[WikiEN-l] Kate Winslet Exposure

Thu Apr 14 20:04:31 UTC 2005

1. When has vandalism ever been a reason not to include a new feature?
There's already tons of vandalism, this will merely be another blip on
the radar.
2. Then don't go through the filter, choose them from a drop-down box.
If you need images to help you see what nudity is, then that's your
prerogative.

I didn't know there was discussion on IRC about this...I made a post to
WikiEN-l: Nude Kate Winslet Picture about the same thing :P

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------

Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> Actually, we were discussing this very issue on IRC earlier. The main
> problem we found with this was that it would be a new target for
> vandals - to recategorise various images into unrelated categories.
> Also, when going through the filter to select categories that they do
> not wish to see, people might find it objectionable to have content
> like beheadings or sexual activity available for people to view. I'm
> assuming of course that all 'categories' of images like this would be
> on by default - also, this would only be practical if it were for
> registered users, of which the vast majority of visitors aren't.
> 
> Chris (Talrias on en.wikipedia.org)
> 
> On 4/14/05, Tom Haws <hawstom at sprintmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Compromise alert.
>>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But wouldn't that offend people who don't want to see
>>>violence?  ~~~~
>>>
>>
>>Rick's suggestion reminds me that there is lots of content that can't be
>>prohibited, but could be labelled.  If Wikipedia only had a way of
>>labelling the image in question as something factual like "female;
>>photographed; breast exposed; glamorous", then I or anybody else could
>>browse Wikipedia with our filter on, and the rest of you could enjoy
>>unfiltered.
>>
>>Wikipedia as a whole, in a practical sense, belongs to each of us.  But
>>its multitude of facets are apportioned among us according to our
>>interests and specialties.  There is no reason why content labels cannot
>>exist as a facet of Wikipedia that is largely ignored by those who are
>>disinterested in the associated needs.  And there is no reason why
>>sexology areas can't exist.
>>
>>The unreasonable positions are the ones that insist 1) strange niche
>>areas (sexology) can't exist or be illustrated or 2) any content at all
>>(Kate Winslet) cannot be subject to labelling for special needs.
>>
>>Does that sound wrong to anybody?
>>
>>Tom Haws
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> 
> 
> 