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_im... 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%.