![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do we need the long-winded title? I'd do it myself, but that may be a bit too bold, and I learned that the hard way when I mistakenly AfDed Master Control (Cartoon Network)...
Suggestions:
Whichever one you choose, it should have the cut WP:NOIMAGE.
Thank'ee much, Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes a modification of the image or its placement is optimal. Be creative. Make it smaller, crop it, move it to the bottom, make it a click away, replace it with an acceptable image that fulfills the same educational functions. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Fork Wikipedia. Wikipedia is copy left in both the software that runs it and the content that is displayed. You are legally permitted to copy the whole thing to another computer, change the content (but you may not legally change the copy left copyright licensing), and sell advertising on it to pay for the hosting and bandwidth costs. If you think there is a market for wikipedia without certain images, or with some other changes, then please fork Wikipedia. We want you to. That's why it is copy left in the first place. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is intended as advice to people who read Wikipedia, not editors who are involved in building articles. Advice on how to get images deleted or even changing policy are pointless. Also, by its nature, this should be in the Help: namespace.
{{
move|Help:Image display configuration}}
dab (𒁳) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's cool. We have to face the fact that this page is really intended for the clueless. Any reader with an ounce of a clue who decides they don't want to see certain images will just silently sort it out for themselves and we'd never even hear from them. The people who come here and add their complaint to a talkpage already containing a few dozen identical complaints plus patient answers are either blissfully clueless or they just want to make noise, not be advised. Regarding the page title, we should note that this content filtering business does not just extend to images. People can also set up standard filters to ensure content is "child safe" by using commercial " Net Nanny" software. We need to make clear that Wikipedia is just part of the internet. You want to filter the internet, you do that on your end. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We can introduce new custom HTTP header, for example, X-Wikipedia-Categories and include all of categories for concrete images and articles (for articles need some little modifying MediaWiki software, for images — web server software). Content control software will easily catch it and filter banned words.
We also can add self-censor HTTP-header, for example X-Censored-Content with community defined religious or parental content types. May be we should come to an agreement with W3C, IETF and Content control software suppliers about censored content types.-- 93.80.101.202 ( talk) 15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
Modify the image in some way
Sometimes a modification of the image or its placement is optimal. Be creative. Make it smaller, crop it, move it to the bottom, make it a click away, replace it with an acceptable image that fulfills the same educational functions.
I have a bit of a problem with this; I think if an image is appropriate, then it's completely unproductive suggesting that people spend their time finding an "unobjectionable" substitute.
Wikpedia is not censored, and I interpret that to mean that while users are free to not use Wikipedia, or to not display images etc. etc. etc., that it doesn't give them the right to change it for others.
I understand that another "acceptable" image would of course be in no way damaging, but I don't agree with the motive - I don't think that goes with the spirit of opposing censorship.
It's not intended, but I'm worried the suggestion could lead to a similar situation as in the edit history of Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg (contains male nudity). I don't think we should be advocating changing Wikipedia, only changing what a user does; my reasoning is that if Wikipedia's policy doesn't change its content should either.
Thanks for your time, and well done for your work on the article :) Drum guy ( talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't see why this should be technically necessary. It should be no problem to implement this for IPs, without a login, just by using the cookie feature. And then, this "solution" doesn't help the parents! How shall they supervise their kids to check if they really log in? Impossible! No, sry, this isn't helpful, and is just a waste of time. Imho the blocking feature HAS to be implemented with cookies, avoiding the necessity to log in. And it should be discussed if the default shouldn't be the "kid friendly" view, with the adults wanting unrestricted access having to deliberately mark this up on an options page. Gray62 ( talk) 11:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Took me only a simple google search to find this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351?src=oftenusedwith If that fox filter works as advertised, that's the better solution for parents, filtering not only wikipedia, but also all pornographic content in the vast space of the internets. By adding this to Firefox, and removing all Internet Explorer links, parents may keep their kids from viewing adult content. However, of course any smart teenager will be able to overcome this hurdle, but that is also true for any blocking feature in Wikipedia. So, imho this still is a reasonable solution. Gray62 ( talk) 11:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is not content filters on "the vast space of the internets", it is image preferences on Wikipedia.
Parents trying to enforce filters on kids must install a proxy and password protect that proxy. Anything else is futile. Also, why do a shoddy job if you can as well just do it properly. "Security through obscurity" is worthless. You don't need to be "a smart teenager" to discover you can just use an alternative browser, I expect kids from about the age of five can easily figure this out. -- dab (𒁳) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it also possible to block the fullview of a picture out, for the example picture this for example. Because even when I block all the images, I can still click the date on the wikimedia page to view the full picture. Adelbrecht ( talk) 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
After placing body.page-Gangrene img {display: none;} on my vector.css page, I found that while the image next to the opening paragraph was hidden, the gallery at the bottom was not. Ziiv ( talk) 04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The page said, "You can also disable specific images by filename. Also at
Special:Mypage/skin.css, and add the following line:
body a[href="/info/en/?search=File:(file name)"] {display: none;}
e.g.
body a[href="/info/en/?search=File:Erection Development.jpg"] {display: none;}
That blocked the name of the image from displaying in text, but didn't block the image itself. Also, it only worked on images that didn't have a space in the name. I tested it using
MediaWiki:Bad image list. On
User:Banaticus/common.css I put in the "bad image list" images in that format, for example:
The Anus one blocked the entire link. When I looked at the Bad image list all I saw was a *. For File:Autofellatio6.jpg I saw the following:
The images still showed up on associated pages as well as their File page. I tried selecting on the image itself, using href and src, but that also did nothing. I cannot see that Talk:Muhammad/images/example css does anything. What have I been doing wrong? Banaticus ( talk) 11:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I now have two images hidden by my User:John of Reading/vector.css, one with spaces/underscores in its name and one without, and have edited User:John of Reading/Sandbox to display three links to images, three image thumbnails, and three images in a gallery. The coding in vector.css hides the names of the two blocked images in the first section, and the images themselves do not appear in the second and third sections. If I visit the file pages themselves then I do see the images there. -- John of Reading ( talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This was developed some time ago by a german user and presented on the foundation mailinglist and on de:Wikipedia:Kurier#Verschwommene Bilder statt Filter. As you can see on the screenshot (click for full size/ blurring), the user script blurs all the images (not the text, obviously) on the chosen wikimedia project, if the user enables it. The blurred image is revealed when the user hovers over the image (with his mouse). How does it work?
"To try this out you would have to copy or import this code
into your own skin.js and skin.css files which are available e.g. under
That is very easy. I (firefox 8.0) have tried it on both en.wikipedia and wikimedia.commons and it worked very, very well. For more information and some interesting observations on how this blurring affects the reading experience, read here and here. Some minor problems (like small logos or the little chess piece images on the chessboards in chess that are only revealed one at a time) could be easily fixed by blurring only images larger than 50x50. And it did not blur the Jimbo donation banner. But it really works well and it is very fast, just moving your mouse makes the image blurred again, no need to find a close-image button and click it. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Every Wikipedia article has a link at the bottom of the page to "Mobile view". This brings you to the Wikipedia version optimized for mobile devices, you can also go there directly: http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org or http://en.m.wikipedia.org (other language versions too). At the bottom of all pages there you see a link to "Disable images on mobile site". Just click it. Done. You can enable images again at the same place at the bottom.
Try it out, go to our talk page on the mobile Wikipedia version: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Options_to_not_see_an_image and disable images. Enjoy! -- Atlasowa ( talk) 11:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The essay says,
This page assumes that:
(a) you still want to visit Wikipedia (rather than creating a fork or simply staying away) and
(b) you do not wish to enter discussions within Wikipedia policy to have the image changed, removed or deleted by building consensus.
First, But, AFAIK, pages don't assume anything by themselves. So, if one user is not interested in Wikipedia then he should not view that page? We don't deal in assumptions. It seems here as if the intro is more inclined towards censorship/removal of offensive images as opposed to just telling people how to not see an image (which by the way is its subject and the best solution to random claims of "offensiveness").
Secondly, What if one editor did take part in discussions and failed to convince others, can he not view that page then? Why is this "how to not see an image" guide talking about "building consensus" for deletion of content? Is this a "HOW-TO-DELETE-AN-IMAGE" guide? Nope.
Then what is it trying to achieve by assuming things before-hand?
Moreover, the existence of the 2nd assumption is predicated upon another implicit assumption that present Wikipedia consensus may need to be changed or Wikipedia Policies don't reflect vast majority of consensus (and editors visiting this page ought to get involved in order to do that), which is a POV in itself.
This could convert hundreds of moderate editors into edit-warriors working against the existence of images that offend.
What does "consensus" have to do with verifiability? I thought Verifiability of a significant content is the threshold for inclusion (be it transcriptional, figurative or otherwise). Sounds to me as if Wikipedia is inciting people to work towards deleting images based on their nebulous offensiveness. This is implicit provocation.
BTW, Skepticism or arguments for or against the significance of a content doesn't justify or necessitate such assumptions, because they are not relevant here. This page is a "HOW-to" guide not a "Why-other-pages-are-so-offensive" guide. When people come here, they are looking for "options to not see an image" as opposed to incitement to delete that image.
The article itself obviates the need for such incitement towards "building consensus",
Wikipedia is not censored, and the community will in general not be prepared to remove content on grounds of being objectionable to some people. Wikipedia will also not use specific disclaimers within articles warning readers of such content.
I hereby propose that those two assumptions be deleted or changed to,
See also:
(if I don't get any objection to this proposal within days, I'll take it as a permission for me to do it myself)
Please, leave a {{Talkback|Help talk:Options to not see an image|Explain this please}} template on my talk page. Brendon is here 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
This page is more suitable for you if:
....
(b) you find an image offensive but, apart from your perception of its offensiveness, have nothing more to add, within the premises of Wikipedia policies, to the discussions pertaining to replacement or removal of images by building consensus.
This issue came to my attention today when I ran across Is Wikipedia wicked porn? So I tracked down this statement:
If you are unhappy with the configuration possibilities available at present, you may consider submitting a code change for the copy left Mediawiki (which displays the Wikipedia content). The Wikimedia Foundation, that provides the hosting and bandwidth for Wikipedia, lacks funds to implement many good and useful modifications to the software that displays the Wikipedia content. Such modifications can be created and submitted to the Foundation for addition to Mediawiki. An example of what could be created is a user option to not display images that are in certain categories.
Seems to me that any honest objections could be addressed by supplying the code to do this. If images could be faithfully and honestly categorized by subject matter, individual preferences could be used to display (or not). An intermediate option, such as a pixelization filter, would also be useful. Maybe such a pixelization would be the default for non-logged-in users. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Idea of tagging explisit images in order to filter them. Now, the option "no images" - "all images" is not very sophisticated. Would be cool for parents to be able to only filter explicit images. -- Saippuakauppias ⇄ 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I propose to make some images collapsible in the articles they appear through collapsible divs. See Talk:Masturbation#Collapsible_DIVs. This has the advantage of helping non-registered users without affecting browser settings or having to set up a proxy. Of course the images should be set to be shown by default, as they are now, but they should have a link above them titled "show/hide" (default is show) which when clicked hides the image from the view of the user who clicked the link. NerdyNSK ( talk) 01:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
So I have Mozilla Firefox, and I used the sample image to block images. I didn't know they would block all images. So now I want images back. Could someone help me? Gopal81 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
this page is mostly obsolete for Mozilla Firefox users. If you use Firefox, you just install Adblock and start blocking images you don't like. No magical computer skills required. I do this all the time, not for prudish or ideological reasons but just to get images out of my face that I find mildly annoying. -- dab (𒁳) 09:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You can build your own filter lists for adblock. This is what this page is trying to tell you. Try using it. Have a look at the "blockable items" view. -- dab (𒁳) 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
How to hide in chrome browser? - Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 11:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The suggestions to block or blur ALL images on Wikipedia are absurd. They ignore the reasons for having images in the first place!! But all of the other image-blocking techniques described here seem to be ex post facto — you can only block the "offensive"/unsafe image after you or your child has already seen it — after the damage is done! This is also absurd.
I think there is a rough and approximate line that can be drawn between what is an elucidating photo/video and what is a pornographic photo/video. Clearly, items whose File: page include a Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act warning (such as the video in ' Ejaculation') qualify as pornography. And the people who added those images can't reasonably object to them being hidden by default.
There are also some valid anatomical or medical descriptive pictures which can be shocking. I was quite shocked a year ago when I looked up 'labia minora' and had a full-color picture of the female external genitalia thrown in my face. (If you search for 'Genitalia, female', you get no such picture.)
I suggest that these controversial images should default to being hidden. (Classifying them as controversial avoids needing to label them as pornographic or obscene or medically explicit or shocking.) Then parents can just trust their children to not [Show] those images, and I'll know what to expect if I [Show] them myself. Drawings of anatomy and of sex acts will usually not need to be hidden, but photos of them might. — Mwr0 ( talk) 10:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just read Wikipedia in edit or view source mode 24.85.161.72 ( talk) 20:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was looking at pictures on Wikipedia and the images we're not shown. I am running Opera and I want to know how to fix it!
-- 68.55.115.183 ( talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)68.55.115.183
I use Adblock Plus to filter out certain images I don't want to see. -- Denelson 83 08:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a decent solution, but only if work is done to create an adblock subscription list specifically for wikipedia, so that one does not need the initial exposure to the offensive image. IMHO, wikipedia should try to accomodate people who wish to self censor, and provide a technical means for those users to do so. 137.73.20.197 ( talk) 14:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
In an effort to cut down on bandwidth I want to get rid of the images. I have implemented the changes here [1], will this reduce bandwidth usage? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem: Wikipedia has for some reason insisted to force its images onto users who cares only to read the texts. Writing "about:config" in the adress-field in Firefox and toggling the "permissions.default.image"-option, that works on most sites, does not work for Wikipedia for some reason. I tried to find many solutions, listening to all kinds of advice on the Internet, using add-ons, such as Adblock, Ublock, etc. Nothing worked for me.
The final solution: The m.wikipedia.org. Just klick the menu-button left of "Search wikipedia" and turn the images off. This also solves problems with Facebook (m.facebook.com, not that I use american spyware) and maybe more pages. The only add-on in Firefox worth any attention for me is NoScript. Very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.242.14 ( talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
...and in Sweden it is se.m.wikipedia.org, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.242.14 ( talk) 02:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
....Sorry. Problem NOT solved. Wikipedia somehow forces its images on me anyway. Anyone know how too solve this problem, exept not visiting wikipedia anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.247.88 ( talk) 15:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Currently it is not possible to disable images using the method described in this section. Under settings in the mobile version there is no option to disable the all images. 2001:56A:F323:8E00:10D:ED63:AE2A:1EB7 ( talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I browse webpages via Google Chrome on an Android (pre-version 5) smartphone. When I browse Wikipedia pages, all images are automatically hidden with a gray "tap to view image" placeholder, as though I had enabled image hiding. But I haven't done that, and I'm tired of having to re-click those placeholders every time I refresh or return to a page. Alas, the content provided here does not show me an obvious way to remedy that problem. My wikipedia user has no common.css or common.js subpages from which the image-hiding script can be removed, and the Privacy tab of my Chrome settings includes no content-related options for image hiding. Has anybody here experienced the same problem? Does anyone know how it can be solved? Hobeewahn ( talk) 18:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: My problem arose after my Chrome installation was reverted to the shipped version. I resolved it by restarting the device and updating Chrome. Hobeewahn ( talk) 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposing to add this in this help.page:
If the editors have no objections and the editors agree, an offensive image can be initially hidden as a display using Template:Hidden image, which will hide the image as normal, and display the image by clicking on the arrow or "Show" option.
{{Hidden image | Image = Crystal clear app lphoto.png | Width = 200px | caption = Camera }}