--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <marianocecowski(a)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
*
From: Mariano Cecowski
<marianocecowski(a)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 7:28
--- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
escribió:
De: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
Controversial Content
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46
--- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski
<marianocecowski(a)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.
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_f…
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l