From your recent comment on image hidingEdit
Just to make it clear: I for one reject introducing the filter because we were not asked if we wanted it in the first place. Period. This is no way to run a wiki or indeed any community these days. And then, if the problem is in the content you find on Commons, please go and solve in on Commons, i.e., delete the problematic content there and do not hold users responsible for their filter settings if they encounter something they don't want to see. No education project relies on explicit material in any way. Never. --Aschmidt 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- You present this argument concisely. But could you please clarify one thing: you say "in any way." Do you not feel that we educate readers about explicit topics? Do not many projects use explicit material to illustrate such topics? –SJ talk | translate 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, they do. Take Italian Wikipedia, e.g., that presents a video right away in its article on Eiaculazione. I think we do not need such material in Wikipedia, but at present it is a decision of the authors of the article to include it there. So everyone reading the article should be delivered the same article including all the multimedia material included. Another case in point mentioned on the foundation-l recently are Nazi swastikas. And there was also talk of child pornography and other strange imagery that is sexually explicit. Another example that is often mentioned are images depicting the prophet Mohammed or other Islamic or any other holy religious symbols. I understand that some of these pictures have already been deleted if they were there.
- Again: If we don't want explicit pictures, videos, etc., on Wikimedia projects, this material should be banned altogether so that it cannot be used in Wikimedia projects. Our goal is education, so we don't have to host everything. Besides, Wikimedia servers are no webhosting platforms, they serve a certain goal, viz. education. I use other sources for reference besides Wikipedia (most notably Credo reference, Britannica, Brockhaus and Larousse), they all do very well without any explicit material.
- I think the main error the foundation commits in all this is that it cannot stand aside from content that is available on Commons or indeed on any other Wikimedia platform saying we saddle the user with responsibility for that, it's up to him to adjust personal filter settings. The material is still there. So we as Wikimedians are responsible for that. Do we want such images, or videos in our projetcs? I don't.
- BTW, thanks for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on my point of view. I'm glad people with the Foundation are considering the introduction of an image filter critically.--Aschmidt 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)