Forums: Index > Watercooler > Reconsidering terms of use enforcement
It should come as no surprise to regular editors that I've long been uncomfortable with a laissez-faire attitude regarding clop and excessive violence. The wikia terms of use, which don't allow users to "Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, [...]", can be interpreted very restrictively, like on the sister wiki (which doesn't allow even self-censored swearing). Or they can be interpreted very permissively, and this wiki is closer to that end of the spectrum than the other. I want to ask the wiki to edge closer to the centre.
It would make no sense to be as restrictive as the Friendship is Magic Wiki because we do cover, and should continue to cover, material intended for adults only. But it's undeniable that people who are underage also visit this wiki, and I don't think it's unreasonable to practice some restraint considering the source material. We slap at least one big red warning template on articles which cover material not suitable for children for a reason. Comments don't have that. It's not just children I'm thinking of; many adults are also turned off by excessive swearing and people freely posting links to porn, which impacts the wiki's appeal to potential new users.
I therefore propose:
- For articles nothing would change, except that the About page should explicitly disallow posting a link to visual pornographic or excessively violent material. This wouldn't affect fan fiction pages. It probably wouldn't affect Banned From Equestria (Daily) except for the direct download links (which don't belong on there anyway), since furaffinity and inkbunny don't allow you to play the game without explicitly turning the mature content filter off, from what I understand. For the same reason, links to the deviantArt or furaffinity sites of artists who also draw stuff other than porn would remain fine as long as they're behind a filter.
- I know some people have been having fun with adding images to the gallery which used to be pornographic until cropped or slightly altered. The thing is, when you brag about it in the comment section, that changes the context for the image for the people who didn't know. So if the original image would have been inappropriate, the cropped or altered version should be removed. There's no way to police that in every case anyway, but in cases where a user knows where the image came from, he or she can remove it. If you want to have a little fun, keep the image's origin to yourself to delay its removal. I for one certainly won't go around browsing explicit galleries on a hunch.
- No direct links to pornographic or violent images in the comment section regardless of whether a warning is given. No embedding of any graphic or suggestive images of any kind.
- No swearing. Self-censoring with stars or substitutions (like the inexplicably popular "buck") would be allowed, but discouraged. Can be implemented for the future via the abuse filter if I ever learn how to use the thing, and existing comments can probably be altered via bot.
Thoughts? --Tulipclaymore (talk) 18:29, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Go for it. I think making our wiki more family friendly is a great idea. The all ages theme might even attract a few more people. Not to mention tangling with wikia rules can't be a good thing.
- From what you're saying this change won't affect our ability to write matue content articles, just stricter comment/image/link screening right? However, I'm not sure what you mean by "suggestive". Could you write us a guide or discuss it with examples? -- Abcron (talk) 06:05, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea. For the no swearing thing, it would be an easy task to alter the message that appears above all comments sections on the wiki, and as for the abuse filter, we could just get Throwawaytv or one of the VSTF to alter it for us, if we so desired, as I know that they know how to speak the language of those filters, so to speak. I mean, the comments are just subpages of the article talkpage (or at least, that's my understanding). However, I don't think the inserting of swears into comments should result in a block, since that's how it works on the FiM wiki: the comment is disallowed, but the user is not blocked (unlike with edits inserting swears into articles, which are disallowed and result in a block).
- Also, FurAffinity and Inkbunny do both have a mature content filter that must be manually disabled before any sort of mature content can be accessed. Same with deviantArt, except that FA and IB allow adult content, too (like BFE(D), and like the mature content filter, the adult content filter must also be manually disabled), while DA only allows mature content.
- As for altering existing comments, the bot would have to have admin rights, and then it would theoretically be possible, I think.
- Finally, as for what "suggestive" means, I usually take it to mean something that isn't explicit in an of itself, but it calls to mind something which is. Double entendres (usually phrases that have one clean meaning, and then also another dirty meaning) are a great example of this. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 07:22, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Hold up a second, Double entendres is a very general term. Could you guys please just show me where you plan to draw the line between these four pictures? 1, 2, 3, 4. -- Abcron (talk) 08:03, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if that's what your asking, then me personally, I see nothing wrong at all with the first two pictures (plus they're really well drawn, IMO). Nothing about them suggests anything risque (well, maybe the second one, but it's more romantically suggestive than sexually suggestive). As for the second two, I would err on the side of caution with those two, as those are definitely suggestive (the posing and clothing choices are both quite suggestive). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:15, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- The first two are fine. The other two are the kind of thing Equestria Daily would hide under a "saucy" link and should be avoided. It's always going to be up to administrator discretion what's considered suggestive, borderline and over the line. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 16:05, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Hold up a second, Double entendres is a very general term. Could you guys please just show me where you plan to draw the line between these four pictures? 1, 2, 3, 4. -- Abcron (talk) 08:03, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting letting the abuse filter block people for repeatedly trying to add swear words; they (and we, since it should apply to everyone) just wouldn't be able to post a comment as long as it remains uncensored. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 16:05, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, good, I didn't think you were; I just figured I'd make my stance on that particular point quite clear. Yeah, we could probably just copy over the code from whichever abuse filter does exactly that on the FiM wiki (I think it might be #6, but I'm not 100% sure about that), and then, if it's set to work only on new and unregistered users (as I have a suspicion it might be), it could be changed. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 16:12, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
- So I'm going to assume these are rules are in effect already. -- Abcron (talk) 05:09, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the abuse filter is in place yet, I only know it is on the FiM wiki (I remember one of my comments, back before I had this account, and was just an anonymous user, got blocked because I tried to drop an "f" bomb. That was the only time I tried anything of the sort, and so it was the only time that ever happened.) I'm saying we could easily copy over the filter code (I think it's filter #6 over there), and, depending on whether making that one small change to include autoconfirmed users and admins in its list of users to filter, we could either make the change ourselves, or ask someone with more experience in abuse filters to help us out.-- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:23, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
- A filter is now in place; it's not a very good one (there's no warning message when a comment is disallowed, for instance, which isn't ideal). Main and Project namespaces are excluded from the filter because of the transcripts, and I also excluded User. Everything else (including the forums and User_talk) should be covered. Administrators can add to the list of disallowed words. Test away if you want. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 03:31, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it should work well enough for now. I added a word to the list; couldn't think of any more to add at this point. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 03:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the list? -- Abcron (talk) 03:40, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Click on the link at the bottom of your screen that says "Admin", then click the "Advanced" tab. Scroll down until you reach a link titled "Abuse Filter Configuration" or something of that nature. That'll take you to a list of all the abuse filters, and the one in question is #3. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 03:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
- A filter is now in place; it's not a very good one (there's no warning message when a comment is disallowed, for instance, which isn't ideal). Main and Project namespaces are excluded from the filter because of the transcripts, and I also excluded User. Everything else (including the forums and User_talk) should be covered. Administrators can add to the list of disallowed words. Test away if you want. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 03:31, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the abuse filter is in place yet, I only know it is on the FiM wiki (I remember one of my comments, back before I had this account, and was just an anonymous user, got blocked because I tried to drop an "f" bomb. That was the only time I tried anything of the sort, and so it was the only time that ever happened.) I'm saying we could easily copy over the filter code (I think it's filter #6 over there), and, depending on whether making that one small change to include autoconfirmed users and admins in its list of users to filter, we could either make the change ourselves, or ask someone with more experience in abuse filters to help us out.-- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:23, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting letting the abuse filter block people for repeatedly trying to add swear words; they (and we, since it should apply to everyone) just wouldn't be able to post a comment as long as it remains uncensored. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 16:05, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
Bot-assisted past-comment censoring seems to work, but since it's not the kind of thing I want to run without supervision, I won't do it today (it's late). Also, the bot obviously isn't capable of recognising porn links; that'll have to be done manually. --Tulipclaymore (talk) 04:05, August 7, 2012 (UTC)