On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What I like about this proposal is its simplicity and elegance. It has the > great benefit of leaving the communities and content writers in charge of > where and to what extent they use the filter, and it also includes > non-logged-in users. > The simplicity is definitely a plus, but I also see a number of import minuses: * There is no possibility of using different subjects to filter, or different strictness of filtering. An image is either filtered or non-filtered. Anyone who wants to have any image filtered, will have to click a 'show me' any time they come across a filtered image * The default mode for people who are not logged in will be filtered. The principle of least astonishment would then say that the same holds for people who are logged in, but in that case it means we would be forcing action onto the (presumable) majority who does not want their Wikipedia filtered, rather than the (presumable) minority who does * No chance of using just factual criteria to decide which images are to be filtered I also don't see how this resolves the objections brought forward in the discussion - if people consider "giving people a way to not look at certain images" too close to censorship, then why would they accept "not show certain images but give people a way to see them"? If people are of the opinion that "sexual images can be objectionable but we do not cater to those who find images about X objectionable" is insufficiently neutral, then why would they consider "this-and-that image are objectionable, but these and those are not" okay? -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
