On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett <agarr...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: >>.. >> Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to >> say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally. >> >> Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical >> purposes: My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion >> (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering >> readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that >> people commonly don't want to see. > > This is the first _productive_ post in a while. > We know the hot button images. > We even have an FAQ page which tells readers how to hide pictures of Muhammad > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ > > How many other images on Wikipedia are widely viewed as problematic > and yet there is consensus to keep them in the article? > > I think we should develop the finite list of 'real' problems, to feed > into a defined scope of said problem, and find minimalistic solutions. > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems > >
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp? -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
