David Goodman hett schreven: > This is the first step towards censorship, and we should not take it. > It's not. We already are censored right now. Jimbo, board and foundation have expressed that they do not accept the status quo (the status quo being that Commons is largely uncensored) and the "cleanup project" censored away our "surplus" of explicit material.
The tagging of images is a way to keep the status quo of being uncensored while also giving people the chance to filter content they deem inapropiate. We have to balance between censorship applied by us and censorship applied by others. There is an interest in censorship and we can do nothing about it. It's a fact we have to accept. If schools don't want to see penises on their school computers we won't have success to convince them to allow penises. They will just block penises. If there's no way for them to tell apart "penis-containing pages" and "non-penis-containing pages" they may decide to block all Wikipedia pages. That's a bad outcome. If we provide good tags they may be able to tell them apart and they will only block the penises, not the other pages. Better than being blocked altogether. The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a page as "containing pornography", which is entirely subjective, we should rather tag the page as "contains a depiction of an erect penis" or "contains a depiction of oral intercourse". Marcus Buck User:Slomox _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
