[Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
marianocecowski at yahoo.com.ar
Fri Dec 10 07:28:15 UTC 2010
--- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> escribió:
> De: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46
> --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski
> <marianocecowski at yahoo.com.ar>
> > Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
> > I'm sorry we are putting more energy
> > into what should be banned from commons instead of
> > for mechanisms to protect those readers who would
> prefer to
> > stay away from such content.
> > I mean, I understand the problem with paedophilia, and
> > it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, but I
> > it is equally important to provide with the means to
> > the content to users in their desired level of
> > tagging, collapsing and hiding graphic content would
> do the
> > trick, and it is technologically straightforward.
> > Cheers,
> > MarianoC
> Such a system was indeed among the recommendations put
> forward by the 2010
> Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, paralleling
> similar systems in
> place at major sites such as Google, youtube and flickr.
> As for the Commons sexual content policy poll: there are
> currently 144
> editors in support, and 138 opposing adoption of the
> policy. The community
> is almost exactly split down the middle.
Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism, but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
Why do we have to decide what we delete before we decide what we hide (acording to user preferences) ?
More information about the wikimedia-l