On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:29 AM, David Levy <lifeisunf...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sydney Poore wrote: >> >> > The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more >> > controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think >> > that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having >> > conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible >> > reason is that our base of editors is different from other websites. >> >> Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial >> endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an >> obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF >> projects). These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities >> (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose >> beliefs fall outside the "mainstream" for a given country. We mustn't >> do that. >> > > Today to be successful organizations; both for-profit and not-for-profit, > must recognize the needs of their global audience. Offering image filters > where people can set their own preferences and bypass the setting for > individual settings is brilliant way for people with different values to > share the same space. No content is removed, and people can see all images > if they choose to. > > This approach is far better than the approach used by most other large > educational institutions which currently control the viewing of > controversial content through their acquisition process.
Wikipedia *is* successful, and an image filter was not part of its success. I dont mind Wikimedia content being better labelled with metadata, however the actual process of filtering should be done by the user-agent. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
