On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Thinboy00
<thinboy00(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Will this need a sitewide installation in monobook.js (or common.js)?
> Also, can you make it so that if scripting is disabled, the images (or
> tables) won't load? On second thought, whether they should load in
> that case is debatable.
>
>
Alex G schrieb:
Nice idea. I'm thinking we should try and go
ahead with this...if images
are showing by default, there really isn't much "bad" about this
solution.
AFAIK this would go in sitewide monobook.js, correct? We could also
add a
Special:Prefs option to have the images default
showing/default hiding.
Yes, it would need a sitewide installation in monobook.js
Per default and without javascript all tables are expanded and
the images are visible.
From what I read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/images#new_compromise
I don't see much chance for it to get implemented though.
There are multiple objections:
1. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles
I'm not sure, whether it is a disclaimer. And the opposition
is chary on that, so I have to guess. Is it
a) they don't want a permanent article message box.
There are many articles with {{POV}} or {{disputed}}
message boxes, some of them stay for years.
b) they object the text in the message box.
If anything can be regarded as a disclaimer, it is the part
"Even though Wikipedia is not censored" as it indeed disclaims
any censorship is involved at Wikipedia. OTOH the phrase
"Wikipedia is not censored" has been written on the Muhammad
talk pages probably hundreds of times, so I wonder why anyone
would object that phrase to be in a message box on the article.
Anyway, the text can be changed.
2. They are fearing a slippery slope.
There are certainly more articles where a minority rejects
certain images. But I can't see how a new message box with
that kind of functionality, would enlarge that problem rather
than reduce it. If members of the Bahá'í Faith, creationists,
Africans or Serbians object to certain images now, they can
already cause trouble by removing them. Why should it be any
worse, when there is a possibility to make
[[Wikipedia:Options to not see an image]] more flexible?
br
--
Raphael