Rick wrote:
--- Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
I have a feeling that the ICRA vocabulary may be copyrighted by ICRA, so we would not be able to use it without their permission. However, if a similar label scheme were to be adopted, it must be copyright free, non-subjective, and capable of being used in an NPOV manner without endless labelling and re-labelling revert wars. Even the ICRA labels (which represent a good attempt at a reasoned scheme) still have some subjective aspects to them.
-- Neil
How can anything labeled "offensive" be NPOV? We have seen in the recent war that many, many people considered the autofellatio image offensive, while many, many others considered it non-offensive.
RickK
You missed the point of my comments; "offensive" is clearly a subjective judgement. Regarding the image in question, literal descriptions such as "nude photograph", "photograph of human genitalia" (and similar) are less subjective, and more likely to be useful. Just to repeat, for clarity: I'm _against_ using the ICRA tags, since they seem to be both still somewhat subjective (and hence incompatible with NPOV), as well as in my opinion almost certainly (IANAL, TINLA) legally incompatible with an open-access, GFDL-licensed wiki.
-- Neil