[WikiEN-l] (No subject)

[Mark Wagner]

On 3/29/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch at rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack
> > > wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they
> > > focus on. Very strange indeed.
> >
> > All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
>
> It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is
> entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia
> content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to
> identify unwanted material: use the article category.
>
> It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create
> a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]],
> [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or
> workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is
> already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person
> starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example
> adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George
> W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with
> accordingly.

What about articles like [[Latin profanity]]?  Last I checked, that
article had an image near the top that's certain to trigger comments
and questions from co-workers, but at the same time, no red-flag
categories, and a title that sounds linguistics-related.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]