Re: [WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure - WikiEN-l

Tony Sidaway

14 Apr 14 Apr

6:57 p.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

Rick said:

...

--- Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Yes. That or a scene of the ship breaking up on end (not that I've seen the movie).

But wouldn't that offend people who don't want to see violence? ~~~~

Indeed. Anyway someone has come up with a head-and-shoulders shot of Rose posing for her portrait, which I support because it's a far clearer picture (apparently taken from a production still) and shows all the essential elements. It looks more professional on the page, whereas the other was obviously a low quality video capture.

Reply

Chris Jenkinson

7:25 p.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

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/

Reply

Chris Jenkinson

9:37 p.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

Just a problem to be advised of. I was advocating much the same position as the person who I replied to, and most people who objected to it objected for this reason. The second point isn't that major. Feel free to disregard it. :) Chris On 4/14/05, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:

...

Chris Jenkinson wrote:

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.

Please forgive me, but this sounds weak. Was this merely a problem to be advised of or a deal-breaker?

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

Can you explain this again? This went right over my head. Tom

-- Chris Jenkinson http://talrias.net/

Reply

Faraaz Damji

8:04 p.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

1. When has vandalism ever been a reason not to include a new feature? There's already tons of vandalism, this will merely be another blip on the radar. 2. Then don't go through the filter, choose them from a drop-down box. If you need images to help you see what nudity is, then that's your prerogative. I didn't know there was discussion on IRC about this...I made a post to WikiEN-l: Nude Kate Winslet Picture about the same thing :P Blog: http://frazzydee.ca -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d? s:- a--- C+++ UL++ P+ L+ E---- W++ N+ o+ K+ w+ O? M-- V? PS++ PE Y PGP++ t 5-- X+ R tv b++ DI++ D+ G++ e- h! !r !z ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Chris Jenkinson wrote:

...

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

Reply

Tony Sidaway

2:27 p.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

Alphax said:

...

Google has SafeSearch - and how many millions of people use Google?

I agree. If we do have server-side filtering, we should use the highest level of censorship as a default so that nobody can complain that they didn't ask for what they got (otherwise, why bother doing it?) It should be possible to override this by setting preferences and obtaining a long-term site cookie, without having to log in. This would make Wikipedia's behavior similar to Google's.

Reply

Tony Sidaway

7:58 a.m.

New subject: Kate Winslet Exposure

Rebecca said:

...

For the record, taking a leaf from Google's book in this area has always been my preferred way of going about things. Also, to my knowledge, Google does not use the highest level of censorship as a default, but rather a moderate level (which is what I think we should be doing also).

Google's "moderate" filtering acts on images. Google's "strict" filtering acts on images text. Google (at least the site I am shown in the UK--other countries may vary) does not seem to have different levels of image filtering.

Reply