Talk:Image filter referendum/Archives

This is an index of archives; for recent discussion, see Talk:Image filter referendum. Please do not post new comments on these pages; if you wish to revive a discussion, either move it back to the main page or link to it. For help archiving pages, see standard archival system .

Archives

April to August, 2011: 1 User option to display immediately| 2 Committee membership| 3 User option to display immediately| 4 Cost| 5 Voting process: 5.1 Transparency of voting, 5.2 Ability to change our vote | 6 Status of referendum text | 7 Vote/Referendum Question | 8 Suggest splitting question | 9 Quantification of representation of the world-wide populace | 10 Transferring the board | 11 Inadvertent overwrite with telugu translation | 12 What does this mean? | 13 IP editors | 14 Please be sure to release ballots | 15 Referendum start moved to Monday, August 15 | 16 Self censorship is fine, thus this is a great idea | 17 Self Consorship? | 18 Waste of time | 19 What does "culturally neutral" mean? | 20 Tired of censorship | 21 Translation problems | 22 Voting instructions | 23 Another blow against freedom | 24 What does the referendum mean? | 25 When did personal preference become synonymous with censorship? | 26 Ambigious questions | 27 Blindfolds and stupidity? | 28 EN Banner message - misunderstood it at first reading | 29 UI comments | 30 Javascript | 31 "Error fetching your account information from the server." | 32 Implementing the feature is the wrong signal to the world | 33 Details about the flagging system are needed
August, 2011: 1 Stay focused| 2 Impractical and Dangerous| 3 How will category pages and galleries look like ?| 4 Some Questions on the "Editors support" | 5 clarification added| 6 Visible to anonymous users who can't vote?| 7 Terrible idea!| 8 Categories as "filter tags"| 9 If I wanted to design something that worked...| 10 Protest voting| 11 Correction| 12 Hiding the Pokemon Logo as Inappropriate Content... Really?| 12.1 Fair use for the Pokemon Logo| 13 Oops| 14 Real Vote or Fait Accompli?| 15 No| 16 crying| 17 But - will *they* stop whining?| 18 Wording of text for hidden images| 19 A "referendum" is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal.| 20 General view + essay| 21 Referendum?| 22 Way too complicated/burdensome process.| 23 Process| 24 discussion (how to get large-scale community feedback)| 25 Process query: 25.1 Request for semi-protect of this talk page (translate: request to filter views); 25.2 The obvious reason why it will not work| 26 Educational materials| 27 Spam/Canvassing| 28 Voting for contributors.| 29 Sorry, you cannot vote in this election if you are blocked on 2 or more wikis.| 30 Can't seem to vote| 31 What is this stupidity| 32 What is the question being asked?: 32.1 Biased referendum | 33 Meaning of the Referendum | 34 WMF "censorship" log | 35 How to express a "no" | 36 Why do we need to vote? | 37 Alternative ideas| 37.1 low-res thumbnails: 37.2 (assisted) browser plug-in, 37.3 Collaspable image, 37.4 Suppress all images| 38 Scope| 39 Design: 39.1 Block all images option, 39.2 Different idea for categorization, 39.3 Allow people to make up their own categories, 39.4 Practical considerations , 39.5 Thoughts on unauthenticated users, flagging, and categories., 39.6 How to, 39.7 Comment (registering)
August, 2011: 1 Categories: 1.1 Categories - it doesn't work, 1.2 Children's Games Category?, 1.3 GUI mock-up is misleading, has far fewer categories than is realistic (and reflected in discussion on this page) | 2 Usage of the filter: 2.1 Pictures of Muhammad, 2.2 Will this image be deleted?, 2.3 Things don't have to been viewed?, 2.4 Does this mean you're going to stop censoring Goatse?, 2.5 bad proposal badly worded, 2.6 Breasts, 2.7 Criterion creep, 2.8 Suggesting stricter limits and narrower, more straightforward categories, 2.9 Severely Negative Effects of This Feature, 2.9.1 Discussion of problem, 2.10 Relevance | 3 Legal/liability issues: 3.1 Does this mean that Wikimedia Foundation is taking a position on what constitutes objectionable material? | 4 Matters of principles: 4.1 Neutrality, 4.2 1984, 4.3 My own, belated, dismay, 4.4 Best thing ever, 4.5 Chinese government's dream, 4.6 Great, nothing else than censorship, 4.7 "Principle of Least Astonishment" usage, 4.8 Images are editorial choices, 4.9 1984, 4.10 My own, belated, dismay, 4.11 Next Step: Filters for Objectionable Ideas, 4.12 Best thing ever, 4.13 Chinese government's dream, 4.14 Great, nothing else than censorship, 4.15 VOTE NO | 5 Concerns: 5.1 This would be a waste of time, 5.2 This would be a distraction from Foundation principles, 5.3 Technical limitations, 5.4 Additional maintenance overhead, 5.5 Filtering, 5.6 Public reaction | 6 Other: 6.1 Other Projects, 6.2 More editor will be leaving, 6.3 Bowdlerizing Wikipedia, 6.4 They dont care / they dont know, 6.5 Well meaning, but unworkable, 6.6 Still not anonymising accidentally included citizens: money better spent? | 7 Definitions: 7.1 "servers hosted by a neutral third party" | 8 Process: 8.1 I'm so glad I can't vote!, 8.2 Voting (where?), 8.3 I also got an email about a referendum but I cannot vote! | 9 What's a referendum and what's this: 9.1 Importance vs. should/shouldn't, 9.2 Survey format is limited, and alien to our culture | 10 Alternative ideas: 10.1 How is this necessary when there are userscripts? | 11 Design: 11.1 Opt out of seeing the "hide content" tabs (or opt-in)
August, 2011: 1 Controversy in selection of categories, classification | 2 Soapbox | 3 A waste of server resources paid for with donated funds? | 4 Effort better spent on improving articles? | 5 My old Schoolbooks