--- Julie Kemp juleskemp@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Steve -
Funny you should mention the Bill and Monica thing. First, I'd like to point out that I'm not in favor of any tags or wiki-imposed filtering. Just looked at the article in question and, although I'd phrase some of it differently (since part of the moral outrage of the vast right-wing conspirators was based on the fact that he'd committed adultery), it's nothing one couldn't find in the mainstream news media. On the other hand, if tags *were* to be employed, I suppose one might flag the oral sex article accessible from the Monica page. And I'm iffy on the sexual intercourse page, because it gives a bit more detail than your average reader might be expecting - e.g., I might be fine with my 8-year-old (no longer exists) to look up sexual intercourse, but I wouldn't be comfortable with her knowing details of how it's done until she's a bit older - unless she asks. The reality is, most kids that age don't ask till they hear or read about it, and then don't quite get the attraction and say, "eeew, gross." But sometimes the images can disturb them. And I am personally not comfortable that we link to a site with "graphic explicit animations." However, that's me. And that's why I like a clear disclaimer, rather than trying to tag things for filtering. The value of the preponderance of the information found on the pedia far outweighs the "objectionable" stuff. That's why I don't think tags for filtering are really feasible.
JHK
That is the point of forking certain articles: to allow for kids to read articles that don't have offensive or disturbing content while still allowing full content to other readers. --LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com