Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 11:16:21 UTC 2011
But when it comes to discussing whether a specific illustration or media file should be added to an article, the one criterion nobody seems to raise is whether this is the type of image or video a reliably published educational source would include. Instead, we often hear that because Wikipedia is not censored, we *must* keep an image or media file in the article, *especially so* if it is controversial.
Quite on the contrary: To include a specific image in a specific article is part of the editing process. Everyone can follow this process in the history of the article.
To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as censorship by serious journalists. It doesn't make much difference if the censor is part of the government or the owner of the publishing house.
-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 3673 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
________________________________ From: "Möller, Carsten" c.moeller@wmco.de To: "foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011, 18:01 Subject: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 11:16:21 UTC 2011
But when it comes to discussing whether a specific illustration or media file should be added to an article, the one criterion nobody seems to raise is whether this is the type of image or video a reliably published educational source would include. Instead, we often hear that because Wikipedia is not censored, we *must* keep an image or media file in the article, *especially so* if it is controversial.
Quite on the contrary: To include a specific image in a specific article is part of the editing process. Everyone can follow this process in the history of the article.
To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as censorship by serious journalists. It doesn't make much difference if the censor is part of the government or the owner of the publishing house.
For what feels like the 1000th time: you do realise that
1. images would only be hidden if the user says in their preferences that they don't *want* to see this type of image? It's essentially a display option or gadget, to be used or not at the discretion of the user. 2. the user can display even a hidden image just by clicking on it?
Zum gefühlten 1000. Mal: du bist dir doch wohl darüber im Klaren, dass
1. Bilder nur dann nicht gezeigt werden, wenn der Benutzer in seinen Einstellungen ausdrücklich angegeben hat, dass er solche Bilder nicht sehen *will*? Es ist im Grunde nichts weiter als eine Display-Option, oder ein Helferlein. Ob Leser die Funktion benutzen wollen oder nicht, liegt ganz in ihrem Ermessen. 2. Benutzer selbst ein nicht angezeigtes Bild jederzeit einblenden können, indem sie einfach auf das Bild klicken?
Andreas
I'd like to emphasize Carsten's point there-- many users (though I can't say how many) don't mind the otherwise shocking images when displayed in certain contexts; particularly medical, war, or art subjects.
A filter that is sensitive to whether a user has such a preference would be more ideal than one that blindly blocks each image for a certain user no matter the context.
Bob
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Möller, Carsten c.moeller@wmco.de wrote:
To filter it away without regard of the context is still regarded as censorship by serious journalists.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org