Yes I've already seen that. I'd still like to see us develop a system
that could handle downstream filtering (and I think we should be
tagging/categorising media in any case). It's arguably becoming a more
widespread problem, and if/when there's agreement that it is we'd have
a tangible system that people could vote on rather than just an idea.
Christiaan
On 20 Feb 2005, at 9:02 am, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Christiaan Briggs said:
Bummer, thought it sounded too easy.
But following this theme, as long as we get down to the task of
tagging
images then targeted filtering, whether it be site-based or browser
based, is always going to be an option. One day web browsers may well
support some kind of image/content filter system, in which case all
we'd need to do is hook our tagging system into it, at which point we
could dispense with a site-based preference option.
I suggest that you (and all those suggesting site-based filtering)
look at
the votes on that page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images
particularly the summary.
You may notice that the only proposals that got a consensus were:
1. "Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this
if it
ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a
case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now.
Policy
should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive
policy
is both wasteful and harmful." -Shane King, 33 ayes, 5 nays2. "1)
checkbox for hiding all text from articles. 2) checkbox for hiding
all images from articles, and replacing them with links."-Chmod007, 10
ayes, 4 nays3. "Users should also be provided the option to hide all
sections except
for lead sections"-Eequor, 2 ayes 1 nay
The Shane King option to "do nothing now, [handle] on a case by case
basis
as it is now" attracted the most support and the least opposition, and
also achieved a clear consensus, over 85%.