[WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day

[David Alexander Russell]

There's NO censorship involved here - it would not removing any content 
from Wikipedia, it would not involve putting any 'warning this link is 
to a sexually explicit page' templates on links. This would be wrong, 
and against WP principles. The meta-labelling would simply allow that, 
where a user has stated in their browser/filtering software preferences 
that 'I dont want to see pages with content X', Wikipedia respects that 
choice. Allowing individual internet users to CHOOSE not to view 
particular types of content is not censorship - censorship is the state- 
or PC-imposed forced removal or 'cleaning' of content against the will 
of the creator

--Cynical

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> Look we've been sown this path many times before, and it's never
> gotten us anywhere, infact, all it's done is make people fight and
> occasionally force good contributors out because of the hostile mood
> of the discussion (Wikipedians for decency/encyclopedic merit and
> WP:TOBY for instance). The fact is, far too many wikipedians think
> that this kind of censorship is wrong, so you'll NEVER get consensus
> on it. This is a discussion that should be killed before it has any
> chance to do more harm.
>
> It's never gonna happen. If you really, really want a clean WP, create
> a fork and convince people to help you clean it up.
>
> --Oskar
>
> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> See 'icra.org' for an example - but the labels are divided into
>> different categories, and each category has a set of 'definitions' which
>> you can select
>>
>> e.g. nudity - visible genitals, bare buttocks, exposed breasts, none of
>> the above
>> sexual material - erotica, erections/explicit sexual acts, explicit
>> sexual language, visible sexual touching, obscured or implied sexual
>> acts, passionate kissing, none of the above
>>
>> the other categories - violence, potentially harmful activities etc.
>> proceed on much the same lines
>>
>> incidentally, the ICRA generator also has a tickbox for 'the material
>> appears in an educational context' - which Wikipedia would probably
>> qualify as
>>
>> Cynical
>>
>> geni wrote:
>>     
>>> On 3/26/06, David Alexander Russell <webmaster at davidarussell.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Yeah, I don't see why (for example) Wikipedia articles could not be
>>>> 'tagged' with ICRA-style PICS labels. These are machine-readable
>>>> metadata that give information on whether the article contains certain
>>>> types of content e.g. profanity, nudity, substance abuse, and the
>>>> 'severity' of that content (e.g. ranging from passionate kissing to
>>>> close-up explicit sexual acts for the nudity category).
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Please provide a titanium hardened defintion of these terms.
>>>
>>> --
>>> geni
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>