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.

I don't believe this is possible without context for each specific article. Look at all the controversy around why to include people on certain lists--it *begs for,* no, *demands* justification. Without justification it will look POV and arbitrary.

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.

Some people in this debate have taken the illogical and provably false position that ideas of what is "explicit" are absolute, and that people disagreeing aren't being logical, but are being POV, ha ha. These same people also seem to believe that labeling articles with controversial metadata will somehow itself be immune from controversy. Again this is an assertion that is arguable at best and provably false at worst. I do not believe that Jimmy doesn't understand what I and others are saying, but that, rather, that he has decided category schemes are A Good Thing, and that filtering is A Good Thing, and that filtering wikipedia's content in violation of NPOV will be A Good Thing, in spite of violating the understood social contract that whatever we write about, if it's verifiable and from a NPOV, will be left in plain view.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume that applying categories to our articles for the sake of filtering them from the innocent eyes of children can be handled without controversy, in spite of the general controversy already stirred up on the mailing list. Let us assume also that it can be done without running afoul of NPOV, and that this wikipedia decree of what is and is not Safe and Good and Morally Just for children to know will be accepted and endorsed by wikipedians in general. So, let's set about categorizing articles.

Given that a category scheme with, say, 3million categories would be worse than useless for the purpose of filtering content, we'll set a few categories. One of them, as Jimbo has indicated, will be Crime. What articles are relevant to crime? Koyanis Qatsi nominates [[George W. Bush]] for his cocaine habit, but Powaqqatsi says "wait, wait, that's hearsay; we can't include that." Ok, a fair point. Two paths diverged in a POV debate, and which does wikipedia take? Let's say wikipedia decides that the metadata crime can be added to any article with a mention of a crime, whether it's been proven or not. So mav writes an article on the well-known layabout gadfly KQ, because he has it on good faith from a friend that KQ has once been convicted of jaywalking; and then he adds the metadata:crime to the article. KQ "retaliates" and adds crime to the articles on Bromide and Arsenic, because they've been used in some crimes he knows about, and children shouldn't have such notions of poisoning put into their heads. Well, AxelBoldt worked 812 hours apiece on those articles, and he won't have his work censored, so he adds metadata:crime to [[Sid Davis]] because, hell, it does mention molestation. Oh, this is going great. Anthere adds metadata:crime to [[O.J. Simpson]]; Bryan Derksen removes it because he was found innocent in criminal court; Brion Vibber restores it because he was found guilty in civil court. [[24]] steps in and says "why should crime in the U.S. be the deciding factor? What about crime in the U.K., or Bhutan, or the Apache nation?" So Henry Kissinger gets metadata:Crime because Chile wants him extradited to stand trial for war crimes. Jimbo steps in and adds crime to the Clintons for their -gate and for Bill's tendency to keep his zipper down, and Ed Poor adds the metadata to the articles on lead pipes, knives, swords, Sherman tanks, and letter openers (a mystery crime favorite).

It's a ridiculous situation. Wikipedia comes to its senses and says "wait, the only articles that will get the metadata:crime will be articles on *people* who have been tried for and convicted of a crime." A better path. (though, I might add, still one that is provably illogical, given that courts reviewing the same evidence as other courts often overturn verdicts, and so even facts of a crime are open to interpretation). Anyway, so metadata:crime is inserted into articles on [[Randal Dale Adams]], later tried again and proven innocent, and [[Jesus Christ]]--no appeal for him--and [[Nelson Mandela]], that agitator and limerock miner. Nice look, the squint. Pizza Puzzle adds it to [[Adolf Hitler]] but Notheruser says "wait, wait, he was never tried and convicted; he committed suicide and didn't have a chance to defend himself." So the label is removed, and is removed from [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Lee Harvey Oswald]], and [[Jack the Ripper]]. Hey, this works great.

A New York Times writer has been lurking about the 'pedia after writing the article on it awhile back, and notes the hubbub, but perceives it as the POV ravings of a seriously deranged professional body, and has his big story: WIKIPEDIA: MANDELA A CRIMINAL, HITLER NOT. Meanwhile all of us on wikien here the pattering of feet down a hall, which is the sound of Jimbo running for a PR agent. And what have we proven? Children shouldn't know about most of the U.S. presidents--it's not safe--and also not Mandela, because why? Um, I guess knowing about a crime is instrumental in becoming a criminal. We have to warn the judges. The public is in danger. Secret courts! We need secret courts! Ashcroft, hurry up with it!

Now: another point. Jimmy, you said you wouldn't change wikipedia's content for China's government. Fair enough. But, China is home to *a lot* of people. If you're not willing to make concessions for them, why make concessions for the middle-class middle-of-the-road segment of any other country, especially one that's home to far fewer people? Especially since it can't be done in a logical and impartial way, not to mention one that won't violate NPOV and stir up useless, counterproductive controversy. You're poking a hornet's nest.

sarcastically, bitterly, but still with a point.

kq

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com