Wikipedia talk:Descriptive image tagging

message: *The sex category is way too broad. For a start nudity does not equal sex. There is a big difference the two - the image at Nudism matches the first 5 points but it has nothing to do with sex. It would also result in the image at Speedo (suit style) being tagged as a sex image.
**Even nudity won't do. Is someone wearing only one sock on nude? Strictly, no, but I assume we're looking for a category that would include that too... --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 20:56, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
***I think that people would understand nudity to mean a state of a certain part of the body being unclothed, else we would need to have some contrived title. I agree with 'sex' being inappropriate, as nudity can very easily be non sexual, and for instance a school or library would want to filter all sexual content, without restricting nudity. However, would you consider 'passionate kissing' as being sexual, as I am pretty sure that under some rating schemes it is classified as such. I --Neo 19:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex and nudity 

message: If there is going to be a sitewide policy on such images, this is probably the best idea I've seen. Maurreen 05:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best idea so far 

message: I think this is a great idea.  Basically, different people have differnet boundaries about what kinds of images they find acceptable, either for themselves or for their children.  For example, someone at work may wish to deactivate all images of nudity, drugs, and overt violence.  Another person, say a horny 14-year-old, may wish to see only pictures of female full nudity.  Descriptive image tagging allows one to see or not see the images they want to see, allowing people to set their own boundaries, instead of having Wikipedia set up boundaries, something which will be inheritly POV and will be an endless edit war where consensus will never be reached. Samboy 07:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this is a great idea 

message: In the recent poll at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, the majority (by a pretty wide margin) agreed to the statement, "do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now."
In that debate, I took a look at actual examples (and you can see a verbose attempt at tagging in my write-up). (See ) I would support a neutral scheme like that you suggest, except that it appears to be overkill.  The most elegant solution (and current consensus) appears to be to leave this alone.  --Chris vLS 22:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there really a problem? Recent consensus says, "no" 

message: A weakness of Wikipedia is that society at large has standards of, er, decency. The no-holds-barred editorial policy of Wikipedia's formative years must eventually acknowledge the needs of the wider body of encyclopedia consumers. For every Wikipedian who feels free to edit occasionally (or incessantly!), there are dozens and possibly hundreds who do nothing more than view pages. We're also thinking of issuing a print edition.
Any system must reconcile two interests which (at first glance) are at odds.
#Writers and artists want their works to be included and made available world wide. Similarly, readers all over the world want access to the unvarnished truth.
#Some parties, such as parents of small children or ideology-based governments, evince a need to "protect" some or all from immoral, subversive, shocking, etc. things.
I am confident that a suitable system of tags can be proposed and implemented which satisfies both groups.
I myself would like to be able to click on an image once, and then never see it again. Whether this means I get a browser cookie, or the database adds a record in a table is immaterial. Either option is technically feasible, and has no effect on others.
Also, a prominent body might want to establish a "we think this is best omitted" tag, kind of like the MPAA's system of rating films: (G, PG-13, R, NC-17). We already have the ability to add category tags to articles about films. Why not give users an option to hide articles which are in a certain category? 
* Some users may disdain the "tame" films which are rated G: Yuch! Who wants to see Barney and Power Rangers"
* Some users may be unable to stomach NC-17 films like Basic Instinct; or even might want to skip all the R-rated films.
Imagine being able to filter out ALL links to objectionable material - stuff YOU have indicated that you want hidden from yourself. No images of Muhammed or Jesus (for devout Muslims who regard such things as sinful). No graphically violent or "excessively sexy" images for us, er, prudes.
Meanwhile, everyone else could see it without even being aware of the tags! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
:: Well, this page is pretty dead; but I think that was nicely put, Ed. +sj +
:: Agreed.  Take a look at the Actual Examples section of Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images.  It shows three things: 1) decent tags aren't that hard to come up with, 2) industry standard tags are very pov, 3) the problem just isn't that big.  There just aren't that many examples that makes this worth a lot of effort (at least in the opinion of the consensus). Chris vLS 22:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I favor image tagging