Maybe flag this as NSFW?
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
54 points (84.6% liked)
Wikipedia
1589 readers
240 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Interested users can find add-ons and scripts which do this automatically.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
i'm guessing that you're not writing about the article but the photo used in that Wikipedia article.
what's nsfw about a photo of a 6 months old baby, used to demonstrate the birthmark that's the subject of the article?
are even baby bums nsfw now?
It’s a bare bum? While not at all sexual, it isn’t something I’d want my boss to see me looking at while at work. Hence the not safe for work tag
Not ther person you responded too, but people at work should be considered very conservative with any kind of nudity. At least that's my opinion. Yes, you're right its not sexual, but that image is not something I would want to be looking at during work.
People still take nsfw as the point of the tag, since they scroll at work. Which, that's kinda on them if you ask me, but the nsfw tag is a courtesy originally intended for people at work so they could avoid rings that may cause issues in that setting, rather than specifically for sexual images.
Youre mistaking NSFL and NSFW.
I wouldn't open any baby bum at work with my boss beside me.
NSFW it or I'll nuke it. The community has spoken. Nudity is generally covered in things NSFW.
Cringe
Super cringe. I'll take the hate, though, if it means I don't have to look at an exposed ass unless I want to.
That's not what you wrote originally though? Don't write "the community has spoken" immediately followed by "I don't care what you all do, I do what I like". That's kinda the opposite of what you postured as in the beginning.
Or was that the royal We and you are the community?
And that's regardless of the fact that I agree that the photo falls under the original definition of NSFW.
Members of the community have made their opinions known to me, and asked specifically that this instance of nudity be marked as Not Safe For Work. It's a reasonable request and an easy fix that I cannot do myself. The buttons I have let me lock posts, nuke posts, and ban people, but all I need is a button that lets me NSFW the thumbnail of an otherwise cromulent post.
I personally want to consent to view a NSFW/NSFL thing, whether it's as innocuous as a baby ass or something of a greater magnitude. We just have to all come to an agreement on where the boundaries are. Full resolution ass cracks seem to set the lower boundary.
And I do care what you all do. I misspoke if it came across that I'm only out for mine, or I'm drunk with banhammer power. I care. Deeply. Especially at 2:14am. The Fediverse is still so very small and tenuous, and we (royal and otherwise) are still figuring out how to navigate and interact and exist in the space. So now we know something new. And Royal We have to fix the sidebar again.
Thanks for the elaborate answer, I somehow took your original posts in a more aggressive tone than you probably meant them.
Just some short remarks:
-
OK, that is seriously lacking in mod tools then
-
Ah okay, if other people reported it as well, that makes it more understandable, but we as non-mods can't see that (at least I don't know how)
3.Thanks for the mod work! It is a thankless job and you need to interact with people like me. I see from your response that your heart is in the right place.
And thanks for the kind words. I'm sure there's a mod tool suite out there that does everything I want it to, but I'm just not that sort of tech literate, so I work with what I have. And yell in the comment section from time to time.
♡
Calm down Jeffery Epstein
What's wild is us humans are stripped and spotted, like cows, but you can only see it in ultraviolet.
They're called Blaschko's lines and they're invisible to our eyes.
This is false information, and easily found to be so. Just searching "blaschko lines uv light" gives several results saying it's not true, and that there is never a source for that information in the articles, videos etc. that say it. It should also be obvious it's not true just by most people's experience, seeing people under UV light, via everything from clubs, movies, art, etc. isn't rare at all, and you never see these lines.
Check anything you say before doing so, we are all bombarded with misinformation from malicious intent already, no need to pile onto that with misinformation from ignorance.
Wtf i want a checker pattern, is there a way to tell which one you got without giving yourself skin cancer?
It's not true, it took 10 seconds to make that obvious with a quick search.
Both my son and daughter had Mongolian spots when they were really young.
The daycare my son goes to pulled me aside one afternoon while I was picking him up and accused me of hitting him. They thought the mogoilian spots he had on his arse were bruises from me hitting him.
I told them, no they are in fact moglian spots, and him being part asian means it's a very common thing.
I got up her for not having noticed this before. My son had been going to the same place with the same workers since he was 6 months old, he was 3 when they thought it was bashing him. This woman and her co-workers would have changed his nappy 100's of times.