On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:34 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Andrew Garrett
<agarrett(a)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?
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]