David Gerard wrote: Agreed. As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as validation that its earlier claims were correct. And because any "graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious problem and have made only a token effort to address it. Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt. It was an enormous mistake to respond to this "news" organization as though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity. David Levy

Hi, Le lundi 10 mai 2010 13:25:29, David Gerard a écrit : "Filtering" ourselves would be pointless if our goal was to appease Fox [1]. However, I think most of us agree that it has not been, is not and should not be our goal. As you say very well yourself, Fox is best left ignored. Our goal is to facilitate the dissemination of free knowledge, and to provide the best experience possible to our readers, our participants and more generally our population of users. In this context, I think it makes sense to research the needs or our users, and investigate possible ways to improve their experience on our websites. If a significant amount of our users wish to be able to filter out some parts of our content, we should do our best to empower them to do so, as a service to them. [1] I'm having a hard time using the oxymoron "Fox News", so I'm just using "Fox". -- Guillaume Paumier Product Manager, Multimedia Usability Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate