The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible reason is that our base of editors is different from other websites.
Websites like Flickr (an example commonly cited) are commercial endeavors whose decisions are based on profitability, not an obligation to maintain neutrality (a core element of most WMF projects). These services can cater to the revenue-driving majorities (with geographic segregation, if need be) and ignore minorities whose beliefs fall outside the "mainstream" for a given country. We mustn't do that.
Brilliantly put!
One of the main issues regarding the proposed system is the need to determine which image types to label "potentially objectionable" and place under the limited number of optional filters. Due to cultural bias, some people (including a segment of voters in the "referendum," some of whom commented on its various talk pages) believe that this is as simple as creating a few categories along the lines of "nudity," "sex," "violence" and "gore" (defined and populated in accordance with arbitrary standards).
I think a key part of resolving this is to avoid calling the labels "potentially objectionable". I mean - anything can be potentially objectionable, it depends on the individual.
Obviously we cast this in the nudity/Mohammed light, because those are the most high profile examples.
But another example; clowns.
Some people are terrified of clowns, even their images. You wouldn't describe images of clowns as "potentially objectionable" but it would be great for Coulrophobes to go "oh hey Wikipedia, I don't like clowns so can you hide pics of them for me please? Thanks".
Some people are squeamish - so OK let the hides images involving blood/gore. Foot phobia? (that's common enough) Hide images of naked feet.
And so on.
This should not be about filtering "potentially objectionable" images, but about giving readers a way to filter their experience in a way that makes them feel safe and happy. And that is the light to cast & develop the feature
Tom