I would freaking LOVE to see the study who proves 90% of the population (btw, which population? USA, Americas, Europe, Asia, World, Wikipedians?) are offended by ANYTHING.
If you show me, I myself change course in College and go study a way to create a filter. _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.* On 19 October 2011 10:23, Andrew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've said this before. I would like to not look at women with > > humongously oversize breasts (And yes, Dolly Parton, this means you > > too) or women with perfect teeth whitened to porcelain level shine, > > smiling with their teeth. If you must smile, do it with the lips, not > > the teeth. But am I going to get that from wikipedia. No chance. > > Should I get that from wikipedia. Emphatically no. As offensive as I > > find huge bazoomba-lollobrigidas, they should be served to me and to > > everyone else on wikipedia. Because we don't hide huge bosoms on > > wikipedia. Period. > > Let's not pretend that there's no difference between this sort of > preference and a preference for not seeing medical things, or for not > seeing nudity, or for not seeing things that are religiously > offensive, or for not seeing PTSD triggers or whatever. > > It's not a black and white issue, and we need to exercise some common > sense and praxis. You need to weigh the administrative burden of > maintaining categorisation (along with any other consequences of > offering personal opt-out to individual classes of images, such as > interface clutter and, yes, the potential for use by totalitarian > regimes) against the participatory benefits afforded by giving readers > more choice about what they see. > > Because images are high impact, they are good candidates for personal, > opt-in content filtering. There are certain classes of image that > allow us to attack 90% of the problem – that is, nudity that causes > embarrassment at work and in public places, gore and bodily functions > that 90% of the general public are offended by, and triggers for > medical conditions such as PTSD or vasovagal conditions. I don't think > anybody is suggesting we run around and identify every last image that > could possibly offend anybody. > > Sure, there's no *qualitative* difference between things that offend > 90% of the general public and some arbitrary thing that you make up > that offends you. But there sure as hell is a quantitative difference, > and any nuanced perspective on this argument should have an > understanding of this. In my opinion it's worth giving a simple way > for people to avoid 90% of the things that they might be offended by. > > -- > Andrew Garrett > Wikimedia Foundation > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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
