[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

geni wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting the preferences up accordingly.
>>
> 
> And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start to offer a
> partially censored version as standard you are basically going to have
> to fight an eternal war until you give up and reacht he bottom of the
> slippery slope.
> 

No you don't. There are some on flickr that want to publish their art 
nudes as 'safe' content, and others that want to post bukkake as 
'moderate' or whatever. They tehn complain when flickr ban them from 
posting any image as 'safe'. They can still post images but they will 
all be made moderate, or restricted.

Most of the 'Adult' content posting community have little sympathy for 
the complainants. And whilst the system is perfect you don't generally 
stumble across porn unless you go looking for it.

To work the content categories need to be few and broad otherwise the 
system will be too complicated. Also the boundaries between one category 
and the next somewhat elastic otherwise people will game it. When 
moderating content if in doubt move it up to the next higher 
restriction, because people can always override it if they chose.