Am 21.09.2011 20:05, schrieb Andre Engels: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Tobias Oelgarte< > tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> I still can't the a rational difference between images included in >> articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the >> will of the community. > > It's much easier to note offensive text fragments before reading them than > to note offensive images before seeing them. But I guess the more > fundamental issue is: there are, I assume, people who have requested this > feature for images. There are either no or only very few who have requested > it for text. > I would doubt that. For me it seams only to be a technical issue. Images don't change over time (at least not often), while text is in constant movement. The images are also in constant movement. Some will be replaced by others, some will be updated, some might be moved to another sub-article and so on. That means filtering images is technically, in comparison to text, the only feasible element that could be implemented in a more or less direct way.
Thats why "no one asks for text". Actually i think that we have more potentially offending articles / text passages then images. Just count the biology/species articles with this enormous info boxes showing the development of species (an exploration by Darwin). If we could filter text, we would have more then enough claims to remove that. I'm sure about that. The basic thought progress at the WMF must have been: A: "We need to do something, otherwise we could lose some donors. We need to look fresh and attractive." B: "But what do we do? All we can really do is something technically, without upsetting a huge amount of authors." A: "Yeah Wikitext is so hard to parse and we have already a project for that. This will take ages..." B: "Didn't we have some complains. There was a group that claimed Wikipedia has to many male authors." A: "A you mean that gender-gap project. But just look at our pages. Who without studying informatics would really participate? It's way to complicated and we should represent some results now". B: "Hey, yesterday i read a comment by Heroxxxx from FOX that we have to much porn. OK, they had nothing else to report, but this could be something" A: "Great idea. Lets delete all pornographic images." B: "We can't do that. Look what happened to Jimbo. As soon we delete the images it will cause problems." A: "Just got an idea. Hiding is not deleting. How about hiding all this images by default." B: "Would that be accepted? Some might ask: Why only porn?" A: "OK then we need to make it more general" B: "Wouldn't they cry this is despotism and censorship?" A: "Let's see... How about we let someone write a report, praise him as neutral and to make sure that the report sees a great need for such a feature? We could argument, that it is important and not our idea." B: "Thats great. Could we improve that also for text?" A: "Text would be so hard and it would remind people on blacked out pages. I don't think that this would be an good idea. But how about to give them a new tool to decide if images are hidden or not? I see a lot of reasons to do so. It could please FOX and some other critics." B: "Wouldn't this just move the problem to another project?" A: "Who cares. Let them handle it. We will just say that the community will find a solution, as we always do." B: "OK. Bye" _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
