On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > I guess Tom misunderstood my comment. I wrote down a simple plan how an > > external solution could work and how to minimize the effort to maintain > it. > > If there is a community (it might overlap with our community) that would > run > > such a "filter portal" (or even multiple portals) then it should be even > > more sufficient as if we would implement filters inside Wikipedia itself. > > They could really block images and make a child-save zone after their own > > definition, while we could continue as usual without having the burden to > > avoid conflicts. > > > The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do > it on the site itself: > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Two > > It's still not clear to me (looking over part two or part one) why it > has to be on the site itself and no post-site solution is acceptable. > Presumably someone interested can dredge through part one and pick out > the sentences that back this position as opposed to post-site > filtering.
Utility; hiding a filter on a lower order site does not make it useful. Incorporating it into the main site (prefferably client side) makes it the most accessible for our community. Tom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
