--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism, but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
MarianoC.-
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent
The first is simply a requirement to comply with the law, while the second is a moral issue; we shouldn't host an image of a woman giving a blowjob for example if the woman has not given her consent to have the image uploaded, and is unaware of its presence on Commons. Excluding those types of cases has nothing to do with the viewer experience; it has to do with protecting the foundation, and the privacy of the people depicted.
Andreas
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PORN#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_si...
From: Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 7:28
--- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com escribió:
De: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
Controversial Content
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46 --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40 I'm sorry we are putting more energy into what should be banned from commons instead
of
searching
for mechanisms to protect those readers who
would
prefer to
stay away from such content.
I mean, I understand the problem with
paedophilia, and
why
it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects,
but I
think
it is equally important to provide with the means
to
present
the content to users in their desired level of
exposure;
tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content
would
do the
trick, and it is technologically
straightforward.
Cheers, MarianoC
Such a system was indeed among the recommendations
put
forward by the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling similar systems in place at major sites such as Google, youtube and
flickr.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content...
As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there
are
currently 144 editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the policy. The community is almost exactly split down the middle.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_fo...
Andreas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l