On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 14:59, Tobias Oelgarte <tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm a little bit confused by this approach. On the one side it is good > to have this information stored privately and personal, on the other > side we encouraging the development of filter lists and the tagging of > possibly objectionable articles. The later wouldn't be private at all > and even worse then tagging single images. In fact it would be some kind > of additional force to ban images from articles just to keep them in the > "clean" section. > > Overall i see little to now advantage over the previously supposed > solutions. It is much more complicated, harder to implement, more > resource intensive and not a very friendly interface for readers. >
Err, think of it with an analogy to AdBlock. You can have lists stored privately (in Adblock: in your browser settings files, in an image filter: on the WMF servers but in a secret file that they'll never ever ever ever release promise hand-on-heart*) and you can have lists stored publicly (in Adblock: the various public block lists that are community-maintained so that you don't actually see any ads, in an image filter: on the web somewhere). And you can put an instruction in the former list to transclude everything on a public list and keep it up-to-date. Given it works pretty well in Adblock, I don't quite see how that's a big deal for Wikimedia either. Performance wise, you just have it so the logged in user has a list of images they don't want to see, and you have a script that every hour or so downloads and caches the public list, then when they call to retrieve the list for the purposes of seeing what's on it, it simply concatenates the two. This seems pretty straightforward. And if the WMF doesn't do it - perhaps because people are whinging that me being given the option to opt-in and *not* see "My micropenis.jpg" is somehow evil and tyrannical and contrary to NOTCENSORED - it could possibly be done as a service by an outside group and then implemented on Wikipedia using userscripts. The difference is that the WMF may do it in a slightly more user-friendly way given that they have access to the servers. * That's less sarcastic than it sounds. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l