[Foundation-l] A possible solution for the image filter

[Kim Bruning]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:20:06PM +0100, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
> <werespielchequers at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
> > involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
> > filtering being put on the uploader.
> 
> The objection to a flickr-style concept was to the "one size fits all"
> safe/not-safe rating done by a central staff.
> 
> As Stephen notes, Flickr's specific approach does involve deletion,
> suspension, etc etc etc, 

> but none of the proposals for the filter have
> suggested anything like this - there's no desire to remove the images,
> just to label them for display [or not] in articles.

And that labelling is the problem. It doesn't go so far as
censorship, agreed, but a labelling scheme _would_ seem to create a
set of censorship tools.

For some people that's over the line, for others it's not. 

Some people are debating how many angels will fit on the head of the needle
"Where do we draw the line"

Others feel offended in their core moralities, and are getting more disgusted and angry every day that this lasts, (And I do recognize that
there are many different core moralities).

I don't think we can say that our readers are more important than our
writers or vice versa. Personally, I don't believe we should make a
difference anyway. But on the other hand, it's a stupid argument even
if they're not. Without _both_ readers and writers (or reaters?
wriders? prosumers!) we don't have a wikipedia.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning