> 2011/9/18 Oliver Koslowski <[email protected]>: >> Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels: >>> On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system >>> for >>> that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach >>> consent. Who >>> decides whether a page is in a category? Who decides whether a page >>> has an >>> image? Who decides whether something is decribed on a page? All the >>> same. >> >> Our typical system of categories is designed to make it easier to >> /find/ >> (related) articles or media. Good luck trying that with a system that >> is >> designed to /hide/ things. And this doesn't seem like an awful waste of >> precious time to you? For a feature that is not all that likely to be >> popular on a global scale? > > +1 > At the beginning, I was quite neutral about a filter: I had no idea > how it would work, and I wouldn't use it, but what if somebody else > wants it? > > But after reading nearly all comments on this list, I think that the > arguments for a filter do not hold water. The pratical implemention > would be a nightmare, and the purpose not really within Wikimedia > mission. The thread above on how to create categories for a filter is > full of irrational assumptions, impracticable propositions, and > impossible solutions. It seems it is time to drop the whole idea... > >> Regards, >> Oliver > > Regards, > > Yann
I agree. I do support "censorship". There is absolutely no excuse for hosting an image of Mohammad as a dog, but this is a Rube Goldburg boondoggle. Fred _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
