4 ms·
Isn't the easy solution to require logins for particularly adult content (even if it only requires login for part of the content of an article) in the same way
by nopassrecover 16y ago
Isn't the easy solution to require logins for particularly adult content (even if it only requires login for part of the content of an article) in the same way YouTube does? You could also enable "mouse-overs" for authenticated users so they don't see potentially "offensive" images straight away.
- sketerpot 16y agoThat actually sounds like it would be fairly easy to add to the wiki software, and practical as well. You could even just add a cookie to remember people's preferences about adult images, the way Google Image Search remembers your "SafeSearch" preferences for a while even if you're not logged in.
- epochwolf 16y agoThis isn't easy to add actually. The mediawiki software, last I checked, doesn't have this capability and adding it would be a royal pita.
- cookiecaper 16y agoI don't know if you've ever worked on Wikipedia, but in my experience, they get really, really pissed when you mention any kind of obfuscation of "objectionable" content. Of course, now that Godking Jimbo has gone an anti-porn crusade, the story might be different, but just look at the talk page on clitoris and you can see the rabidness with which they defend graphic depictions coming out of nowhere. It's not that the content shouldn't be available or that a photograph of a clit isn't appropriate for the article, it's just that unsuspecting users may not want to be innocently clicking "Random Article" and end up with a picture of a vagina on their screen, you know? But the Wikipedia people don't know.