Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris<t...@tommorris.org> wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no "running out of the box"
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
would be minimal compared to anything else.
I would say that Citizendium failed because they did no automatic
updating. What i have in mind is delayed mirror with update control. It
is not meant to be edited by hand. It is a subset of the current content
selected by the host (one or many users) of the page himself. It is
essentially a whitelist for Wikipedia that only contains
selected/checked content. That way a "childrens Wiki" could easily be
created, by not including any unwanted content, while the effort stays
minimal. (Not more effort then to create your own book from a list of
already written articles)
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution
rather than a filtered mirror is preferable. If a filtered mirror were to
come into existence and become popular, this would mean that people would
just filter all of main Wikipedia, which would prevent people from editing
Wikipedia. A client-side solution means they are still looking at
wikipedia.org just without naughty pics and doesn't interfere with
editing. It also reduces the need for any servers.
The technical solution is a fairly trivial part of the problem; a
client-side filter could probably be put together in a few days IMO.
The *hard* problem is convincing the "not censored" abusers that it's a
useful feature for our community.
Tom
It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
that aren't interested in such a feature. If we tag images inside the
project itself then we impose our judgment onto it, while ignoring or
separating it from the context it is used in. The first proposal
(referendum) mentioned various tagging options/categories that would
have to be maintained by the community, despite existing and huge
backlogs. Additionally we are a multi culture project with quite
different view points and which accepts different view points (main
difference between Flickr and Co). The result will be huge amount of
discussions about whether to tag an image or not. This leads me to the
simple conclusion that it isn't worth the effort, especially if the
filter is advertised to make Wikipedia a save place for children, while
everyone (including children) can disable it at any time.
Separate projects that only focus on one task (providing a whitelisted
view, an automatically updated subset of Wikipedia) would not be a
burden for the community or at least for everyone not interested in or
against filtering. Additionally it could define it's own strict rules
and could even hide images and articles entirely depending on it's goal.
But i have to add that the WMF should not be part of this projects. This
projects define their own rules like Flickr and Co.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
