Erik Moeller wrote:
On a wiki, we risk "flagging wars", and by
defining what "can be
considered offensive" we are leaving NPOV behind. Daniel Ehrenberg
suggested a similar thing a few weeks ago and said that he thought the
goal of getting Wikipedia into all schools would be worth ignoring the
NPOV issue.
But he was talking about omitting such content, not just flagging
it.
I do not agree. By implementing a "family
filter" we may
convince some parents to use Wikipedia -- and convince others who want
their children to be raised in an open, progressive manner to ignore it.
But I didn't recommend that we implement a family filter. Google
doesn't filter -- but they do allow end users to configure what sorts
of results are presented.
Still, I am not fundamentally opposed to filters on
Wikipedia, but I think
whatever solution is used should be NPOV - i.e. allow filtering by all
types of content, not just one specific one. So, for example, if I want to
filter *everything BUT* the sex content, that should also be possible.
At which point I refer you to my pet project, team certification :-)
*nod* Well, sure. That's why I chose the term 'content advisory', so
as to indicate that we should implement a system that is flexible.
--Jimbo