Hi Wirt,

I agree, automated "censoring" of posts is full of problems and it is 
doubtful that it will work very well.  Another problem I have with it is 
the number of server cycles the censoring will burn up.  If they really do 
decide to do context evaluation, I suspect that they will need to greatly 
enhance the server capacity.

Thanks for your comments,

John

At 2006-01-25 06:09 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>John asks:
>
> > In a web site project I'm working on, I need to "censor" posts that users
> >  make.  Specifically, I need to remove "obscene, vulgar, offensive,
>abusive,
> >  hateful, harassing, profane, sexually oriented, and threatening" words,
> >  replacing each occurrence with the very long phrase "{text deleted by
> >  moderator}".
>
>The Washington Post, and earlier the LA Times, both fixed their user blog
>profanity problems in the simplest way possible: they simply shut down user
>entries into their blogs. They both said that it wasn't worth the time and 
>trouble
>that having a human scrub the blogs was taking.
>
>Automated scrubbing is probably never going to work well enough to be useful.
>
>=======================================
>
>January 20, 2006
>Paper Closes Reader Comments on Blog, Citing Vitriol
>By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
>
>Correction Appended
>
>The Washington Post stopped accepting reader comments on one of its blogs
>yesterday, saying it had drawn too many personal attacks, profanity and 
>hate mail
>directed at the paper's ombudsman.
>
>The closing was the second time in recent months that a major newspaper has
>stopped accepting feedback from readers in a Web forum. An experiment in
>allowing the public to edit editorials in The Los Angeles Times lasted 
>just two days
>in June before it was shut because pornographic material was being posted on
>the site.
>
>The Post's blog, which had accepted comments from readers on its entries
>since it was first published on Nov. 21, stopped doing so indefinitely 
>yesterday
>afternoon with a notice from Jim Brady, executive editor of
>www.washingtonpost.com.
>
>Mr. Brady wrote that he had expected criticism of The Post on the site, but
>that the public had violated rules against personal attacks and profanity.
>
>"Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have
>refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not 
>to allow
>comments for the time being," Mr. Brady wrote. "Transparency and reasoned
>debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to 
>us that
>we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about
>issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about."
>
>In an interview, Mr. Brady said the site had been overwhelmed with what he
>described as vicious personal attacks against Deborah Howell, the newspaper's
>ombudsman.
>
>She wrote a column about Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty to
>conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion, and said that several Democrats "have 
>gotten
>Abramoff campaign money," apparently intending to say that they received
>campaign money from Mr. Abramoff's clients.
>
>Her column generated complaints, and after saying she thought her views were
>being misrepresented, she was attacked again, prompting her to say she would
>not post any more replies.
>
>The complaints escalated into what Mr. Brady said were unprintable comments
>that started "sucking up the time of two people" to keep them from 
>appearing on
>the blog.
>
>"We were taking them out by the hundreds," he said. "It was just too much to
>handle."
>
>He added that he believed that the problem was "more issue-based than
>site-based," noting that The Post has more than two dozen other blogs 
>where no such
>thing occurs. "This particular issue has inflamed the far left, and it 
>seems to
>be something they've decided they'll fight," he said.
>
>Joan Walsh, editor in chief of Salon.com, an online newsmagazine that allows
>open comment from the public, said that The Post had probably drawn such
>attacks to its site in part because it represents the mainstream media.
>
>"While we're an established news organization, we're not 'the establishment,'
>" she wrote in an e-mail message, noting that Salon has had to take down only
>a handful of comments since its blog went live three months ago. In both the
>Post and Los Angeles Times cases, she wrote, "there was an element of novelty
>and rebellion and being able to talk back to 'the man.' "
>
>Still, she said, "I think it's a shame that neither organization saw it
>through, because I think the more obnoxious comments would have died down, 
>and
>they'd have ultimately gotten the kind of debate they wanted."
>
>Mr. Brady said he expected to reopen the comments at some point, but he
>needed to figure out how to patrol the site better and "keep it clean."
>
>Mr. Brady held an online question-and-answer session on Friday to address
>reader concerns about the incident. Many participants complained that The 
>Post
>was practicing censorship and silencing its critics. Mr. Brady responded that
>the Post was doing no such thing, pointing to the online discussion and 
>the fact
>that of 30 blogs maintained by The Post, only one was shut off from outside
>comment.
>
>"We don't have an obligation to keep every one of those avenues open if we
>run into problems like we did yesterday," Mr. Brady wrote.
>
>Mr. Brady said that Ms. Howell would address the Abramoff matter in her
>Sunday column, prompting some participants to complain that she should be 
>thinking
>more about the online audience rather than adhering to a print schedule.
>
>Others asked how Mr. Brady intended to proceed. He said he was considering
>prescreening of comments, but he did not like that option.
>
>"Real-time debate about the issues of the day is exciting, and what the Web
>can provide," he wrote. "Any prescreening makes that harder, but in certain
>subject areas, it may be the way we have to go."
>
>He also said that The Post was planning to introduce an online debate next
>week between bloggers and journalists "to start getting to some of the tough
>questions this issue has raised, specifically how to make sure the dialogue
>between the media and its consumers can flourish online."
>
>
>Correction: Jan. 20, 2006
>
>An earlier version of this story reported incorrectly that The Washington
>Post had closed a blog. The blog has not been shut; it has stopped accepting
>comments from readers
>
>=======================================
>
>Wirt Atmar


John
*** When replying to this message, please do not delete these ***
*** signature lines. Otakon Katsucon HP3000-L @classiccmp.org ***
*** DigitalCosplay.com    JohnKorbPhoto.com     JohnPKorb.com ***

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *