On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block >> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're >> the target market, after all. > I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful. > I've been thinking about how best to do it, on and off, for some time. > However, I don't think it's reasonable to require opt-out for images > that a large percentage of viewers don't want to see without warning. > If the people who want to see it can see it with just a click anyway, > they aren't losing anything if it's hidden by default. Especially if > it's just blurred out. You're making an assumption there on no evidence: a "large percentage" wanting to be opted out by default. If you write it, then logged-in users could give you numbers. (e.g. a Western World "worksafe" filter set will undoubtedly be popular.) Commons admins are in fact *painstaking* in accurate categorisation; the filter sets should be stable. >> (If that isn't enough and you insist it has to be something for >> default, then I fear you are unlikely to gain consensus on this.) > Does that mean you disagree with me but aren't saying why, or that you > agree but aren't bothering to say so because you're sure it won't > happen? The latter is where self-fulfilling prophecies come from. I think it's a bad idea *and* you are unlikely to obtain consensus. Because filtering for people who *haven't* asked is quite a different proposition from filtering for people who *have* asked, in what I'd hope are fairly obvious ways. [email protected] wrote: >I would suggest that any parent who is allowing their "young children" as one >message put it, to browser without any filtering mechanism, is deciding to >trust that child, or else does not care if the child encounters objectionable >material. The child's browsing activity is already open to five million porn >site hits as it stands, Commons isn't creating that issue. And Commons cannot >solve that issue. It's the parents responsibility to have the appropriate >self-selected mechanisms in place. And I propose that all parents who care, >already *do*. So this issue is a non-issue. It doesn't actually exist in any >concrete example, just in the minds of a few people with spare time. Indeed. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
