--- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com escribió:
De: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46 --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecowski@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40 I'm sorry we are putting more energy into what should be banned from commons instead of
searching
for mechanisms to protect those readers who would
prefer to
stay away from such content.
I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and
why
it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I
think
it is equally important to provide with the means to
present
the content to users in their desired level of
exposure;
tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would
do the
trick, and it is technologically straightforward.
Cheers, MarianoC
Such a system was indeed among the recommendations put forward by the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling similar systems in place at major sites such as Google, youtube and flickr.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content...
As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there are currently 144 editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the policy. The community is almost exactly split down the middle.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_fo...
Andreas
Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism, but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
MarianoC.-