On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:25:10 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Nicholas Knight said:
No one, NO ONE, has said any sort of filtering must take place by default.
All these arguments about appeasing those who will attack us for not filtering, are meaningless if a non-logged-in user approaching the site for the first time will see the images that it is proposed should be filtered on the grounds that most people may be upset to see them. So what's the point of filtering if we only do it for people who are motivated enough to either create a user and log in, or fill in a form saying what kinds of image they want to have filtered?
Of course some form of filtering has to be on by default (if we are to have certain content). Insisting on anything else is based on a crusade to broaden unwilling conservative/conventional minds. It isn't our place to do that, and if we wish to continue to be widely accepted (which *is* necessary to acheive Wikipedia's aim, a free encyclopaedia for all), we need to recognise the sensitivies of a large swathe of anonymous readers/editors (yes, for signed up users we can count on them setting their own preferences).
I could almost guarantee that were someone to submit a particular list of Wikipedia articles/images for review by popular media outlets, they could destroy Wikipedia's reputation for ever. Afterward mostly only that section of the public that doesn't have concerns about such content would use Wikipedia.
I should point out, that I am not convinced that a majority of Wikipedians most active editors don't disagree with all this. Were we to put it to a vote, it is quite possible that people here would insist on no filtering at all (or at least not on by default for anons). I do not think we can rely on the majority judgement here, as it is perhaps the case that particular liberal positions are held by a majority at Wikipedia. If that is the case, such a systemic bias must be borne in mind in forming new policies.
Zoney