On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:10, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is the advantage of that compared with the feature as it was > originally proposed? All you've done is made the URL more complicated. > You'll still need to use user preferences to determine which images > are getting hidden, so why can't you just have an "on/off" user > preference as well rather than determining whether the filter should > be on or off based on the URL?
* People should have possibility to choose the set of images which they don't want to see. * As it's not the main site, but wrapper, it could have turned off images offensive to anyone, so everybody would be able to see the site without having to log in. It could lead to "no images" by default, but that's not my problem. * They could experiment, as nobody would care about the site. As Tobias mentioned below, if some text is offensive to someone, they could add it into the filter. * Most importantly, that won't affect anything else. Except, probably, ~$1M/year of WMF budget for development of censorship software and censorship itself, as they will say that they lack of people to censor images and that they need employees to do that. Although it would be more useful to give that ~$1M/year for access to Wikipedia from African countries, I think that it's reasonable price for having people who want censorship content. Bottom line is that News Corp will pay all of that and much more by giving us free access to Fox News. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
