Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Of course we do risk 'flagging wars' --
but that's par for the course
-- we risk 'edit wars' and so on all the time. The best way to
minimize such wars is to approach tagging *as NPOV meta-data*.
But one of the main tools we use to come to NPOV -- 'going meta' --
isn't really available here.
Sure it is. We may not agree about the appropriateness of
[[felching]], but we can agree that it's controversial, that it's
sexual in nature, and that it would be widely regarded as a mature
topic. There's probably a lot of other things we could say about it
that would be relevant from a content advisory point of view, but
which are also NPOV.
If we were
writing disclaimers at the top of some pages, we would
require the disclaimer to be NPOV. We wouldn't say "This page is bad
for children." And we wouldn't say "Anyone who doesn't let children
read this is a stick in the mud." We would say "Some may consider
this page inappropriate for children."
'Going meta' isn't just saying 'some people think this', it's
describing who thinks it. If we have to decide how many people should
hold an opinion before a flag is set then I think we really will get
'wars' of back-and-forth reversions.
Then we have to think carefully about just what the flags mean, and
just how we might make it possible for them to be NPOV.
Here's a set of flags that I think would work well enough for the
felching article:
sexuality
mature content
slang
I don't see how those are very controversial.
--Jimbo