[Foundation-l] Is random article truly random

[Béria Lima]

I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population
(btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?)
are offended by ANYTHING.

If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way  to
create a filter.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*


On 19 October 2011 10:23, Andrew Garrett <agarrett at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with
> > humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you
> > too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine,
> > smiling with their teeth. If you must smile, do it with the lips, not
> > the teeth. But am I going to get that from wikipedia. No chance.
> > Should I get that from wikipedia. Emphatically no. As offensive as I
> > find huge bazoomba-lollobrigidas, they should be served to me and to
> > everyone else on wikipedia. Because we don't hide huge bosoms on
> > wikipedia. Period.
>
> Let's not pretend that there's no difference between this sort of
> preference and a preference for not seeing medical things, or for not
> seeing nudity, or for not seeing things that are religiously
> offensive, or for not seeing PTSD triggers or whatever.
>
> It's not a black and white issue, and we need to exercise some common
> sense and praxis. You need to weigh the administrative burden of
> maintaining categorisation (along with any other consequences of
> offering personal opt-out to individual classes of images, such as
> interface clutter and, yes, the potential for use by totalitarian
> regimes) against the participatory benefits afforded by giving readers
> more choice about what they see.
>
> Because images are high impact, they are good candidates for personal,
> opt-in content filtering. There are certain classes of image that
> allow us to attack 90% of the problem – that is, nudity that causes
> embarrassment at work and in public places, gore and bodily functions
> that 90% of the general public are offended by, and triggers for
> medical conditions such as PTSD or vasovagal conditions. I don't think
> anybody is suggesting we run around and identify every last image that
> could possibly offend anybody.
>
> Sure, there's no *qualitative* difference between things that offend
> 90% of the general public and some arbitrary thing that you make up
> that offends you. But there sure as hell is a quantitative difference,
> and any nuanced perspective on this argument should have an
> understanding of this. In my opinion it's worth giving a simple way
> for people to avoid 90% of the things that they might be offended by.
>
> --
> Andrew Garrett
> Wikimedia Foundation
> agarrett at wikimedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>