User:Rich Farmbrough/blog/Archive/2011

17 August
{{1x|justification=left|1=

Image filters - a good idea, but no thank you

 * 1) Initially this seemed like a great idea - there are a number of images I would like to "un-see" and I have no objection to people "not wanting to look" at certain things. However there are issues, and the more closely you look the more you can see.  I have written a short paragraph on liability at meta:Talk:Image filter referendum/en and on the same page drawn attention to the fact that filters would probably (even should) include a filter for the human form "it is feared by many Muslims that the depiction of the human form is idolatry", all human and animal forms - certain hadiths ban all pictures of people or animals - and for all representations of real things "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"
 * 2) Here is my statement form my vote:- 'The proposal as stated is fundamentally flawed. A global and culturally neutral set of filters will be extensive and unmaintainable. For comparison see some of the existing filtering software - which have dozens of categories, from the single cultural viewpoint of a Western parent. Our solution must perforce have scores or hundreds of filtering categories, so becoming very user-unfriendly.The legal dilemma for US libraries, which may feel constrained to apply the filter due to the CIPA act, yet forbidden from doing so due to precedent showing they would be violating First Amendment rights, might cause them to block Wikipedia altogether.  There are doubtless many analogous situations across the world.The PR situation is also fraught, "Wikipedia has porn, and even has a category for it!"  "Wikipedia offers filter to block images of the Dali Lama and the Tibetan flag" "Wikipedia blocks images of women." are headlines we would not wish to see - but which would be reasonably accurate.Moreover the "work-safe" nature of Wikipedia is threatened, an image on a page now would be excused as "it's an encyclopaedia, it needs to be illustrated accurately", with the filters, the onus would be on the reader "Why didn't you have the big-endian filter  on, you know we are a small-endian company" - thus local censors would be empowered, as well as any technical fixes by commercial, religious, institutional or sovereign regimes to enforce filtering.'
 * 3) The talk page at meta already includes an apparently non-satirical suggestion that filters should be on by default. And I am sure that schools, libraries, ISPs, politicians of all shades would soon join this - lets face it, apparently totally reasonable - bandwagon.  For who would willingly subject anyone to an offensive image? Nonetheless this is inimical to the aims of the movement, for it is a chilling effect - implying that readers have sought out images of whichever particular type is under discussion - indeed in more repressive regimes disabling a given filter might constitute a criminal or even treasonable act.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

}}

14 October
{{1x|1=

R.I.P. bahamut0013

 * 1) Just found out that we lost bahamut0013, some three weeks ago, to suicide. A loss we can ill afford.  His on-wiki legacy  will be with us for many years, but that thought does not dull the sadness. Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

}}