[WikiEN-l] Just to throw this out there...

[Toby Bartels]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Toby Bartels wrote:

>>If you spell it out in such a way that it includes explicity sexual
>>content but not explicit religious content, then how is this NPOV,
>>given an earlier poster (Ec?) that considers the latter harmful to
>>kids.  (And if Ec is joking, I have a friend that seriously believes
>>that about Christianity in particular.)

>End users can adjust it however they like, so what's the problem?

If end users have to adjust for themselves
which articles are labelled "mature content",
then (depending on what this means), either:
* We abandon NPOV for the label at any single given moment,
  and instead the next person to come along adjusts it to their own POV,
  without any security that this will last more than a minute; or
* The user can't use the "mature content" label
  without going through the whole site and labelling everything.
(The first bullet point assumes a single global labelling,
while the second assumes individual labelling for each content provider.)

>>If «explicit sexual content» is what you meant all along by "mature
>>content", then let's say "explicit sexual content".

>No, it isn't what I meant all along.  It's by far the biggest problem
>category that we have right now, but of course other things can be
>included.

If "explicit sexual content" is a single *category*,
then why not just label it "explicit sexual content"
and label the *other* categories *different* things?
Why bring them all under "mature content"?

In responding to this, your position seems to have gotten a lot stranger.
Perhaps you just forgot that the above two comments
are not an objection to the scheme in general (that's elsewhere),
but instead just an objection to making "mature content"
one of the labels used (alongside "sex" and ... I forget the other one).

>>>But this is important for Wikipedia the website, not just for
>>>others.

>>Is it?  If we have an Edupedia website built on a Sifter model,
>>then schools can block Wikipedia as long as they don't block Edupedia.

>And that would be very unfortunate, I think.

Unfortunate, I suppose.  But would it cause significant harm?
Keeping in mind the opposition that categorising Wikipedia has aroused,
which opposition is not to be found against Edupedia,
that may be the optimal solution.


-- Toby