Erik Moeller wrote:
On a wiki, we risk "flagging wars", and by defining what "can be considered offensive" we are leaving NPOV behind. Daniel Ehrenberg suggested a similar thing a few weeks ago and said that he thought the goal of getting Wikipedia into all schools would be worth ignoring the NPOV issue.
But he was talking about omitting such content, not just flagging it.
I do not agree. By implementing a "family filter" we may convince some parents to use Wikipedia -- and convince others who want their children to be raised in an open, progressive manner to ignore it.
But I didn't recommend that we implement a family filter. Google doesn't filter -- but they do allow end users to configure what sorts of results are presented.
Still, I am not fundamentally opposed to filters on Wikipedia, but I think whatever solution is used should be NPOV - i.e. allow filtering by all types of content, not just one specific one. So, for example, if I want to filter *everything BUT* the sex content, that should also be possible. At which point I refer you to my pet project, team certification :-)
*nod* Well, sure. That's why I chose the term 'content advisory', so as to indicate that we should implement a system that is flexible.
--Jimbo