Erik Moeller wrote:
The front page should have a note on it in the introduction, saying something like 'While the wikipedia does not condone obscenity, articles may contain adult concepts and language unsuitable for children. Please supervise your children's access.' or whatever...
I strongly object against this. This implies that the concept of obscenity is generally shared, which it isn't. If you get your obscenity warning label, I want my "religious content" warning label. And someone else may want a warning label that Wikipedia may be offensive to people having suffered from certain traumas. And maybe the creationists and anti-abortionists want one, too.
Wikipedia is an *encyclopedia*. That implies certain things. If you don't want your children to learn, don't allow them to read -- that is your right as a parent. But not everyone wants children to be kept ignorant of sexual matters (or the ideas that lead to such indoctrination to be perpetuated uncritically).
So you don't like that wording? Leave off the first sentence then. It's just my blathering. In lieu of some means of 'grading' articles for suitability (which I don't think we need) a parental warning is the LEAST we can do. MOST of the articles in the wikipedia are noncontrovertial, but not all of them, and the odds are high that it wouldn't occur to a lot of parents that this is the case. Articles in the wikipedia come up in Google all the time and while it's great for Junior to be able to find information on Golden Retriever dogs or the History of Great Britain or the Lesser Spotted Warbler, the kid can go from there to anything else in the wikipedia...
But I'm not going to sit here and argue about it. I've got MUCH better things to do with my evening.