Sorry, I wanted to edit this to explain, and since I'm not a paid user on DW I can't edit the existing comment. So, am deleting and replacing it.
Morgan, I do appreciate the feedback and your goal of encouraging broader participation in Fanlore. I share that goal. But I also want to make it easy for readers to use, and a simple click-through warning isn't really helpful for for many sorts of readers IMO. It's fine for an archive, but a wiki is somewhat different (and our software is definitely very different; we have to rely on what Mediawiki can do). But I will talk that over with the committee.
Fanlore can't operate just like an adult-content archive. At an archive, you often do have the click-through warning. But then, before you actually read a story or look at art, you are usually presented with additional information before you chose to read/see the fanwork: you are often given a rating, or warnings/headers. You can thus enter and use the archive, while still avoiding seeing images that might be illegal for you to see (e.g., Australians) or which might be triggering or profoundly upsetting. And some users might be fine with seeing some sorts of explicit content, but not others. Archival interfaces allow this.
In a wiki, that's not an option. You enter the wiki (with or without a click through) and then jump from page to page. You can't be presented with ratings or other warnings before choosing to open an article, as far as I know. I can ask the person on the comm whose very, very good with Mediawiki, but my sense is that you can't replicate the AO3 interface on Fanlore very well.
I also want to ask you again to please wait and see what the new image templates will look like before you condemn them as being a "4 part peer review test." I'm not sure how you can know that, since you haven't seen them yet.
you need a simpler policy, that is easier to understand and easier to apply
I am hopeful that the more streamlined user guides that we'll link on the help pages will meet this need. The only people who are going to read through this longer version, once the whole thing is up and running, are those who really want to read this level of detail. Most people won't need to do so.
Here, there IS a parallel to AO3. AO3's TOS is, in fact, even longer and more complex than the policy I just posted here. And yet most readers and most writers who upload there are not troubled by it, as far as I know. Few people even read the whole thing. The user help pages are all most people need. We're working towards making that true for Fanlore, as well.
Re: is anyone looking at usability and inclusiveness?
Morgan, I do appreciate the feedback and your goal of encouraging broader participation in Fanlore. I share that goal. But I also want to make it easy for readers to use, and a simple click-through warning isn't really helpful for for many sorts of readers IMO. It's fine for an archive, but a wiki is somewhat different (and our software is definitely very different; we have to rely on what Mediawiki can do). But I will talk that over with the committee.
Fanlore can't operate just like an adult-content archive. At an archive, you often do have the click-through warning. But then, before you actually read a story or look at art, you are usually presented with additional information before you chose to read/see the fanwork: you are often given a rating, or warnings/headers. You can thus enter and use the archive, while still avoiding seeing images that might be illegal for you to see (e.g., Australians) or which might be triggering or profoundly upsetting. And some users might be fine with seeing some sorts of explicit content, but not others. Archival interfaces allow this.
In a wiki, that's not an option. You enter the wiki (with or without a click through) and then jump from page to page. You can't be presented with ratings or other warnings before choosing to open an article, as far as I know. I can ask the person on the comm whose very, very good with Mediawiki, but my sense is that you can't replicate the AO3 interface on Fanlore very well.
I also want to ask you again to please wait and see what the new image templates will look like before you condemn them as being a "4 part peer review test." I'm not sure how you can know that, since you haven't seen them yet.
you need a simpler policy, that is easier to understand and easier to apply
I am hopeful that the more streamlined user guides that we'll link on the help pages will meet this need. The only people who are going to read through this longer version, once the whole thing is up and running, are those who really want to read this level of detail. Most people won't need to do so.
Here, there IS a parallel to AO3. AO3's TOS is, in fact, even longer and more complex than the policy I just posted here. And yet most readers and most writers who upload there are not troubled by it, as far as I know. Few people even read the whole thing. The user help pages are all most people need. We're working towards making that true for Fanlore, as well.