[WikiEN-l] Re: Filtering, etc.

[Stevertigo]

> 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