MediaWiki serves more than the Wikimedia Foundation too. ~~Ebe123
On 11-10-11 4:42 PM, "Tobias Oelgarte" tobias.oelgarte@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 17:42, schrieb Andreas Kolbe: From: Faefae@wikimedia.org.uk
We could also just delete them, unless someone
actually uses them in a sensible way in an article. :-)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning Not on Commons; being "objectionable" to some viewers and not being currently in use does not make a potentially educational image out of scope. I have seen many poorly worded deletion requests on Commons on
the basis of a potentially useable image being "orphaned" rather than it being unrealistic to expect it to ever be used for an educational
purpose.
Fae
Agree with Fae; Commons is a general image repository in its own right, serving a bigger audience than just the other Wikimedia projects.
So the fact is that Commons will contain controversial images and that we have to curate them responsibly.
Someone on Meta has pointed out that Commons seems to list sexual image results for search terms like cucumber, electric toothbrushes or pearl necklace way higher than a corresponding Google search. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html
Andreas
This might just be coincidence for special cases. I'm sure if you
search
long enough you will find opposite examples as well. But wouldn't it
run
against the intention of a search engine to rate down content by
"possibly offensive"? If you search for a cucumber you should expect to find
one. If the description is correct, you should find the most
suitable images
first. But that should be based on the rating algorithm
that works on the
description, not on the fact that content is/might
be/could be
controversial.
Implementing such a restriction for a search engine (by
default) would
go against any principal and would be discrimination of
content. We
should not do
this.
nya~
_______________________________________________ foundation-l
mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: