[WikiEN-l] article flags

[Daniel Mayer]

kq wrote:
>....
>Is it really so unclear what I'm saying?  
>The idea of what is "sexually explicit" has 
>at various times included piano legs, 
>women's ankles, and Elvis Presley's hips.  
>In quite a few places on the planet, it still 
>includes women's ankles, and I'm sure it
>would include Elvis Presley's hips as well.  
>For an example in the opposite direction, 
>Robert Mapplethorpe considered his work 
>"erotic," yet many (many) people consider 
>it "pornographic."  Should I point you to the
>obscenity trials for James Joyce's _Ulysses_?  
>Anyway, tagging articles with commentary of 
>that sort--"sexually explicit," etc.--is the same 
>as imposing your cultural POV onto them; in 
>other words, it is the same as declaring the 
>wikipedia a developed nation's middle-class 
>anglocentric-pedia.  Exactly how is that of 
>benefit to us?

I tend to agree and think that we shouldn't be the ones doing the flagging but 
several to many external "team certification" or "Sifter" projects can do so. 

The faint of heart could then access our articles through those separate 
projects. At the most we can say in the Wikipedia article that "A previous 
version of this article has been certified by X, Y and Z groups." 

Let them deal with flagging wars and criteria - we have an NPOV encyclopedia 
to write! 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)