Talk:Personal image filter

About this board

Archives 

Archive until August 2011


Krinkle (talkcontribs)
Moved here from m:File_talk:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromImage-Step2.png
PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromImage-Step2


The screen shot is supposed to show the appearance of the filter settings dialog when it is invoked. The content of the window shows:

  • that the image in question depicts Gladiator Combat,
  • that Gladiator Combat is denied by default, (?)
  • that the image is displayed in spite of being denied. (??)

--Yecril71pl 07:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Yecril71pl.

Reply to "The display is inconsistent (RE: File:PIF-Proposal-Workflow-Anon-FromImage-Step2.png)"
Krinkle (talkcontribs)

Please use the existing category system. Any categories which are not already needed to describe [images, articles] do not belong on the projects. Filter by category, not by image. Thank you.

For instance: when loading an image for the first time, get both the image and its list of categories, run a string match in the client against the list of reader's 'disliked categories', and decide whether or not to show. the wikimedia cache system could start caching all category data along with image/thumbnail data. Why would that be hard? Notsuohs 20:02, 30 June 2011

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Notsuohs.

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

I think the filtering categories must be a separate category tree, otherwise we end up with the requirements of filtering dictating the category system on Commons, which is a large imposition. Having a few super-categories that can be protected from editing (ie vandalism) that images are individually assigned to (rather than cross linking into the existing category tree), is the most workable idea, and won't add endless reversion wars to the current category system. --Tony Wills 10:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Tony Wills.

ASCIIn2Bme (talkcontribs)

That doesn't work. Categories cannot be protected as far as I know. What you are describing is a list, not a category in Mediawiki parlance.

Reply to "New category system fail"
Krinkle (talkcontribs)

As the technical side seems to have been carefully considered, a few UI comments only:

  1. As "allowed" is green, so make "denied" a light red. More visually intuitive.
  2. The message "changed" could be ambiguous. It might be better to explicitly state "(was allowed | was denied)"
  3. (also ) "Hide content" would be better as "Content options". The term "Hide content" may convey an expectation or impression that more hiding options exist than is the case (text? specific images?) or that censorship is now endorsed, and comes across a bit badly too. Retitling as "Content options" does not suggest censorship nor does it imply a wider level of control that we really offer. "Options" is a very widely understood term.
  4. (also ) Not very useful. The initial text one hovers over says that this image can be hidden (or content options exist). It doesn't help to list the categories this image is in, as a hover item. If they proceed it will be displayed anyway. A better use for hover would be a short explanation - "Click here to show or hide this image and others like it."
  5. (also ) This style is very unnecessarily confusing. The real issue is that some filters are listed separately, as "additional filters" (additional? User confusion!). It needs to be simple to the point of cluelessness as its target is people who may have no computer knowledge at all. In all other screens, the list of categories is not broken up. It would be better if not broken up here, either. A better layout would be a list of categories (as before) plus a textual note "This image can be blocked by denying any of these categories: <list>"

Last, one aspect not considered. Images that are not in a content filter category, but should be. Perhaps all images should have a small icon in the form of a hanging or side tab that, when hovered, states something like this:

"Content filter / WIKI_NAME can be set to hide certain kinds of content. To view applicable categories and report that this image belongs in one of them or is wrongly categorized, click here [Dialog appears where user can enter a reason and click 'report' or 'cancel']. To set your content filter options click here."

Also the popups for content that is already filtered should make it easy for a user to report mis-categorization. FT2 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as FT2.

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

If there is a message string like that in the system, it has failed imo. It should say things like "WIKI_NAME can hide categories of images you do not wish to see. To hide this image and others like it, click here". And on clicking, you would have the option to add categories to the image as well if it hasn't been categorized yet.

I see no compelling technical reason to do this with a limited artificial category-set; this should be addressed. Notsuohs 03:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Notsuohs.

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

Regarding colours green/red in (1) above, it strikes me that this is a cultural choice rather than an "intuitive" one.

Tony Wills 10:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Tony Wills.

178.215.111.14 (talkcontribs)

Also, user must have the possibility to turn off the filtering UI elements shown with images. Consider that user doesn't want to hide any image; then the elements pairing any images are excessive and possibly irritating. So there should be an option in "Display Settings" etc, like "Turn Off Filtering UI with Individual Images".

Reply to "Interface comments"
Krinkle (talkcontribs)
Example of a dialog

Just looked at the designs, and have a few suggestions. Perhaps to be considered as alternatives in A/B testing. In no particular order.

  • Right now it doesn't specify what "This image" is. There can be multiple on the page and in the background. Showing it as a thumbnail inside the dialog would be helpful (I wouldn't suggest using the MediaWiki-Filename though)
  • All dialogs have a blue title in the topbar. Is this a link ? Otherwise making it black would make more sense (like the rest of the Vector skin)
  • The logged-out warning looks like an error. Not sure if that is a good thing. The only other place where anonymous users are addresses specifically is on the edit page where there is a sudle notice regarding the IP-address being saved (on most wikis the text for this notice is in a small box containing the text in a small non-bold font. With a blue "I"-information icon or a lightbulb next to it). But the error-style seems disturbing for that message.
  • I like the layout for the main "Filter settings'-dialog, but the layout of the "This image"-dialog is a bit confusing to me. It's triggered through the image link, but the title of the dialog is the same as the dialog for the main "Filter settings". I'd like to try making the two different dialogs more distinguishable. For example: Move the title "This image matches the following filters" up to where it says "Content Filter Settings", and hiding the "Additional Content Filters"-section. Perhaps include a link back to the overall display settings to make up for the absence of that section, although I think it's absence is fine.
Reply to "Design suggestions"

de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter

1
Rosenkohl (talkcontribs)

Hello, the opinion poll de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter was held in the German Wikipedia from 25 August 2011 to 15 Septemeber 2011 about the proposal:

>>Personal image filter (filter which hide illustrative files on the basis of categories of Wikipedia and can be switched on and off by the reader, see the preliminary Design of the Wikimedia Foundation) despite the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation should not be implemented in the German Wikipedia, and nor should filter categories for files stored locally on this Wikipedia be set up.>>>>Persönliche Bildfilter (Filter, die illustrierende Dateien anhand von Kategorien der Wikipedia verbergen und vom Leser an- und abgeschaltet werden können, vgl. den vorläufigen Entwurf der Wikimedia Foundation) sollen entgegen dem Beschluss des Kuratoriums der Wikimedia Foundation in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia nicht eingeführt werden und es sollen auch keine Filterkategorien für auf dieser Wikipedia lokal gespeicherte Dateien angelegt werden.<<
  • 260 of 306 users (84.97 percent) accepted the poll as to be formally valid.
  • 357 of 414 users (86.23 percent) did not agree to the introduction of a personal image filter and categories for filtering in the German Wikipedia.

The Mediawiki-software should comply to, or try to comply as much as possible to any valid opinion poll by the single projects of Wikimedia, as far as I know.

For the Mediawiki-software, this opinion poll means in the case that any personal image filter feature is implemented into the Mediawiki-software, that at the same time there should also be implemented an option for each single wiki to not activate this personal image filter feature if they don't want to. Further, any implementation of a personal filter feature in the Mediawiki-software should take into account that not every single Wikimedia project will host filter categories, and that there are projects which don't want to host such filter categories.

Greetings,

Reply to "de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter"
Tony Wills (talkcontribs)

If a wiki project wishes to add a filter category that doesn't exist on Commons, they have to host the images locally, then add them to their project's filter category. So the implication of this is that a project must host copies of images that it wishes to hide !!? Eg, if Commons did not have a filter category for images of Prophet Mohamed then a project that wants to hide them would have to host all such images so that it could then hide them. ... I can see this could be a real problem! Equally projects that don't allow local uploads would have a problem.

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

I think you're overdoing it a little bit here.

Back to the beginning of your post:

"If a project wishes to filter a category that doesn't exist on Commons".

If the category does not exist, you can not filter it with a category. That's obvious.

The rest after that sentence doesn't make any sense. Commons is freely editable, if a category doesn't exist, you can create it. Re-uploading locally makes no sense, you're right, so let's not do that :-)

Damian Yerrick (talkcontribs)
Tony Wills (talkcontribs)

I am not sure whether you are just complaining about my wording, or do not understand the point. I will rephrase: The proposal is to filter based on both special filter-categories on Commons and on local wikis (because not all images are on Commons). If a local wiki wishes to exclude images based on some criteria (ie a whole class or category of images based on some local criteria not included in the Commons filter-categories, eg images of the Prophet), they will have to make local copies of those images so they can add them to their own exclusion category. Does that make sense now? --Tony Wills 23:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Krinkle (talkcontribs)

I'm sorry, but I think we are both not understanding each other's point.

My point was that if a user of a wiki wishes to filter on a category that doesn't exist on Commons, you can create one. To repeat your example, if there is no category on Commons like "Images of X", you can create such a category – on Commons.

NVO (talkcontribs)
Damian Yerrick (talkcontribs)

No, one can't necessarily create a category on Commons for filtering if the subject matter of the category is things that are specifically disallowed on Commons. --Damian Yerrick 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "Perverse"
Zaphraud (talkcontribs)

I tried to add a new section and when I hit preview, everything was gone.

Sign of the times, or just bad page layout?

Reply to "WTF"
Yair rand (talkcontribs)

I'm fairly certain that it would be utterly impossible to maintain NPOV with this. Short of having commons:Category:Topics as the start point for settings, any system will skew the censoring options towards the needs some particular culture(s), putting lower priority on others.

Notsuohs (talkcontribs)

Yes! To say positively: Make commons:Category:Topics the starting point for these settings and more explicitly do not create a new category system (or the ugly terminology that must be associated with any not-just-descriptive second-category system). Any lesser solution would only feed controversy. Thank you!

Tony Wills (talkcontribs)

Tacking the filtering system onto existing categories would make the Commons category system the target for endless reversion wars. A separate category tree can be protected against vandalism, wars are then carried out over individual images, but that would not affect the Commons project (an image can be added/removed ad-infinitum to the new category tree without affecting anything else) - as opposed to the extensive and rapid mayhem that could be wrought by fiddling with the Commons category structure to alter what was filtered.

Reply to "Neutrality"
There are no older topics
Return to "Personal image filter" page.