 Archives |
The screen shot is supposed to show the appearance of the filter settings dialog when it is invoked. The content of the window shows:
--Yecril71pl 07:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This post was posted by Krinkle, but signed as Yecril71pl.
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.
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.
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.
As the technical side seems to have been carefully considered, a few UI comments only:
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:
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)
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)
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.
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".
Just looked at the designs, and have a few suggestions. Perhaps to be considered as alternatives in A/B testing. In no particular order.
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:
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,
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.
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 :-)
Not if there's a standing policy against the existence of a specific category. For example, there are some people who consider non-free media used under an EDP to be offensive. See, for example, w:WP:Veganism parable and Kusma's comment in meta:Talk:Image_filter_referendum/en#Hiding the Pokemon Logo as Inappropriate Content... Really?. But there is obviously no category for non-free media in Commons because Commons doesn't allow non-free media.
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)
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.
Krinkle: An editor from a wikipedia can create a category on commons, sure. But Commons has its own "consensus" and it may be against having this category. That's the problem: local wikipedias going against "consensus" on commons, local wikipedias in war with other wikpedias etc... How about Category:Armenian POV stuff banned from Azeri wikipedia and Category:Azeri POV stuff banned from Armenian wikipedia ? Do the have any chances of staying on commons? NVO 05:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
I tried to add a new section and when I hit preview, everything was gone.
Sign of the times, or just bad page layout?
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.
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!
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.
