Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
> objectionable.
>
>
>
...
> Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since
it's the biggest
> hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents
> wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but
> would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're
> drawings.
>
>
> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>
>
Do you have no shame?
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
was because he couldn't speak the queens english
properly. Really!
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen