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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Chris Jenkinson
http://talrias.net/