KQ writes:
Since we don't know and won't be borrowing Google's system, we will have to establish our own. At the risk of embarassing myself, let me ask again:
[[felching]]: "safe" or not? [[oral sex]]: "safe" or not? [[Bill Clinton]]: "safe" or not?
Jimmy responds:
felching: sexual content oral sex: sexual content Bill Clinton: politics
I suppose some wag could come along and suggest that an article on Bill Clinton is 'sexual content', but
if
it really is, then there's something wrong with the article on other grounds, I think.
I'm not being a wag; I'm being serious when I say that if Bill Clinton (and other articles) fit into one category only, then we're recreating subpages. If they fit into several categories, then it's just a matter of time before Bill Clinton and George Michaels are labeled "sexual content," and argued over, complete with edit wars, and/or "filtered" as "unsafe." That's where the POV comes in. Electronic Freedom Foundation: technology or politics? Filtered or not?
It's a lose/lose situation, as far as I can see: re-establish a hierarchy of articles, or risk "collateral damage" in filtering--and I expect that collateral damage to include, for different reasons, [[breast]], [[Michael Jackson]], [[Kurt Cobain]], [[Khmer Rouge]], and [[Robert Blake]]. At that point, wikipedia will have drifted so far from its goal of being educational that I'd rather read a cereal box. :-\
kq
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
I'm not being a wag; I'm being serious when I say that if Bill Clinton (and other articles) fit into one category only, then we're recreating subpages.
I think this is all off the point. We all in good faith understand what reasonable people could be objecting to - namely articles like teabagging, buttplugs, creampies, the list goes on... But its not infinite... I mean concievably someone could go through and stub a whole bunch of these - sexual related terms. But the point is that sex-terms are very very limited. Relative to the whole of the WP. And besides, the content itself isnt pornographic - its not photos of bukakke or what have you - its text and text only. Are we going to allow links to porn sites? Like the Bomis Babe report? Well...
The answer of course is no. Which is unlike (in theory) the ethical responsibility that Google has - giving easy access to actual links - rather than info. For a kid to come to an encyclopedia for their sex knowledge - as bizarre as some of it is... is nothing compared to the porn thats avaliable. In fact - its for the kids that the WP has a duty to tackle these topics in an intelligent way. We are not pornographers, in other words - and there is no way we could be called such. Unless we were to put pornographic material up - which I dont see a need for. The web is a big sticky place, and WP is possibly - regardless of any particular articles it has - a dry cave providing shelter from the drizzle.
On antother note - the AKFD article is still there - as well as the DTK article which I wrote to make a point about how necessary the AKFD article is. Its got a link to Sebastian Bach's website, for Gods sake - what the hell is that about?? I wasnt around when you all finished "voting" on the general issue of slogans.
WikiLove be upon you, - S.McG
Stevertigo wrote in part:
articles like teabagging, buttplugs, creampies, the list goes on... But its not infinite... I mean concievably someone could go through and stub a whole bunch of these - sexual related terms.
Some of them, like the infamous [[Felching]], are quite stubby; we could combine things into a [[List of unusual sexual practices]] page. (There's already discussion of this on [[Talk:Felching]], so look there.)
Are we going to allow links to porn sites? Like the Bomis Babe report? Well... The answer of course is no.
The answer is yes; we already have several links to porn sites. But ...
For a kid to come to an encyclopedia for their sex knowledge - as bizarre as some of it is... is nothing compared to the porn thats avaliable.
... these links don't come from our pages about sexual practice; they come from our pages about pornography, which is quite different. So kids interested in porn can learn about it from us, and find it through us, much as they might find it through Google. However, kids interested in sexuality can also learn about it from us, without running into porn sites along the way -- not true of Google! (Anybody that hasn't searched Google for "felching" is advised to do so. The results page is informative in several ways!)
-- Toby
At 03:30 AM 6/8/2003, you wrote:
(Anybody that hasn't searched Google for "felching" is advised to do so. The results page is informative in several ways!)
-- Toby
Wikipedia's article on felching is the #2 Google hit when you search for felching! I've added [[Felching]] to [[Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K]]. Think we can hit #1 with a little work? I've never been so proud....
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
(Anybody that hasn't searched Google for "felching" is advised to do so. The results page is informative in several ways!)
Wikipedia's article on felching is the #2 Google hit when you search for felching! I've added [[Felching]] to [[Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K]]. Think we can hit #1 with a little work? I've never been so proud....
Indeed ... but what *I* found most interesting was the "sponsored links".
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
(Anybody that hasn't searched Google for "felching" is advised to do so. The results page is informative in several ways!)
Wikipedia's article on felching is the #2 Google hit when you search for felching! I've added [[Felching]] to [[Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K]]. Think we can hit #1 with a little work? I've never been so proud....
Indeed ... but what *I* found most interesting was the "sponsored links".
Hmm! Does that mean that as number *2* we try harder, as we felch the knowledge that cums from WP? :-P
Ec
sannse wrote:
Uncle Ed? Is that you??
Hmm! Does that mean that as number *2* we try harder, as we felch the knowledge that cums from WP? :-P
Ec
No it wasn't. Although, I was aware of such a practice long before I heard of Wikipedia, the word "felching" is something that I learned here. I think that many educators will support the idea that one of the best ways to remember a word is to use it in a sentence. I've done that. :-)
Eclecticology
I have heard funnier things... but I really cant remember when.
SM
http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0205/free/
Toby: Wikipedia's article on felching is the #2 Google hit when you search for
felching! I've added [[Felching]] to [[Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits,
A-K]].
Think we can hit #1 with a little work? I've never been so proud....
koyaanis qatsi wrote:
I'm not being a wag; I'm being serious when I say that if Bill Clinton (and other articles) fit into one category only, then we're recreating subpages.
Well, I don't think we should set up a meta-data system so limited that everything has to fit into one category.
Electronic Freedom Foundation: technology or politics? Filtered or not?
Both, and the view that end users want to put on the data is up to them.
It's a lose/lose situation, as far as I can see: re-establish a hierarchy of articles, or risk "collateral damage" in filtering--and I expect that collateral damage to include, for different reasons, [[breast]], [[Michael Jackson]], [[Kurt Cobain]], [[Khmer Rouge]], and [[Robert Blake]].
What damage do you envision? Because I'm just not following you at all.
--Jimbo
I have two technical points regarding filtering, and a more fundamental one.
Jimbo, once you have checked all the categories to exclude from your mom's Wikipedia experience, what is actually going to happen? I suppose searches for those topics will return nothing. Links on RecentChanges to these topics will be suppressed. How about links on non-blocked pages to blocked ones? Will the hyperlinks simply turn into regular text? "Why Jimbo my dear, have you ever heard about this, 'felching'?" :-)
Now, to prevent an explosion of categories, all slightly different and designed for different constituencies, turning the system into a useless mess, you'll have to limit the available categories somewhat. There will then very likely emerge one category which most well-meaning sons, school administrators and parents are going to block; say it's "sexual content". Can you imagine the ensuing fights about which articles to label as "sexual content"? Admittedly, (now that we all know what it is,) [[felching]] won't cause a problem. But how about [[contraception]], [[AIDS]], [[breast]], [[homosexuality]], [[homophobia]], [[menstrual cycle]], [[puberty]], [[pregnancy]]?
Now my real point. "Young people are constantly exposed to half-truths about sexuality by smirking older boys in the schoolyard, by the media, by internet porn sites. In Wikipedia, we cover those topics in a respectful, truthful and neutral way. Take it or leave it."
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
Now my real point. "Young people are constantly exposed to half-truths about sexuality by smirking older boys in the schoolyard, by the media, by internet porn sites. In Wikipedia, we cover those topics in a respectful, truthful and neutral way. Take it or leave it."
Again, very eloquent, and I'm listening. (But not speaking for a couple of days, while I digest this.)
--Jimbo