[WikiEN-l] Re: filtering, etc.

[koyaanis qatsi]

>The standards for what we mean by mature content
>can be spelled out in sufficient detail and in an
>NPOV way so that controversy is minimized.

I don't believe this is possible without context for
each specific article.  Look at all the controversy
around why to include people on certain lists--it
*begs for,* no, *demands* justification.  Without
justification it will look POV and arbitrary.

>Some people in this debate have taken a very POV
>position, i.e. that wikipedia should shove this
>stuff down people's throats, and if they're too
>prudish to deal with it, too bad ha ha.  I don't
>agree.

Some people in this debate have taken the illogical
and provably false position that ideas of what is
"explicit" are absolute, and that people disagreeing
aren't being logical, but are being POV, ha ha.  These
same people also seem to believe that labeling
articles with controversial metadata will somehow
itself be immune from controversy.  Again this is an
assertion that is arguable at best and provably false
at worst.  I do not believe that Jimmy doesn't
understand what I and others are saying, but that,
rather, that he has decided category schemes are A
Good Thing, and that filtering is A Good Thing, and
that filtering wikipedia's content in violation of
NPOV will be A Good Thing, in spite of violating the
understood social contract that whatever we write
about, if it's verifiable and from a NPOV, will be
left in plain view.

Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume
that applying categories to our articles for the sake
of filtering them from the innocent eyes of children
can be handled without controversy, in spite of the
general controversy already stirred up on the mailing
list.  Let us assume also that it can be done without
running afoul of NPOV, and that this wikipedia decree
of what is and is not Safe and Good and Morally Just
for children to know will be accepted and endorsed by
wikipedians in general.  So, let's set about
categorizing articles.

Given that a category scheme with, say, 3million
categories would be worse than useless for the purpose
of filtering content, we'll set a few categories.  One
of them, as Jimbo has indicated, will be Crime.  What
articles are relevant to crime?  Koyanis Qatsi
nominates [[George W. Bush]] for his cocaine habit,
but Powaqqatsi says "wait, wait, that's hearsay; we
can't include that."  Ok, a fair point.  Two paths
diverged in a POV debate, and which does wikipedia
take?  Let's say wikipedia decides that the metadata
crime can be added to any article with a mention of a
crime, whether it's been proven or not.  So mav writes
an article on the well-known layabout gadfly KQ,
because he has it on good faith from a friend that KQ
has once been convicted of jaywalking; and then he
adds the metadata:crime to the article.  KQ
"retaliates" and adds crime to the articles on Bromide
and Arsenic, because they've been used in some crimes
he knows about, and children shouldn't have such
notions of poisoning put into their heads.  Well,
AxelBoldt worked 812 hours apiece on those articles,
and he won't have his work censored, so he adds
metadata:crime to [[Sid Davis]] because, hell, it does
mention molestation.  Oh, this is going great. 
Anthere adds metadata:crime to [[O.J. Simpson]]; Bryan
Derksen removes it because he was found innocent in
criminal court; Brion Vibber restores it because he
was found guilty in civil court.  [[24]] steps in and
says "why should crime in the U.S. be the deciding
factor?  What about crime in the U.K., or Bhutan, or
the Apache nation?"  So Henry Kissinger gets
metadata:Crime because Chile wants him extradited to
stand trial for war crimes.  Jimbo steps in and adds
crime to the Clintons for their -gate and for Bill's
tendency to keep his zipper down, and Ed Poor adds the
metadata to the articles on lead pipes, knives,
swords, Sherman tanks, and letter openers (a mystery
crime favorite).

It's a ridiculous situation.  Wikipedia comes to its
senses and says "wait, the only articles that will get
the metadata:crime will be articles on *people* who
have been tried for and convicted of a crime."  A
better path.  (though, I might add, still one that is
provably illogical, given that courts reviewing the
same evidence as other courts often overturn verdicts,
and so even facts of a crime are open to
interpretation).  Anyway, so metadata:crime is
inserted into articles on [[Randal Dale Adams]], later
tried again and proven innocent, and [[Jesus
Christ]]--no appeal for him--and [[Nelson Mandela]],
that agitator and limerock miner.  Nice look, the
squint.  Pizza Puzzle adds it to [[Adolf Hitler]] but
Notheruser says "wait, wait, he was never tried and
convicted; he committed suicide and didn't have a
chance to defend himself."  So the label is removed,
and is removed from [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Lee Harvey
Oswald]], and [[Jack the Ripper]].  Hey, this works
great.

A New York Times writer has been lurking about the
'pedia after writing the article on it awhile back,
and notes the hubbub, but perceives it as the POV
ravings of a seriously deranged professional body, and
has his big story: WIKIPEDIA: MANDELA A CRIMINAL,
HITLER NOT.  Meanwhile all of us on wikien here the
pattering of feet down a hall, which is the sound of
Jimbo running for a PR agent.  And what have we
proven?  Children shouldn't know about most of the
U.S. presidents--it's not safe--and also not Mandela,
because why?  Um, I guess knowing about a crime is
instrumental in becoming a criminal.  We have to warn
the judges.  The public is in danger.  Secret courts! 
We need secret courts!  Ashcroft, hurry up with it!

Now: another point.  Jimmy, you said you wouldn't
change wikipedia's content for China's government. 
Fair enough. But, China is home to *a lot* of people. 
If you're not willing to make concessions for them,
why make concessions for the middle-class
middle-of-the-road segment of any other country,
especially one that's home to far fewer people? 
Especially since it can't be done in a logical and
impartial way, not to mention one that won't violate
NPOV and stir up useless, counterproductive
controversy.  You're poking a hornet's nest.

sarcastically, bitterly, but still with a point.

kq


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com