Thomas Morton wrote: > > I confess to not being "on top" of the exact mechanics of this proposal... > > but why can we not be using normal categories? > > Ok so for ease of use it is sensible to consider pre-made "bundles" of > > commonly filtered images (and I can see the issues there, obviously). > > But for the default use filtering on categories is fine... then we can us > > the normal Wiki system and stick to neutrality (Don't like English Churches? > > Fine, add it to your exclusion list :))
David Gerard replied: > * The category system is constructed of minute subcategories, not > broad categories that are then combined. > > You could then say "this and everything under it." But then you run into: > > * The category system is not very consistent. > * The category system is not free of loops. > * An image on en:wp could be a local image (one system of categories) > or a Commons image (a completely different system of categories). Additionally: * Our current categorization is based primarily on what images are about, *not* what they contain. For example, a photograph depicting a protest rally might include nudity on the part of someone in the background, but its categorization won't specify that. Of course, if we were to introduce a filter system reliant upon the current categories, it's likely that some users would seek to change that (resulting in harmful dilution). * Many "potentially objectionable" subjects simply aren't reflected in the current categorization. An example is the aforementioned "unveiled women." I can't speak for every project, but Commons certainly has no such category. David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
