On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:13 AM, Nicholas Knight
<nknight(a)runawaynet.com> wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Christiaan Briggs said:
To use a browser as you suggest defers ALL
images. This way
defers some images.
That is true, and that is precisely the problem. In my opinion
deferring *all* images is the only way that is consistent with
NPOV. *You*, as an editor, cannot know which images *I* want
deferred.
Which is _exactly_ why the proposal was created. Images will be
categorized. If a user wants a certain category of images deferred,
they can pay a visit to their preferences and add that category to
the filter.
We. Make. No. Choices. For. Anyone.
Ah, but you do, by creating and maintaining the list of categories upon
which to block; this choice is POV. What if I'm offended by images of goats?
Are you going to categorise every image in all conceiveable ways just so
that anyone can be rendered 'happy'? Really? What about when you, I, and
everyone else committed to continuing with this have left (perhaps in a
century through death)? What about when we have 10 million image deselection
categories in all 300 languages? Who makes the judgement call that an image
is, indeed, sufficiently containing of goats soas to render it necessary to
be so-categorised?
Block-all-images is a sensible, neutral, and, most critically,
'''scalable''' system.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james(a)jdforrester.org | jon(a)eh.org | csvla(a)dcs.warwick.ac.uk
IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com