--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) ? > > MarianoC.-
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases: * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law * Sexual images of people uploaded without their knowledge and consent The first is simply a requirement to comply with the law, while the second is a moral issue; we shouldn't host an image of a woman giving a blowjob for example if the woman has not given her consent to have the image uploaded, and is unaware of its presence on Commons. Excluding those types of cases has nothing to do with the viewer experience; it has to do with protecting the foundation, and the privacy of the people depicted. Andreas * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:PORN#Commons_is_not_an_amateur_porn_site > From: Mariano Cecowski <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 7:28 > > > --- El jue 9-dic-10, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > escribió: > > > De: Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> > > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of > Controversial Content > > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> > > Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46 > > --- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40 > > > I'm sorry we are putting more energy > > > into what should be banned from commons instead > of > > searching > > > for mechanisms to protect those readers who > would > > prefer to > > > stay away from such content. > > > > > > I mean, I understand the problem with > paedophilia, and > > why > > > it needs to be kept outside wikimedia projects, > but I > > think > > > it is equally important to provide with the means > to > > present > > > the content to users in their desired level of > > exposure; > > > 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. > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two#User-Controlled_Viewing_Options > > > > 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. > > > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content#Second_poll_for_promotion_to_policy_.28December_2010.29 > > > > Andreas > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
