The article in question is a description of a bit of sexual jargon or folklore; the kind of stuff you get on Howard Stern. As it seems to me that it falls within the remit of the deletion policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...) I listed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia is, a classroom-safe reference work is clearly not number one on the list. This doesn't render Wikipedia content forever inaccessible to classrooms, however. This and other articles of its type are in the category "Sex moves". These could be filtered out easily during production of a classroom-safe copy of Wikipedia.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:29:01 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
The article in question is a description of a bit of sexual jargon or folklore; the kind of stuff you get on Howard Stern. As it seems to me that it falls within the remit of the deletion policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...) I listed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia is, a classroom-safe reference work is clearly not number one on the list. This doesn't render Wikipedia content forever inaccessible to classrooms, however. This and other articles of its type are in the category "Sex moves". These could be filtered out easily during production of a classroom-safe copy of Wikipedia.
I do like the idea of images and articles being put into categories such as "sexually explicit", "violent", "offensive language". A (official?) mirror could be made which blocks those particular images and articles, and it would be left to the school (or the school's special school filtering service provided by their ISP) to block the main site (and any mirrors and forks).
This is not censorship as we are not the ones restricting access. We are just providing an alternative for schools etc. that *will* block Wikipedia on the grounds of its content.
Someone has also mentioned that Teabagging survived VfD. Lucky 6.9 nominated it as a dicdef in July last year. During the VfD week, the article was expanded from a brief sentence to a largers article, although it could probably still be fairly described as a dicdef with annotations on etymology, usage and most notable uses of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Teabagging
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...)
I listed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to
Why? What is "safe for classroom"?
younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia
Who would put them at risk?
Parents and school administrators and especially in the United States, local school boards. A teacher who allows their students free access to Wikipedia is a fool.
Fred
From: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com Reply-To: BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:12:04 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently classroom-safe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no... _a_dictionary)
I listed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to
Why? What is "safe for classroom"?
younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia
Who would put them at risk?
-- mvh Björn _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
BJörn Lindqvist said:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no... I listed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to
Why? What is "safe for classroom"?
Safe in the sense that a teacher can use it without risking making tabloid headlines when little Jimmy tells Mommy about Dirty Sanchez.
younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia
Who would put them at risk?
See above.
--- Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
The article in question is a description of a bit of sexual jargon or folklore; the kind of stuff you get on Howard Stern. As it seems to me that it falls within the remit of the deletion policy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...)
I listed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Donkey_punch
Although the article has only been listed for only two days, so far there is a 2:1 majority vote for keep. In my opinion this kind of article would render Wikipedia difficult to describe as "safe for classroom use"; also teachers recommending it to younger children for homework research would be put at risk of censure because of articles like this. Whatever those who voted think Wikipedia is, a classroom-safe reference work is clearly not number one on the list. This doesn't render Wikipedia content forever inaccessible to classrooms, however. This and other articles of its type are in the category "Sex moves". These could be filtered out easily during production of a classroom-safe copy of Wikipedia.
And people say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Now that it appears that we've bowdlerized the autofellatio article, it's fair game to go after every other article with a sexual content?
RickK
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Rick said:
And people say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Now that it appears that we've bowdlerized the autofellatio article, it's fair game to go after every other article with a sexual content?
I chose it because there's a pretty good argument for deletion under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and little likelihood of the article being expanded beyond what it is now (unless the donkey punch becomes an actual act rather than just a Howard Stern-type joke) but also because if the editors felt that this article was beyond the pale they'd go for deletion. Very few did. Of course its presence also illustrates that we're not classroom safe or childsafe. Not by a long way. This is not a problem for me, but it may be a problem for Wikipedia.
Not exactly, the articles in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_moves
are not "every other article with a sexual content". If it is a slippery slope, it is not a mysterious un-navigable slipperly slope, or is it? Are you all confused as to the distinction between an article on Sexual intercourse and one on Donkey punch?
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:43:42 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently classroom-safe
This and other articles of its type are in the category "Sex moves". These could be filtered out easily during production of a classroom-safe copy of Wikipedia.
And people say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. Now that it appears that we've bowdlerized the autofellatio article, it's fair game to go after every other article with a sexual content?
RickK
Fred Bauder said:
Not exactly, the articles in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_moves
are not "every other article with a sexual content".
I was tempted to recat that as "sexual assaults" or "dangerous sexual practises", because "sex moves" isn't really descriptive. I thought it could be seen as provocative at the moment, so I've deferred the decision for a few weeks.