2011/9/18 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Oliver Koslowski o.nee@t-online.de wrote:
Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels:
On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system for that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach consent.
Who
decides whether a page is in a category? Who decides whether a page has
an
image? Who decides whether something is decribed on a page? All the same.
Our typical system of categories is designed to make it easier to /find/ (related) articles or media. Good luck trying that with a system that is designed to /hide/ things.
I don't see a difference. I want to show images showing so-and-so, or I do not want to see them. It's all about saying whether images show so-and-so.
Then we have a problem, because these are completely different things.
And this doesn't seem like an awful waste of precious time to you? For a feature that is not all that likely to be popular on a global scale?
It depends. If people want to do it, it is their choice how to use their volunteering time. If they don't, then bad luck to those using the feature.
This seems at best to be written without a real thought on the practical thing.
Take any controversial subject, being nudity or Muhammad. If people do not want to see the images, I doubt very much that they will review them to add categories. If people don't care about seeing the images, I also doubt that they will spend time adding catergories. Then who would add categories for the filter? Go figure...
I do agree that there are dozens of things in Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Mediawiki that I'd rather see; I chose the secon-lowest rating in the referendum, and might well have chosen the lowest had I not expected that to be understood as "I am against this". I do think there are many better things to do with our time and other means.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Regards,
Yann