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