Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find objectionable.
...
Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're drawings.
Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
Do you have no shame?
Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned was because he couldn't speak the queens english properly. Really!
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen