User talk:Bob the Wikipedian/Virgo

Slippery slope[edit]

Yikes. There is a religion for all sorts of things and my religion might forbid me to look at articles that don't have images with nudity. I appreciate the effort here but this does seem to empower censorship on a religious level. That doesn't seem like a bad idea, well, to some folks it might not - but there are many public entities, schools, libraries, government buildings that would then look to filtering out objectionable material. This seems like a really bad idea with some good intentions. Not sure who needs to be saved from the nudie pix but perhaps there is another way? -- Banjeboi 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns won't be a concern so long as you don't take any action on the issue. In other words, the only people who will be affected are those who arrive at this page and follow the instructions for implementing it. No worries! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that doesn't address my concern. If someone wants to filter out images for their own eyes, well, go for it I guess. But this is enabling whoever filters the web browser to restrict content from all other users at the same location(s). In a nutshell we're enabling censorship of material from those not in control which ultimately are likely the people who need us the most. -- Banjeboi 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that an administrator could set up a public computer such that the filter is in place. If an administrator chooses to do so, then that is the problem of the people using the computer. That administrator has every right to control what goes on on his/her computer/network. I believe that concern is entirely out of this project's scope. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to fly in the face of Wikipedia's mission though. I wouldn't mention it if it didn't seem wrong. Maybe a wider discussion on a village pump just to put it to rest would make sense? -- Banjeboi 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as far as I know, does serve system administrators. For example, the school IP template contains code that allows a system administrator to take charge and keep an eye on activity or block an entire system of users. Therefore, if this add-on violates WP policy, so does the school IP template. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be similar and this may be teh same thing but doesn't this allow anyone who controls the network to do this? So it can be used in non-school settings, actually almost anywhere? -- Banjeboi 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, yes. So since no one has complained about that template, I see no reason why this should pose an issue, either. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that template? Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it's employed. -- Banjeboi 13:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate admitting I'm wrong, but I must admit I was wrong: The school IP template does not allow the system administrator to block, but does allow Wikipedia administrators to block a whole range of IPs. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. LOL. OK, that makes sense. So that kind of puts us back to does this go against a policy or spirit of not censoring in some way. I wonder if part of the filter display should pop up a warning on pages where content is filtered to state such like: Some of this article's content has been masked due to cultural concerns or something that explains what's going on. The bigger issue is that if this goes against policies then maybe a general discussion should take place that the filters are fine or if used with caveats or something else. Maybe at village pump policy? -- Banjeboi 20:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is enabled using a Firefox add-on, it can be disabled easily by going to the add-ons options, or by loading Firefox in safe mode. As for a warning, I don't maintain the actual software, just the filter. Currently, you can tell if something is blocked by mousing over the ABP button on the toolbar or status bar, but there is no actual notifier. Maybe I can get in touch with the developer and see if he can add a small notifier.

As for WP:NOTCENSORED, I can't find any evidence that this violates it. The policy refers to censoring Wikipedia for everyone, not an individual's browser. Virgo's current setup is a LOT more compliant with this policy than it was when it was first proposed. Back then, the idea was to actually replace images on Wikipedia, whereas now it's more like a popup blocker for images instead of popups. This idea has been under serious thought now for about four months, so I've definitely had time to rethink it several times until I no longer was violating a policy. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave it with you to suss it out then. If you feel it's within policy then I don't see a need to stir the issue. -- Banjeboi 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's here![edit]

It's finally here!

The first installment, a porn filter targeted at Roman Catholics, is ready for subscription. Due to the problems posed by a single user maintaining multiple filters, each filter must be maintained by a different user, although a user not maintaining any filters may subscribe to as many as they like. (NOTE: At the moment, only one image is filtered, but the number will grow. I have a list of around 100 or so which will be added late tonight.)

If anyone is interested in creating a filter and doesn't understand how, let me know and I'll try to walk you through it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew there were catholics against nudity. There are certainly Islamists against images of Prophet Mohammed. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism says the human body is a sacred temple of Christ and should be treated as such. Nudity is not tolerated in our religion. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about, eg, this? [1] - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's an image of Jesus, it's still nudity, and is frowned upon, although many art scholars will argue that it's art, not nudity. "Adam and Eve" is pushing it...I believe the only reason Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel was never censored was because it's a historical artifact. Vatican City loves collecting things like this, and holds what is probably the world's largest and most valuable collection of art, including lots of nude statues, so this might explain why the painting was left as is.

Of course it could be nudity + art + a temple. The phrase "nudity is not tolerated" seemed to me going too far. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever get the opportunity, find a Roman Catholic crucifix, and note that Jesus isn't actually naked, even though Scriptures say (or at least imply) that he was. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel may now be a historical artefact, but it hasn't always been, and at the time it was painted the chapel was a Roman Catholic building. I rather suspect that RC standards of acceptability have varied over time. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]