Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote: Toby Bartels wrote:
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.
"mature content" will definitely cause problems. You imply in the rest of what you write (not only in this post) �what some would consider to be appropriate only for the mature�, but not only does "mature content" not say this literally, but also (as somebody else pointed out) that's extremely broad, and includes [[Christianity]]. So it won't be of much use.
Well, I don't agree. The standards for what we mean by mature content can be spelled out in sufficient detail and in an NPOV way so that controversy is minimized.
But I'm not invested in that particular phrase. Perhaps we could use 'explicit sexual content' to distinguish it from 'sexuality'. Some think that any type of 'sexuality' content should be equally be censored. Maybe that should have a seperate flag.> If I were writing the Wikipedia code, I wouldn't spend my time
on writing support for these flags; that's better done (if at all) by another project that operates on top of Wikipedia
But this is important for Wikipedia the website, not just for others.
Some people in this debate have taken a very POV position, i.e. that wikipedia should shove this stuff down people's throats, and if they're too prudish to deal with it, too bad ha ha. I don't agree.
--Jimbo That creates a paradox. Any one scheme for censorship (or even flagging) is POV, while a lack of one is also POV. We're stuck. So let's choose the choice which will broaden our audience the most: flagging built into the software.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).