Hi Steve -
Funny you should mention the Bill and Monica thing. First, I'd like to
point out that I'm not in favor of any tags or wiki-imposed filtering.
Just looked at the article in question and, although I'd phrase some of
it differently (since part of the moral outrage of the vast right-wing
conspirators was based on the fact that he'd committed adultery), it's
nothing one couldn't find in the mainstream news media. On the other
hand, if tags *were* to be employed, I suppose one might flag the oral
sex article accessible from the Monica page. And I'm iffy on the sexual
intercourse page, because it gives a bit more detail than your average
reader might be expecting - e.g., I might be fine with my 8-year-old (no
longer exists) to look up sexual intercourse, but I wouldn't be
comfortable with her knowing details of how it's done until she's a bit
older - unless she asks. The reality is, most kids that age don't ask
till they hear or read about it, and then don't quite get the attraction
and say, "eeew, gross." But sometimes the images can disturb them. And
I am personally not comfortable that we link to a site with "graphic
explicit animations." However, that's me. And that's why I like a
clear disclaimer, rather than trying to tag things for filtering. The
value of the preponderance of the information found on the pedia far
outweighs the "objectionable" stuff. That's why I don't think tags for
filtering are really feasible.
JHK