I second both of the comments above. Choosing which pictures should be censored is an ice slope and effects can be disastrous on long term. First gore photos, then pornography, then something else, in the end, we will end with censoring bad photos of persons ... WP:WPNOTCENSORED is a policy and we should take proper care to uphold it. A09|(pogovor)21:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think its better to say "This runs counter to the fundamental ethos of the English Wikipedia community" to begin with. Some people on hrwiki started a discussion recently on the issue, and thought not every (sexually explicit) image should be allowed in our articles. Those would be some images by many considered "not safe for work" or "not safe for children" (for whichever reason). This could be made an opt-out preference for anonymous and new users. ponor (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not censorship to have users click a button to see such images. It's really annoying and distracting when people call this censorship and describe far-off drastic scenarios of it being used to censor all sorts of things. It's even worse when this happens the same time as there is actual censorship-type deletions without any community outcry (e.g. see the many good sources of an article deleted without substitution in image) which is still widespread. Hypocrisy. There are lots of valid reasons why I as an adult may voluntarily not want to see such images. For example, I may not want to get distracted or not distracted from reading the more useful text. Preliminary support. However, this would be more useful for Commons where people want to show autoplaying gif animations of beheadings in the image results when searching for a flower when that flower can be seen in the GIF too and lots of unexpected porn is shown for porn-unrelated search results. Wikipedia can be and is also used by children (and I think more should be done for simple WP to be/copied to a child-ready widely used children's website) but that's not the reason why this would be useful. I think videos of gore should be displayed as before in articles like War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine but simply have a warning tag somewhere in the thumbnail. So in general I would consider this much more useful for WMC and am a bit unsure about if, when and where to use it on WP (maybe not blur them in articles where it's both expectable and adding much to the text). In any case, there should be a preference so people can simply disable all blurrings. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the wish @Baerbelcraft, it is a perennial proposal so I am glad you brought it up. I am not sure if you noticed but Phab:T198550 was added to your wish and it has extensive links and discussion about the issue.
In your wish I see you suggest prompting uploaders to mark files as disturbing, but I think that could cause disagreement between editors as to the definition of "disturbing". A different way would be to rely on an algorithm to decide. I would be more comfortable relying on an algorithm to decide on blurring rather than individual contributors. An algorithm would not be infallible, but more difficult to manipulate by lobby groups etc. Also there may be an expectation from readers that Wikipedia works like other top 10 websites in regards to blurring NSFW content.
There is the argument that when you look for content you shouldn't be surprised with what you get but in Commons when you search for egg cooking the first result is this (NSFW), so there may be applications outside English Wikipedia. Also, when you click on w:Futanari in English Wikipedia it starts with an innocuous icon, followed by a photo of some historic carvings and then presents a NSFW cartoon. This final image surprised me, but perhaps that is my fault for not thoroughly reading the text prior to scrolling down. A NSFW filter would have caught it (well not for, my preferences would be a set to disable all blurrings anyway). I also wonder if the article doesn't lead with the cartoon so as not to surprise the reader. Are Wikipedia editors working around the lack of a blur filter by changing editorial standards?
"Censorship" can be an evocative term. From Google it is the "the suppression or prohibition...". Prohibition terrifies Wikipedians (as it should). We are talking about one-click suppression. Commander Keane (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
_or_U%2B1F373_(35601151620).jpg){kind=link}