Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com>  wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
It is called censorship right at that moment when useful illustrations are removed because of their shock value, while arguing with the "the priciple of XYZ" from a rather extreme position. Good editorial judgment would include such depictions if they further the understanding of a topic. But bad editorial judgment tends to exclude useful depictions and to include useless/unrelated, shocking or not, depictions.
rather than something that can be imposed by filtering.
True for wikipedia but commons in particular needs some way or another
to provide more focused search results.
I already made a workable suggestion for Commons, but the interest from any side was very low:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/improving_search#A_little_bit_of_intelligence

Some seam not like to give up the idea of filtering (labeling) and others seam not to care. Overall we have a proposal that would be workable, being to the benefit of all users and would not introduce any controversy or additional work, once implemented.
(Although the board and staff claim that
editorial judgement they disagree with must just be trolling is how
"principle of least surprise" becomes "we need a filter system".)
Perhaps but I wasn't aware that their opinions were considered to be
of any significance at this point.

Okey they did block [[user:Beta_M]] but the fact that very much came
out of the blue shows how little consideration they are given these
days.


The fact remains that anyone who actually wants a filter could
probably put one together in the form of an Adblock plus filter list
within a few days. So far the only list I'm aware of is one I put
together to filter out images of Giant isopods.

I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter that there would already services in place that would filter the content or images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google APIs, but no real filter lists. Judging from your approach to filter out Giant isopods, we see that there is no general rule what should be filtered. Some dislike X, others Y and the next one likes X and Y but not Z. Overall this results in the wish to have as many suitable filters as possible, which at the same time results in massive tagging work.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to