Hoi,
The argument is about "not safe for work", it is about not showing these
pictures because you tag them as such. Consequently medical conditions,
particularly those that have a sexual dimension will be affected.
Explain to me why my point of view is not valid AND explain why these images
are not tagged in the proposed way. You cannot have it both ways.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/4/21 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
When you make illustration not visible you effectively remove them. It is
a
cop out to continue and say that it is *others
*that can decide that they
do
not want to be informed, that they are willing that other people are at
risk
because essential images are not readily available. It is a cop out
because
this risk is ignored. Ignored because it is
convenient
As to BLP, the images that I am talking about do not identify people.
They
show what is essentially a detail and a penis or
a vagina may be part of
this.
When the issue is about people using images in places where they are not
appropriate, then deal with that issue. Do not confuse this with the
legitimate use of essential but problematic images.
Thanks,
GerardM
Honestly, this tangent has very little if anything to do with the issue
that
we ought to be discussing. No one has proposed removing or hiding images
depicting medical conditions. If you want to argue against something that
no
one is arguing for, you should start a new thread.
Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l