On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do it on the site itself:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content...
It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable. Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site filtering.
Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful. Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it
the
most accessible for our community.
That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the report?
Because they were investigating solutions to problems *on* Wikipedia. Seems rather obvious ;)
Or perhaps you didn't read parts in full, this for example:
For example, all of these sites, as WMF pages do, have internally-generated
policies that determine what content is permitted on their sites at all.
Or
However, on every one of these sites, they also employ a series of
user-controlled options (options designed by the site) that allow users to tailor their viewing experiences to their individual needs. Unique among these sites, at the moment, Wikimedia projects employ no such options.
I'm not sure where you are leading with this line of argument.. but it seems to be down a black hole :)
Tom