On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
.. Yes, I'm being rhetorical. Surely you understand what I'm trying to say and that "90%" is not intended to be interpreted literally.
Just in case, I'll recap without using statistics for rhetorical purposes: My point is about quick wins. We can attack a large portion (that may or may not be exactly 90%) of the problem by offering readers the opportunity to hide a small number of categories that people commonly don't want to see.
This is the first _productive_ post in a while. We know the hot button images. We even have an FAQ page which tells readers how to hide pictures of Muhammad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ
How many other images on Wikipedia are widely viewed as problematic and yet there is consensus to keep them in the article?
I think we should develop the finite list of 'real' problems, to feed into a defined scope of said problem, and find minimalistic solutions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems
If I may be so blunt. What part of non-negotiable don't people quite grasp?