I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if the proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that way until the finer controls become available.
The accusation that those that feel such an image should not be inline in the article are trying to create "bowdlerpedia" is just too much - and is just as out of line as if I had accused those wanting to keep the image in of trying to create pornopedia.
Discussing and deciding where the line should be is what will make wikipedia a generally acceptable and accessible encylopdia.
Most encyclopedia's include images or topics that some may object to but that is the nature of an encyclopedia but they will accept that is the trade off with something that tries to cover everything. However, at the very least - this autofellation images, and the goats image should be out, and maybe other things should be out too.
The argument that nothing should be out will IMHO result in such bad publicity that our mission will be frustrated.
Jim
==QUESTION=Why is the compromise offered by those that find such material offensive, i.e. "To not include it inline but make it accessible by a link" not considered a reasonable?
I don't know anyone who doesn't think it's reasonable. Inlining is far better, however, for technical reasons that I outlined earlier. Hopefully it will be generally possible in a not-too-distant future version of Wikipedia to let the user control what he sees using server-side controls instead of his browser controls; I do not expect this to appease those who seem to want a bowdlerpedia, however.
Jim (trodel@gmail.com) [[User:Trodel]]
Jim Trodel said:
I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if the proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that way until the finer controls become available.
I use the finer controls every day. They're freely available and very easy to use.
I know but they are user based controls not Server based and most users have no clue how to do any of the things required: 1) Find them, 2) Install them, 3) Launch them, 4) Edit the initial settings, or 5) Modify the settings later. And teaching them would be quite time consuming.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:37:51 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Jim Trodel said:
I don't see how technical reasons should drive the decision then if the proposed compromise is reasonable - why not just let it stand that way until the finer controls become available.
I use the finer controls every day. They're freely available and very easy to use.
Jim Trodel said:
I know but they are user based controls not Server based and most users have no clue how to do any of the things required: 1) Find them, 2) Install them, 3) Launch them, 4) Edit the initial settings, or 5) Modify the settings later. And teaching them would be quite time consuming.
This is true. It can be remedied, and once the users have been taught they can use their skills *all over the web*, not just on Wikipedia. If we do server side controls we'll still have to teach people how to use those. There are lots of external people who would be only too willing (as a form of evangelism) to show people how to use a browser controls to block images and enable them to be shown on a mouseclick.