[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least kill the responsible person."

[Wily D]

On Feb 5, 2008 11:28 AM, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> WilyD wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2008 9:14 AM, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> >> "Censorship" is of course a heavily loaded word, but I've never
> >> viewed content-tagging mechanisms, or "hide" mechanisms that are
> >> positively *un*hidden by default, as censorship.
> >
> > Err, I'm sure we could ram any "opt-in" image hiding solution into
> > place.  "Opt-out" solutions are a different matter.
>
> By "opt-in", I assume you mean that someone can opt in to the
> hiding mechanism, meaning that they have to explicitly opt *out*
> of seeing the potentially-offending content.  And vice versa.
>
> (But although this sort of thing seems like an obvious and
> reasonable compromise to me, I'm not so sure we could just
> "ram one through", because plenty of people do seem to equate
> such things with unacceptable censorship.  See e.g. Chris Howie's
> comments elsethread: "We do not censor ourselves.  This includes
> opt-in/out mechanisms that are censorship bearing the form of a
> reasonable compromise.")
>
>
Err, yes.  A little button that said "Hide images that represent
Muhammad" would be a solution I'd endorse, anyhow. A little button
that said "Unhide images that represent Muhammad" I wouldn't.

We already offer a monobook.js solution in the FAQ on how to do this,
but something easier to use wouldn't be the end of the world.

Cheers
WilyD