Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer is permanently or indefinitely protected. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit. |
[edit] New stuff at the bottom please.
- Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 1 -- older discussion
- Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/placement -- discussion of placement
- Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 2 -- June 2003-April 2004
- Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 3 -- May 2004-March 2005
[edit] Interwiki links
Please add the following two interwiki links:
[[sv:Wikipedia:Förbehåll för innehåll]] [[vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn v%E1%BB%81 n%E1%BB%99i dung]]
Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Done. jni 09:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As an administrator in Chinese Wikipedia, I just linked here therefrom. Please add an interwiki to Chinese:
[[zh:Wikipedia:内容声明]]
Thanks. --Jusjih 07:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal: Option to disable ALL inline images
(I think I saw that this has been proposed and rejected before, but what the hey...)
Whereas:
- Some people, for various reasons, don't want to see images of sex or violence. (For instance, I often browse Wikipedia at school, and I don't want everyone in the classroom to see me looking at a big Autofellatio.jpg vandalism.)
- These same people might not mind seeing text describing the same thing, becase (a) people across the room can't see what you're reading (easily) and (b) images have a greater impact on people - they're more disturbing to the viewer, and much more likely to piss off other people in the room, than text would be.
- Proposals have been made to flag images as "sexual" or "violent" or otherwise objectionable, but the topic is so fraught with politics and emotion that any such system will be inherently POV and lead to massive edit wars, and thus has been rightly turned down.
- Turning off images globally is incredibly inconvenient if you browse other sites at the same time. Even in browsers that let you disable images from just wikipedia.org (and I don't think MSIE is one of these), it still presents a number of inconveniences:
- You can't see the nice images in the skin.
- You can't see LaTeX-rendered math, which isn't likely to be that obscene.
- You can't see the tool buttons on the edit form. Etc.
- If you do want to see an image in an article, you have to unblock images. In Firefox, this is just a right-click operation, but it's almost certainly harder in IE and other browsers.
Therefore, I suggest having an option in Preferences that would allow users to disable showing any inline images in pages. (I mean things included from the Image: namespace, not LaTeXified equations, skin images, tool buttons, etc.) The description and a link to the Image: namespace would be shown, and if they wanted to see the image they could click on the link.
- It's still inconvenient and impedes viewing, but far superior to blocking all images, either from all sites or from wikipedia.org.
- Yes, images could still be uploaded over and vandalized. There's a solution to that, too: have an option that would:
- When the link in the article to the Image: namespace is clicked on, go to a page with a thumbnail (max 100px in either dimension, scaled down a minimum of 3x) image.
- The user would then look at the thumbnail. It's easy to tell whether or not it's objectionable this way, but a thumbnail is less likely to be disturbing to the viewer and to other people in the area.
- If the user then clicks on the thumbnail, they see the full-size image.
- Having this option off by default is fine, in case anyone sees having it on by default as censorship.
- This could also help with the (so far hypothetical, I hope) problem of filtering software blocking all of Wikipedia because it might contain naughty pictures.
Comments?
Nickptar 20:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd support such a thing. But such a proposal would need to be ran by wikipedia's technical people, as well as policy people, where ever that is Borgs8472 15:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Please add category...
Please add to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks! -- Beland 01:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Minor wording change
I changed the sentence saying that "essentially all" articles are written by non-experts to a statement that "the great majority" are written by non-experts. The experts are a small minority here, but there are a fair number of them floating around, and some are very active. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits has two Ph.D.s in mathematics in the top 15, and I suspect that the majority of our math articles are by mathematicians or math grad students. "Essentially all" in my mind means that there might be a handful of exceptions, not entire broad subject areas of exceptions. Isomorphic 08:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is controversial so I was bold and just changed it, but I thought I ought to note my reasoning since the page is protected. Isomorphic 08:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Interwiki
Please add [[it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer sui contenuti]] Snowdog 23:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Censorship option in prefs
How about an option in user prefs that allows text censorship? Those who don't want to see swearing could have it masked or have the page blocked completely, depending on the options. --Adbabypenguin 11:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Interwiki
Please, someone add interwiki to pt:Wikipedia:Aviso de conteúdo. --555pt 12:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Many Thousands?
Perhaps it should now read "over a million articles". —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto. I was on my way over here but you beat me. :) —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 02:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] İnterwiki addition request...
Would you please add the interwiki link for tr: ?
--Doruk Salancı 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Check! Uncle G 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Make wikipedia understandable to everybody
Salve, "graphical depiction" is a strange expression for "picture" or "image". Why not use the simple alternative? NOTE: A depiction is always graphical. There's no need for that adjective. IP
[edit] clarification
We've got:
- Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles on a vast array of topics. A relatively small fraction of these topics are frequently censored by educational, governmental, corporate, parental and other filtering schemes.
On first reading, this makes it sound like governments et al. are actively editing Wikipedia to perform their censorship. Can someone with write access change the second sentence to
- A relatively small fraction of these articles are on topics which various educational, governmental, or corporate institutions would wish to censor. Some or all Wikipedia articles may therefore be blocked and unavailable to some readers due to such an institution's automated filtering schemes.
—Steve Summit (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Interwiki request
Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:
[[sr:Википедија:Одрицање за садржај]]
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
