On 21 September 2011 19:05, Andre Engels <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I still can't the a rational difference between images included in >> articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the >> will of the community. > > It's much easier to note offensive text fragments before reading them than > to note offensive images before seeing them. But I guess the more > fundamental issue is: there are, I assume, people who have requested this > feature for images. There are either no or only very few who have requested > it for text.
I've almost never seen complaints about specific fragments of text in five years of handing OTRS mails, other than vandalism or the sort of bad writing that we discourage anyway. I assume the sort of thing that provokes this is taboo vocabulary - swearing, etc - but we tend to keep that to a minimum in articles anyway. We *do* get more generalised "how dare you have articles on this sort of thing", as you'd expect, but those are subtly different. When the objection's to having an article at all, any demand for a filtering system would involve filtering the entire article... and an article you've specifically told the system not to show you is really just the same as an article you've glanced at and decided not to read. It's a bit circular - the filter wouldn't do anything more than your interaction with the site does anyway, so why agitate for one? For images, on the other hand, it's a relatively coherent position to be willing to *read* about sex or violence without wanting to look at pictures of it - a system which allows someone to choose to read the article without looking at the pictures thus makes more sense in comparison. -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
