[WikiEN-l] Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

Thu Apr 14 19:50:48 UTC 2005

It seems that there are some who want to keep Wikipedia work-safe, and
others who want to avoid censorship.  I think that it be a good
compromise if we tagged the images individually by putting them in a
category, and somehow allowing users to filter out certain images in
their preferences.  This would require a patch in MediaWiki, but I think
it would be a good compromise, since:
a) It keeps Wikipedia work-safe/child-safe, for those who want it to be
b) It's not censoring Wikipedia since people are opting IN to it
c) People won't have to browse with images off to avoid being suprised
by offensive images
d) It doesn't affect people who don't mind these images, so we're still
providing information the same way it would be otherwise, we're just
giving people more options
e) It's easier, more precise, and more effective than turning off all images

The old argument is true: if you don't want to see a clitoris, then
don't go to [[clitoris]].  However, I think that especially if there are
semi-nude and other potentially offensive pictures in seemingly random
places, it's important to give people the liberty to view any images
they want.  Also, if I want to learn more about what something like
[[autofellatio]] is, I should be able to choose to display images as a
link if I want.  Even if I want to learn about [[autofellatio]], I might
not want to have a picture of a guy masturbating appear right next to
the information, and I should be given the liberty to choose to omit the
image without turning all images off (which many people don't know how
to do).

This would also solve the problem of not being able to censor images out
of the fear of being forced to censor images that offend very small
groups.  I'm referring a bit to the [[Owl]]/Navajo argument here.  While
most see it as ridiculous to hide images of owls on [[Owl]] just because
it offends a small minority, I think that it would be beneficial if we
allow people to individually decide whether they want these types of
images or not.  If you think that's censorship, I disagree, because it's
not banning any content, it's just giving users more power over the
display of the images than they previously had.  Since it doesn't
disrupt 'normal' users, I think it would be a great compromise to this
never-ending problem.

--Faraaz Damji (Frazzydee)

Blog: http://frazzydee.ca

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d? s:- a--- C+++ UL++ P+ L+ E---- W++ N+ o+ K+ w+
O? M-- V? PS++ PE Y PGP++ t 5-- X+ R tv b++ DI++ D+
G++ e- h! !r !z
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Sj wrote:
> Perhaps we can identify some reasonable notion of "work-safeness" and
> work to make the user experience work-safe for all of our readers.  
> Our primary goal should be to make the encyclopedia a useful and
> reliable resource, for as many people as possible, in as many
> environments as possible.  This includes making it reliably safe to
> let one's children use the encyclopedia, to refer to articles for
> illustration in the middle of a discussion or presentation, regardless
> of audience, to browse the encyclopedia at work.
> 
> I am not sure how to address the first case above - providing a site
> that parents would feel comfortable letting their 6-year-old browse. 
> But I think we can deal with the last two scenarios pretty well
> without a great deal of work.
> 
> At each step along the way, we can assume that the reader is '''doing
> his or her best''' to avoid looking up undesired pages or content. 
> Editors should avoid surprising users by showing them content they did
> not expect, and do not want, to see on a particular subject.  For
> instance, we have {{spoiler}} messages.  We should have the same kinds
> of messages for potentially offensive content [somehow I thought we
> did by now, but it seems this is not so.]
> 
> I've added a few templates ('obscenity', 'graphicviolence', and
> 'nonworksafe') to the end of  the General templates page; please see
> whether the text is appropriate, and add them to articles where
> needed.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/General
> 
> I think it is fair to assume that readers are doing all they can /not/
> to come across content that they or their employers find
> inappropriate.  It is also polite to warn readers when they are about
> to be shocked.
> 
> 1.  If the title of the article does *not* make it clear that it is
> not worksafe, or about violent or obscene or nude subjects; or
> 2.  If the content of one section, despite its relevance to the
> article as a whole, is unusually graphic, or potentially
> offensive/startling;
> 
> then a spoiler-type warning is probably appropriate.
> 
> On 4/13/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport at bluebottle.com> wrote:
> 
>>Sean Barrett said:
>>
>>>For me, the largest part of the problem with the Kate Winslet nude is
>>>that it renders all of Wikipedia non-work-safe.
>>
>>What does "work-safe" mean in this context?  If it's only the pictures,
>>why do you browse wikipedia with image downloads turned on?
> 
> 
> Images are a significant portion of the encyclopedia.  No-one should
> have to turn images off  simple because of a few poorly-announced and
> surprisingly-placed "non-work-safe" images.
> 