kq wrote:
....
Is it really so unclear what I'm saying?
The idea of what is "sexually explicit" has
at various times included piano legs,
women's ankles, and Elvis Presley's hips.
In quite a few places on the planet, it still
includes women's ankles, and I'm sure it
would include Elvis Presley's hips as well.
For an example in the opposite direction,
Robert Mapplethorpe considered his work
"erotic," yet many (many) people consider
it "pornographic." Should I point you to the
obscenity trials for James Joyce's _Ulysses_?
Anyway, tagging articles with commentary of
that sort--"sexually explicit," etc.--is the same
as imposing your cultural POV onto them; in
other words, it is the same as declaring the
wikipedia a developed nation's middle-class
anglocentric-pedia. Exactly how is that of
benefit to us?
I tend to agree and think that we shouldn't be the ones doing the flagging but
several to many external "team certification" or "Sifter" projects can
do so.
The faint of heart could then access our articles through those separate
projects. At the most we can say in the Wikipedia article that "A previous
version of this article has been certified by X, Y and Z groups."
Let them deal with flagging wars and criteria - we have an NPOV encyclopedia
to write!
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)