Geoff writes:
I also think this system solves the POV problem by being APOV - the authorities' point of view - when the 'pedia _must_ take a point of view. The APOV is, after all, the only thing that matters when there are authorities with a POV, anyway.
Yes, but wikipedia does not strive for APOV; it strives for NPOV. The more I hear about this, the more I'm convinced that it is simply not a project for wikipedia; that filtering content--or "sifting" it, if you will--is a project for something else. Let's call it "sifter," shall we?
You make some good points otherwise, especiallly about wanting the 'pedia to be broadly available, but miss the point that annotating articles with culturally relative standards of e.g. "explicit" is POV. And, just to get away from the sex examples (they're becoming tedious), in a film I saw recently about [[throat singing]], the people of a rural community outside Mongolia killed a sheep by putting their hand through a hole in the chest to stop its aorta. I thought the footage graphic, if not nauseating, but the people doing the ceremony were unbothered by it and in fact considered it a great honor. I fail to see how my opinion about the action is of any consequence to wikipedia whatsoever; and I'd oppose anyone's attempts to label the action according to their moral or cultural standards--even if I share them.
kq
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com