[Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork

Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com
Sat Oct 22 23:14:58 UTC 2011

Am 23.10.2011 00:13, schrieb Erik Moeller:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
> <tobias.oelgarte at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
>> the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
> 1) Add a "collapsible" [*] parameter to the File: syntax, e.g.
> [[File:Lemonparty.jpg|collapsible]].
> 2) When present, add a notice [*] to the top of the page enabling the
> reader to collapse collapsible images (and to make that the default
> setting for all pages if desired).
> 3) When absent, do nothing.
> [*] The exact UI language here could be discussed at great length, but
> is irrelevant to the basic operating principles.
> Advantages:
> * Communities without consensus to use collapsible media don't have to
> until/unless such a consensus emerges. It can be governed by normal
> community policy.
> * One community's judgments do not affect another community's.
> Standards can evolve and change over time and in the cultural context.
> * Readers of projects like Hebrew and Arabic Wikipedia (which are
> already collapsing images) who are currently not empowered to choose
> between "collapsed by default" vs. "expanded by default" would be
> enabled to do so.
> * Readers only encounter the notice on pages that actually have
> content where it's likely to be of any use.
> * Respects the editorial judgment of the community, as opposed to
> introducing a parallel track of "controversial content assessment".
> Doesn't pretend that a technical solution alone can solve social and
> editorial challenges.
> * Easy to implement, easy to iterate on, easy to disable if there are issues.
> Disadvantages:
> * Doesn't help with the specific issues of Wikimedia Commons (what's
> educational scope) and with issues like sorting images of masturbation
> with electric toothbrushes into the toothbrush category. Those are
> arguably separate issues that should be discussed separately.
> * Without further information about what our readers want and don't
> want, we're reinforcing pre-existing biases (whichever they may be) of
> each editorial community, so we should also consider ways to
> continually better understand our audience.
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Isn't that the same as putting some images inside the category 
"inappropriate content"? Will it not leave the impression to the reader 
that "we" think that this is something not anybody should see? Can it be 
easily used by providers to filter out this images?

I would add the answers to this questions to "disadvantages".


More information about the foundation-l mailing list