4 ms·

This is some FUD. See WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship for why most of what this guy says is nonsense, and for information on how Wikipedia already al

by ek 14y ago

This is some FUD. See WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship for why most of what this guy says is nonsense, and for information on how Wikipedia already allows institutions like public schools that may require filtering of explicit content to configure it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia...

jim-greer 14y ago
I don't think the filtering options you link to are realistic for public schools. They amount to configuring your browser to not show images, configure a skin which uses a blacklist of 'limited utility', or use a 3rd party proxy that gets no help from Wikipedia. > Logged-in users can use personal cascading style sheets to display of images selectively (explained below). > By filtering content locally, either by configuring their web browser (including the possibility to display no images at all), or by setting up a proxy (such as Privoxy) (explained below). edit: added limited blacklist option
- r0s 14y ago
  By that logic installing and configuring all other computer systems will be equally unrealistic.
kevinchen 14y ago
Additionally, removing offensive images is directly against Wikipedia's goal of recording the sum of all human knowledge. Indecent things and ideas are important to document too.
kevinpet 14y ago
What does wikipedians against censorship say about him? It seems to argue against censorship. There's a subset of wikipedia editors who seem to be constitutionally unable to differentiate between "censorship" and "discretion". Try this one on: "Hi, this article that doesn't seem to have anything to do with nudity has a picture of a naked woman at the top, where it is particularly likely to be problematic for people browsing at work. Here is a non-nude picture that illustrates the topic of the article equally well. Any objections to changing it?" If you cry censorship, you do not know what that word means. Here's the real discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_5#Not_Safe_For_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_5#Not_Sa...

by ek 14y ago

jim-greer 14y ago

I don't think the filtering options you link to are realistic for public schools. They amount to configuring your browser to not show images, configure a skin which uses a blacklist of 'limited utility', or use a 3rd party proxy that gets no help from Wikipedia. > Logged-in users can use personal cascading style sheets to display of images selectively (explained below). > By filtering content locally, either by configuring their web browser (including the possibility to display no images at all), or by setting up a proxy (such as Privoxy) (explained below). edit: added limited blacklist option

r0s 14y ago
By that logic installing and configuring all other computer systems will be equally unrealistic.

kevinchen 14y ago

Additionally, removing offensive images is directly against Wikipedia's goal of recording the sum of all human knowledge. Indecent things and ideas are important to document too.

kevinpet 14y ago

What does wikipedians against censorship say about him? It seems to argue against censorship. There's a subset of wikipedia editors who seem to be constitutionally unable to differentiate between "censorship" and "discretion". Try this one on: "Hi, this article that doesn't seem to have anything to do with nudity has a picture of a naked woman at the top, where it is particularly likely to be problematic for people browsing at work. Here is a non-nude picture that illustrates the topic of the article equally well. Any objections to changing it?" If you cry censorship, you do not know what that word means. Here's the real discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_5#Not_Safe_For_Work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_5#Not_Sa...