Thomas Morton wrote:
I confess to not being "on top" of the exact mechanics of this proposal... but why can we not be using normal categories? Ok so for ease of use it is sensible to consider pre-made "bundles" of commonly filtered images (and I can see the issues there, obviously). But for the default use filtering on categories is fine... then we can us the normal Wiki system and stick to neutrality (Don't like English Churches? Fine, add it to your exclusion list :))
David Gerard replied:
- The category system is constructed of minute subcategories, not
broad categories that are then combined.
You could then say "this and everything under it." But then you run into:
- The category system is not very consistent.
- The category system is not free of loops.
- An image on en:wp could be a local image (one system of categories)
or a Commons image (a completely different system of categories).
Additionally:
* Our current categorization is based primarily on what images are about, *not* what they contain. For example, a photograph depicting a protest rally might include nudity on the part of someone in the background, but its categorization won't specify that. Of course, if we were to introduce a filter system reliant upon the current categories, it's likely that some users would seek to change that (resulting in harmful dilution).
* Many "potentially objectionable" subjects simply aren't reflected in the current categorization. An example is the aforementioned "unveiled women." I can't speak for every project, but Commons certainly has no such category.
David Levy