-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Bennett stated for the record: And exactly whose POINT OF VIEW would decide which pages those were? - -- Sean Barrett | Careful. We don't want to sean(a)epoptic.com | learn from this. --Calvin

On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: Calm down, please, that makes 4 angry messages in a row you've sent. At the risk of launching this topic again, shall I reiterate that no one who wanted to see the images/articles (or, more precisely, no one who wanted to see tham and had full control over their internet access) would be prevented from seeing them. Which precise articles were labelled in which way would then be an issue comparable with which articles are labelled {{NPOV}} or {{verify}}. Steve

Who's POV is it as if a article should be made a GA? On 5/14/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59(a)gmail.com> wrote: We could combine it with our general disclaimer. "WARNING: Wikipedia may or may not describe reality as it actually is. It may or may not include accurate or inaccurate information which may or may not offend you. If you search for an article about a sexual topic such as ''autofellatio'', it may include information about the sexual topic in question. Then again, it may not. Conversely, if you search for information about ''Drosophila melanogaster'', the article may not include any actual information about ''Drosophila melanogaster'' at all but, in fact, a 14-year-old's opinion about the sexual orientation of one of his friends or classmates. The article may or may not be illustrated in either case. You may or may not trust Wikipedia, but if you do so blindly, please [[contact us]] for information about affordable beachside properties." Erik

On 15/05/06, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: Their own problem. Rob Church

On 5/15/06, Prasad J <prasad59(a)gmail.com> wrote: No. That is thier parents job. Parents will do it lovingly and responsibly. We would make a complete arse of it. Theresa

On 15/05/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> wrote: Agree completely. Rob Church

On 5/14/06, Prasad J <prasad59(a)gmail.com> wrote: Perhaps Wikipedia needs something like the entry page on http://www.bigtits.com ? -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

On 5/15/06, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote: If people want to deter kids from coming across certain material on the internet, it's their responsibility to install blocking software. Wikipedia says is in BIG bold letters it's an encyclopedia. It's common sense for sexual material to be included so I'm against yet another disclaimer. Mgm

On 5/16/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not only that, but the various jurisdictions which Wikipedia serves pages to undoubtedly have different ideas about who is a child and who is an adult, and different ideas about what is "adult material". Attempting to institute a system of warnings or filters would undoubtedly leave holes, and that would arguably put us in a worse position than simply having the disclaimers and leaving everything up to users. We should try to keep potentially offensive stuff off the main page, a fairly simple task. That gives every visitor the opportunity to read the disclaimers, and anything after that is their problem. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

I had a medical encyclopedia/reference library that used to contain all sorts of naughty pictures that I used to giggle at, and there was no need for those texts to have disclaimers in big bold letters. On 5/16/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Prasad J wrote: We have an ethical responsibility to treat sensitive topics with seriousness and deep respect. We have discussed in the past having some sort of categorization for "adult material" but realized that there is no neutral way to do it. What we do instead is have neutral, factual categories that leave it up to filtering companies or whoever to do as they like. We can reach no consensus on whether or not a particular article is suitable for children. We can reach consensus on whether or not a particular article is about human sexuality or crime or drugs. Now, my own view is that even among extremely conservative parents, even wikipedia articles on fairly hair-raising topics are sufficiently factual and dull that *if* their children are searching on the internet for the topic, the parents should be quite happy that the kids come across wikipedia instead of something else. -- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################

On 5/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: I would love for us to test this empirically. I suspect the images on our anatomy pages would raise a few eyebrows. Steve

And the portal is so well-maintained too. More proof that most Wikipedians are male!

Just an idea, but for articles not suitable for minors ICRA<http://www.icra.org/>could be used. On 5/17/06, Rob Church &lt;robchur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Joe Anderson [[User:Computerjoe]] on en, fr, de, simple, Meta and Commons.

On 17 May 2006, at 07:39, Erik Moeller wrote: Illustrated with free pictures too, remarkably. Which shows that if we can get these we should delete all the non free pictures to encourage this sort of quality content. Justinc

On 5/17/06, Joe Anderson &lt;computerjoe.mailinglist(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: Oh, sorry, didn't mean that as an attack on you - the whole discussion seems to have started up again with no reference to the previous one. It was a bit trippy. No incivility intended! Steve

On 5/16/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevage(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I don't remember seeing erections, but there was plenty of interesting pictures of people in various states of undress and activity that I found interesting.