LittleDan wrote in part:
I think we should impliment the system of categorization suggested wherin each article can be categorized as "sexually contravercial", "religiously contravercial," etc. There could also be some other website where these pages classified as contravercial were these were by default blocked, say, edupedia.org (open, i checked), and it would operate off of the same database.
I think that a good solution would be along these lines. We might revive the sifter project, not for Larry's purpose, but for this (of course the generic plan would work for both). Then Edupedia can be a sifted version of Wikipedia, operating according to guidelines set by LittleDan et al.
The best part is that what was being developed at sifter wouldn't involve editing the Wikipedia database at all, thus avoiding potential charges of POV in that database. Since Edupedia is the site with a POV (though in just one respect), it should hold the database, which would simply say, for each Wikipedia (or En.Wikipedia) article, what categories that article has for potential blocking. (This would be the reverse of the sifter project, which would have a database indicating which articles are accepted.) Then LittleDan and his supporters can set those policies without besmirching (in some opinions) Wikipedia's NPOV.
I believe that Jimbo has said in the past that he'd be willing to pay for such auxiliary projects. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) And edupedia.org is definitely a cool domain for it!
-- Toby