Add support for content warnings

[frawleyskid]

Some of the works included in the archive are queerphobic, pathologizing, or otherwise hateful. While these works are included due to their historical significance, we have a responsibility to make sure we're not tacitly legitimizing hateful ideologies or spreading dangerous misinformation. Additionally, visitors to the site deserve to not be exposed to this kind of content if they do not wish to see it.

Here's what we're going to do about it:

• Add a general disclaimer on the main page of the site warning users about the kind of content they may find in the archive.
• Reword the descriptions of artifacts in the archive to better contextualize them.
• Provide content warnings alongside objectionable content.
• Update best practices documentation to encourage adding content warnings.
• Update the issue template for proposing content to add a field for content warnings.

[frawleyskid]

Reword the descriptions of artifacts in the archive to better contextualize them.

Let's look at an example of how we might do this. This artifact has the following summary:

A paper in which the author attempts to categorize transgender people by their sexual orientation, including “analloerotics,” who can be subclassified as “automonosexual” or asexual

Blanchard's typologies of trans people are transphobic and lack scientific basis. We should provide that context to avoid spreading dangerous misinformation. Here's an example of how we might change the wording:

A now-discredited paper in which the author promotes an unsubstantiated typology of transgender people …

We should review the artifacts in the archive and think of ways we can provide this kind of context. If you want to make a suggestion for how we can reword one of these summaries, open an issue here.

[frawleyskid]

Add a general disclaimer on the main page of the site warning users about the kind of content they may find in the archive.

That disclaimer should link to this issue so visitors can track the progress of this work.

[frawleyskid]

Provide content warnings alongside objectionable content.

We should think about the best way to do this from a technical standpoint. We could:

1. Include the CWs inline in the artifact description
2. Add a separate field for CWs

Option 2 would involve significantly more work. Would that work be worth it? We should tease out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

[frawleyskid]

As part of this work, we should update the best practices documentation to encourage adding content warnings alongside submissions.