On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > That's not from the Harris report. What was the justification in the > report?
Because they were investigating solutions to problems *on* Wikipedia. Seems rather obvious ;) Or perhaps you didn't read parts in full, this for example: For example, all of these sites, as WMF pages do, have internally-generated > policies that determine what content is permitted on their sites at all. Or However, on every one of these sites, they also employ a series of > user-controlled options (options designed by the site) that allow users to > tailor their viewing experiences to their individual needs. Unique among > these sites, at the moment, Wikimedia projects employ no such options. I'm not sure where you are leading with this line of argument.. but it seems to be down a black hole :) Tom _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
