On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:27:32AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote: Would you support a more generalised warning, though? Perhaps a "WARNING TO PARENTS: wikipedia contains material that some consider unsuitable for children. We would like to encourage everybody to use information responsibly". -- jason(a)jasonandali.org.uk http://www.jasonandali.org.uk/jason/

Erik Moeller wrote: "Pets?!" Would making explicit material available for cattle to watch alter the level of bullshit?" "Taking responsibility for alleged harm." That's not what this is about. Ec

So it would just be "Please supervise your children's access"? No way, that would imply that we take the POV that supervision of children's learning is necessary to prevent them from looking at "bad information", something I am strongly opposed against. Children should have access to all the information they want, what they should also have is understanding parents who can explain to them what it means. Moral behavior cannot be taught, it can only be lived by example through affectionate parenting. Then these parents need better education. An encyclopedia can be expected to cover human knowledge, much of which is certainly controversial. Gasp, so they might learn about anal sex? What a horrible thought! What a terrible idea for them to be prepared when they actually have sexual experiences. The history of Great Britain is certainly a story for the whole family, what with all the murder, rape and bloodshed during the colonization. So let's give parents better "tools" to prevent children from being informed about sexual matters. Is that your logic? If so, I don't share it, and neither do I believe it is NPOV. Your evening is my morning. It's 11 AM here. Regards, Erik -- +++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++ NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!

--- Karen AKA Kajikit <kaji(a)labyrinth.net.au> wrote: If junior can go to google and search, there are more hard-core things out there than the Wikipedia. I wouldn't worry about it. ===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com

Erik Moeller wrote: I can agree that if we give the parents the opportunity to block sexually explicit material, they should also have the opportunity to block religiously material, as well as other categories. Some may even want to block mathematically explicit material. In regards to my son I would keep the filters off, but I know from my involvement in educational politics that my view on this represents a minority of parents. To a large measure the issue is about the rights of parents to decide what their own children will be able to see. Parents already feel powerless about the decisions they make for children in the face of the homogenizing tendencies of educational systems. Why should we further erode that right by arrogating to ourselves the decision of what should be accessible for their children? What I am advocating is a scheme to identify articles that "could" fall into a blockable category. Of course there will be categorization errors over just how bad some paricular article really is, but if we recognize varying degrees of unacceptability the articles will eventually get to the right place.. Eclecticology