On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
rather than something that can be imposed by filtering.
True for wikipedia but commons in particular needs some way or another to provide more focused search results.
(Although the board and staff claim that editorial judgement they disagree with must just be trolling is how "principle of least surprise" becomes "we need a filter system".)
Perhaps but I wasn't aware that their opinions were considered to be of any significance at this point.
Okey they did block [[user:Beta_M]] but the fact that very much came out of the blue shows how little consideration they are given these days.
The fact remains that anyone who actually wants a filter could probably put one together in the form of an Adblock plus filter list within a few days. So far the only list I'm aware of is one I put together to filter out images of Giant isopods.
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
If "Principle of least astonishment" means what it normally means, that being to make sensible UI decisions based upon what your average user would expect to happen, I'm all for it.
If "Principle of least astonishment" means what it's been co-opted to mean in this particular case, that people will somehow be "astonished" to see images of nude humans on human anatomy articles, or depictions of sex acts on articles about that particular act (though that's already off kilter, we already fail to use real images on those, instead preferring poor-quality line drawings), or images of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, we need a cluebat rather than a filter. Point those who scream in faux-outrage at finding media depicting ejaculation on that article, or Muhammad on that article, to the content disclaimer, tell them that yes, they will actually get an article on what they specifically look for one for, that yes, we use multimedia illustrations when we have appropriately licensed and relevant media, and move on.
Todd Allen