John Tex wrote
Censorship is a scare word that does not accurately
describe the internal
debate over images. If hte government tells us not to print something,
that
is censorship. If we decide not to print somethin because of our own
editorial standards, that is not censorship.
But it could be described as self-censorship - depending on what 'editorial
standards' we are talking about.
If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, and to be
used as widely as
possible, then we need to hold ourselves to decent editorial standards.
It is taken seriously. It is used so widely that the servers are constantly
groaning.
That might mean taking some very small steps such as
putting some content
behind a spoiler-like warning. This way, people know that reading the
text
of articles will be school/work-safe, and they can make an informed
decision
to view the images so-tagged.
It absolutely will not do that. For several reasons.
(i) Once you start on a list of things that might offend someone, you never
end, as this thread will no doubt demonstrate.
(ii) The article could be edited in the next five minutes, to become
not-schoolwork-safe.
The only way to do the suggested kid-safe thing is a fork or a distro on
CD-ROM (say) that has been checked for obvious no-nos.
We absolutely cannot take on ourselves parental/teacher style responsibility
for the content of a live wiki. Or of all outgoing links. No way can one
give 'protection of minors' warranties. I don't see this is going to
change. We have this in common with the rest of the Web.
Charles.