially block the scans, including multipage scans, that are used to show the accuracy of the work, this is not really in itself important because it would be blatantly obvious - however, if it does so presumably there is a blocked image somewhere in the content which leads us back to the previous point. If the filters would require us to add categories that we don't think are library-like, well it would be useful to know what those were and how we would be forced to add them or whether they would auto add to our works - otherwise we are talking about not liking a concept whereas, the devil is always in the details.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If users want an abridged version of a book and we can easily provide it to them, I don't see why not. I think we should happily host any abridged versions that fit our scope (i.e. old or notable) and if there were a way to automatically create useful abridged versions that could be freely hosted on Wikisource, I'd happily install it. If a user would read a book about Mohammed, but is afraid to run into pictures of Mohammed, I believe we have fulfilled our educational mission if we've enabled them to read the book by hiding any images of Mohammed. Power to the people, man.--Prosfilaes 23:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but that is contrary to the common view on wikisources that we are only to report the sources, not modify the content. A redacted version may be a new work (removal of selected content can be creative, even if it's automated). Traditionally, wikisource has made the exception for translations but drawn the line there, anything else beyond annotating "(sic)" or linking to other sources has been considered out of scope and belonging to wikibooks possibly but not source (I know there are other cases, but the most glaring exceptions are annotated translations, which may just be a special case of the general situation with translations). I know you know that, and as I said I'm not certain I disagree with you, but non-sourcerers here might not know this.

I see your point that a Muslim user might want to block all images of Mohammed (and Jesus, Mary, etc), and that this would be good, especially if the page displayed something to indicate the missing image; I guess I don't really understand how the proposed filters might work.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not modifying its content, all the content is there, it just has the ability to be filtered by the user by their adoption of a setting for them, hence the filter is simply offering an alternative view. How is this different from having a different alternative in the mobile view where no images are wanted? None. Give the power to the readers, and not force our views of whether we should offer them a filter or not. Keep the argument simple and to topic, anything else blurs the discussion and becomes its own red/purple/orange/striped/dotted/poached herring. billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We are modifying the content because we (or at least the WMF developers) are both setting up the tool and we are establishing and applying the categories using our judgement.

Can the user filter any category they like? Can a user for example, say "I am disgusted by pictures of dead people/Chinese people/lions/landscapes of middle America/etc? Or are only certain categories eligible for filtering and who decides? Do we have to apply the categories locally or does the filter read the commons cats so that whatever categories are applied there are filterable? I presume it's the latter because smaller wikisources wouldn't have the resources to apply the tags, though I suppose they could be botted in from commons.

It is as if you went to the library and said to the librarian, "I am interested in this book but I'm afraid to look in it for fear there may be pictures of things I don't like in it; would you go through it and remove all the pictures of male homosexual acts or men touching and also all the pictures that have a frog in them, but not toads, I like toads"; and the librarian says sure and does so (and maybe misses some and gets a few that are not that by accident.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment still not requested?

This page has been marked "under construction" for six months, and has not been edited since October 2011. If those undertaking to request comment are still unready to frame the question and submit it for comments, then it may be appropriate to delist it at Requests for comment until such time as comment is actually requested. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)