________________________________
From: "Möller, Carsten" <c.moeller(a)wmco.de>
To: "foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <foundation-l(a)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