I really didn't come here to debate this issue. I came here looking for dispute resolution procedures.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The proposers of this idea assume that mechanism for censorship will only be triggered by individuals
No, actually they don't. This is clearly covered in the article and in discussions I have already had with you on [[Talk:End-user image suppression]].
They fail to answer several questions:
- Who is going to add these tags
From the article: Tagging images would simply involve ensuring that [[potentially offensive images]] have all been given [[categories]] as per normal procedures.
- What is the basis for tagging content. What to be done when someone
comes along who wants even more tagging or the tagging of different categories.
From the article: Tagging images would simply involve ensuring that [[potentially offensive images]] have all been given [[categories]] as per normal procedures.
- How do you prevent organisations or countries from censoring our
content using our own mechanism
The mechanism is categorisation, which we already a have, so you don't, not now not ever.
- How do you ensure that the integrity of our NPOV content is
maintained if people will not see the whole of our content
It is up to the user what they see and what they don't. This proposal actually ensures that images are not completely removed from the servers or suppressed by default as is already happening now.
- What argument do you have against tagging content if you state that
this is only about images
As noted on [[Talk:Potentially offensive images]] this scheme is a reaction to events that have been taking place regarding controversial images on Wikipedia. Images are immediate; there is no other way to avoid them when surfing to a page other than to have them turned off or hidden. In this sense they a kind of push media.
Censure is what I do not want for our content.
Self-censorship is already taking place on Wikipedia. This scheme would help put an end to self-censorship.
Christiaan