Actually, we were discussing this very issue on IRC earlier. The main problem we found with this was that it would be a new target for vandals - to recategorise various images into unrelated categories. Also, when going through the filter to select categories that they do not wish to see, people might find it objectionable to have content like beheadings or sexual activity available for people to view. I'm assuming of course that all 'categories' of images like this would be on by default - also, this would only be practical if it were for registered users, of which the vast majority of visitors aren't.
Chris (Talrias on en.wikipedia.org)
On 4/14/05, Tom Haws hawstom@sprintmail.com wrote:
Compromise alert.
Rick wrote:
But wouldn't that offend people who don't want to see violence? ~~~~
Rick's suggestion reminds me that there is lots of content that can't be prohibited, but could be labelled. If Wikipedia only had a way of labelling the image in question as something factual like "female; photographed; breast exposed; glamorous", then I or anybody else could browse Wikipedia with our filter on, and the rest of you could enjoy unfiltered.
Wikipedia as a whole, in a practical sense, belongs to each of us. But its multitude of facets are apportioned among us according to our interests and specialties. There is no reason why content labels cannot exist as a facet of Wikipedia that is largely ignored by those who are disinterested in the associated needs. And there is no reason why sexology areas can't exist.
The unreasonable positions are the ones that insist 1) strange niche areas (sexology) can't exist or be illustrated or 2) any content at all (Kate Winslet) cannot be subject to labelling for special needs.
Does that sound wrong to anybody?
Tom Haws
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l