I wrote:
[ ] Censor inapropriate content
But I meant
[ ] Censor obscene content
or
[ ] Censor content that may be considered obscene.
As for the category scheme that Eloquence suggested (but I accidentally deleted the email) I think that would be a great idea, but it would require too much work. I've always wanted a category scheme, even a rough one like in the esperanto wiki, and your suggestion would work out well. I just think that if we set our goals too high, we'll never complete them (though I suppose Wikipedia is in defiance of this). --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
At 09:49 AM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
I wrote:
[ ] Censor inapropriate content
But I meant
[ ] Censor obscene content
or
[ ] Censor content that may be considered obscene.
"Content that may be considered obscene" is incredibly wide, depending on who is doing the considering: diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, for example. Two people of the same gender kissing. A woman nursing a baby. The bare human calf used to be considered shocking and provocative.
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
At 09:49 AM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
I wrote:
[ ] Censor inapropriate content
But I meant
[ ] Censor obscene content
or
[ ] Censor content that may be considered
obscene.
"Content that may be considered obscene" is incredibly wide, depending on who is doing the considering: diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, for example. Two people of the same gender kissing. A woman nursing a baby. The bare human calf used to be considered shocking and provocative. -- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org http://www.redbird.org
I hate to say this, but you know what I mean. Stop exploiting loopholes in my wording. I guess "censor obscene content" would be more clear. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
At 01:20 PM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
--- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org wrote:
At 09:49 AM 5/18/03 -0700, LittleDan wrote:
I wrote:
[ ] Censor inapropriate content
But I meant
[ ] Censor obscene content
or
[ ] Censor content that may be considered
obscene.
"Content that may be considered obscene" is incredibly wide, depending on who is doing the considering: diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, for example. Two people of the same gender kissing. A woman nursing a baby. The bare human calf used to be considered shocking and provocative. -- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org http://www.redbird.org
I hate to say this, but you know what I mean.
No, I don't know what you mean. "Obscene" is not a well-defined category in the first place and, more to the point, *obscene according to what standards*? The server is in California, but will users understand the differences between the standards of that state's law and of wherever they happen to be?
The breast cancer example is one of the things that is routinely blocked by censorware designed to "protect" users from obscene material.
At 05:14 PM 5/18/03 -0400, I wrote:
No, I don't know what you mean. "Obscene" is not a well-defined category in the first place and, more to the point, *obscene according to what standards*? The server is in California, but will users understand the differences between the standards of that state's law and of wherever they happen to be?
The breast cancer example is one of the things that is routinely blocked by censorware designed to "protect" users from obscene material.
P.S. Part of why I'm not prepared to accept "you know what I mean" is that two different users, at different sites, have informed me that my own Website has been blocked on the grounds that it contains inappropriate sexual content. It contains no sexual content, appropriate or otherwise. The URL in question is http://www.redbird.org/yawl.html.
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I hate to say this, but you know what I mean. Stop exploiting loopholes in my wording. I guess "censor obscene content" would be more clear. --LittleDan
But Dan, you still don't tell us how to identify what is obscene. As Vicki said, it's in the eye of the beholder. Victorians used to cover the legs of pianos and refer to human extremities as "limbs".
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
--- Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I hate to say this, but you know what I mean. Stop exploiting loopholes in my wording. I guess
"censor
obscene content" would be more clear. --LittleDan
But Dan, you still don't tell us how to identify what is obscene. As Vicki said, it's in the eye of the beholder. Victorians used to cover the legs of pianos and refer to human extremities as "limbs".
Zoe
OK. I guess I'd define obscene as something that is blocked on broadcast TV in the United States, but that is extremely biased, and from what I understand, it is overly-complicated. Maybe any genitals and female breasts.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
LittleDan-
As for the category scheme that Eloquence suggested (but I accidentally deleted the email) I think that would be a great idea, but it would require too much work. I've always wanted a category scheme, even a rough one like in the esperanto wiki, and your suggestion would work out well. I just think that if we set our goals too high, we'll never complete them (though I suppose Wikipedia is in defiance of this). --LittleDan
You think that making Wikipedia censorable for "inappropriate" content is a worthwhile goal. I don't.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
LittleDan-
As for the category scheme that Eloquence
suggested
(but I accidentally deleted the email) I think
that
would be a great idea, but it would require too
much
work. I've always wanted a category scheme, even a rough one like in the esperanto wiki, and your suggestion would work out well. I just think that
if
we set our goals too high, we'll never complete
them
(though I suppose Wikipedia is in defiance of
this).
--LittleDan
You think that making Wikipedia censorable for "inappropriate" content is a worthwhile goal. I don't.
Regards,
Erik
I seem to be going against almost everyone, so I'll just concede to the majority. I no longer support the censorship of Wikipedia. --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I seem to be going against almost everyone, so I'll just concede to the majority. I no longer support the censorship of Wikipedia.
Well, you don't have to stop *supporting* it, you can just stop *agitating* for it (since it's not working). Maybe sometime in the future, your view will gain ascendancy (I hope not, but presumably you hope so).
-- Toby