On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers > <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Forking and creating "safe" versions of all our wikis has the same >> disadvantage of any other fork, the wisdom of crowds is dissipated if the >> crowd is ever further divided. In that sense this would be as much a mistake >> as it was to spin Outreach, Strategy and Ten off as separate wikis rather >> than projects on meta. Better to encompass both "safe" and existing wikis >> within the same wiki by making the image filter an opt in user choice, that >> way you achieve all the advantages of "safe" and unsafe wikis without any of >> the overheads. I think you'll find that was always the intention, I don't >> recall anyone arguing for it to be compulsory for everyone to opt in to the >> filter and pick at least one thing they object to. >> >> Commons is a different matter, and I can understand the concern there that >> this might lead to arguments as to the categorisation of particular >> articles. Personally I think that it would be progress to replace arguments >> as to whether an image is within scope with arguments about the category. >> But this does depend on the way in which the filter is implemented; If we >> implement a filter which offers 8-15 broad choices to those who opt in to >> it, then those filters probably don't currently exist on Commons, so by >> implication we as a community are vetting all of commons to see what fits >> into those filters. Such a system also conflicts with other things we are >> doing, in particular the GLAM collaborations and the large releases of >> images that we are getting from various institutions. But if we go down the >> more flexible personal image filter route then there is far less reason to >> fork Commons as it makes no difference on Commons whether an image is >> blocked by one reader on their personal preferences or by one million. There >> would still be the issue that not everything is categorised, but if we >> release this in beta test and don't over promise its functionality that >> should not be a problem - we just need to make clear that it is currently x% >> efficient and will improve as people identify stuff they don't want to see >> again, and categories where they want to first check the caption or alt text >> in order to decide whether to view them. > > You didn't understand me well. It's not about fork(s), it's about > wrappers, shells around the existing projects. > > * en.safe.wikipedia.org/wiki/<whatever> would point to > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<whatever> > * When you click on "edit" from en.safe, you would get the same text > as on en.wp. > * When you click on "save" from en.safe, you would save the text on > en.wp, as well. > * The only difference is that images in wikitext won't be shown like > [[File:<something sensible>.jpg]], but as > [[File:fd37dae713526ee2da82f5a6cf6431de.jpg]]. > * safe.wikimedia.org won't be Commons fork, but area for image > categorization to those who want to work on it. It is not the job of > Commons community to work on personal wishes of American > right-wingers. > > (Note: "safe" is not good option for name, as it has four characters > and it could be used for language editions of Wikipedia; maybe > safe.en.wikipedia.org could be better option.) > >
The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which does seem to point to the conclusion that there isn't a real market for such sites. Doesn't it? -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
