On 3/29/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)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]]