Anthere wrote:
Anthere wrote:
You just suggest that we give up some of wikipedia
openness and very concept, just for the fear of an
event that could very well be handled through peer
pressure and votes for deletion.
Not at all, as (almost) anyone can become sysop.
I did not suggest "sysop only" to take some rights from the unwashed
masses, merely as a practical measure. I don't insist on that.
Suggestion: Limit creating categories to sysops for, say, two month
after installing the category system. After that, anyone can create
categories. The idea is that once we have some category scheme that
works, people will rather stick to the existing system than trying to
invent a new one, e.g. by adding a "people from Novosibirsk that made
U.S. president" ;-)
IMHO deleting categories should be resrticted, until there's an
"undelete" option. No doubt, my implementation needs work; renaming and
merging categories will be important. Easy to implement, and I
volunteer, but not until I get a "go" ;-)
Depends. If we only provide the tool, and end users
(such as a school) decide what is to put on the
"censored list", only one category is necessary. If
Wikipedia itself set the content of the "sexually
explicit" list, I think we will need dozens of lists.
Because clearly not everyone here will agree on what
has to be on the list, and what has not to be.
There could also be categories for large groups, like U.S. schools. "Not
suitable for U.S. schools"? Or rather "Not Republican approved"? ;-]
And I did not understand the filtering option had
been
decided really.
It wasn't. I just remember a few mails where Jimbo seemed to embrace the
idea of a filtering option for wikipedia.
Magnus