Hi everyone,

I'm an Outreachy intern and looking forward to contributing to this project. Just to clarify, in order to complete the micro tasks, I would need to compare all existing NSFW classifiers/datasets for Wikimedia Commons in the form of a report @Chtnnh @Abbasidaniyal ?

Many thanks

Angela

In T264045#6528414, @Angybrim wrote:

Hi everyone,

I'm an Outreachy intern and looking forward to contributing to this project. Just to clarify, in order to complete the micro tasks, I would need to compare all existing NSFW classifiers/datasets for Wikimedia Commons in the form of a report @Chtnnh @Abbasidaniyal ?

Many thanks

Angela

Question answered in Zulip.

Hi everyone, I'm an Outreachy intern and looking forward to contributing to this project. Just to clarify, in order to complete the micro tasks, I would need to compare all existing NSFW classifiers/datasets for Wikimedia Commons?

Not necessarily all, but it will be nice to see comparisons between the widely used ones.

The answer from Zulip for everyone's reference.

What community standards are going to be used in some sort of scoring system for this? What is considered "safe for work" easily varies widely throughout the world.

@Xaosflux: See T214201 instead; this T264045 is 'only' project task.

Under discussion at Commons VP. Overwhelmingly negative.

This proposal should not go ahead unless there is some reasonable consensus as to what the desired use case is, and why it would benefit rather than harm the project collections or be used to potentially disrupt and harm the community. Various forms of NSFW categorization, classification and censorship have been discussed since the Wikimedia Commons started, it would be worth researching the VP discussion archives.

For those unaware of the history, as an example of how controversial this issue is, Jimmy Wales abandoned making contributions to Commons in 2014 because of his views about nudity/sexuality content and has made one edit since. Inviting interns to jump into these muddy waters would be, frankly, foolish.

In T264045#6791491, @Fae wrote:

Under discussion at Commons VP. Overwhelmingly negative.

This proposal should not go ahead unless there is some reasonable consensus as to what the desired use case is, and why it would benefit rather than harm the project collections or be used to potentially disrupt and harm the community. Various forms of NSFW categorization, classification and censorship have been discussed since the Wikimedia Commons started, it would be worth researching the VP discussion archives.

For those unaware of the history, as an example of how controversial this issue is, Jimmy Wales abandoned making contributions to Commons in 2014 because of his views about nudity/sexuality content and has made one edit since. Inviting interns to jump into these muddy waters would be, frankly, foolish.

I replied there, hopefully what I said was accurate. But in a nutshell – this all sounds much more controversial than it really is. I think renaming the project from something other than NSFW should be a priority, as this is a frequent source of confusion.

@Fae: Did you read the last comment before yours in this task?

Yes, this task needs to be withdrawn.

Renaming a NSFW filtering system for nudity, would remain a NSFW filtering system which has no community consensus on Commons, as others have spelt out in different words in T214201.

In whatever task, it would be productive to address the Commons VP issues raised by several members of our community, such as is recommended in Phabricator Etiquette (criticize ideas, not people). The most significant issue is that the consensus already exists against implementing any automated NSFW type filter for Commons.

You are welcome to comment directly at the Commons VP rather than relying on any interlocutors or to raise a proposal on Commons in the conventional way, rather than keeping discussion and rebuttals effectively hidden inside Phabricator task comments which the vast majority of the active Commons community will never engage with.

Thanks

Yes

In that case you commented intentionally in the wrong place. Please bring personal opinions and arguments up in better suited places. Thanks.

There does seem to be a misunderstanding. This task is labelled as being for the "Internship tasks" related to NSFW classifiers "for Wikimedia Commons". If it's not this, perhaps someone could describe it more clearly. Thanks

Is everything in this project task planned for Outreachy (Round 21) completed? If yes, please consider closing this and other related tasks as resolved. If bits and pieces are remaining, you could consider creating a new task and moving them there.