If you know my personal opinions (which, by the way, I do not think
should be controlling policy on these matters) on the issue of
censorship and what kids should be looking at, you'll know how extremely
unlikely it would be that I would be on a talk show saying anything of
the sort.
I prefer to be able to say: "We thought of that already, and we have
gone through a long and difficult process of editorial judgment to treat
delicate topics in a respectful and educational manner. Nothing in
Wikipedia is intentionally offensive, but of course there will always be
people who are offended by something. We do our best to take a serious
and thoughtful approach to these matters."
I have at times been supportive of the idea of tagging, and if that is
the best way to treat delicate topics in a respectful and educational
manner, then fine. But I think the default view of Wikipedia should not
be affected by such measures, so I would never be saying "oh, but you
have to do this, this, and that to see this stuff".
--Jimbo
I dream of a world where my children (eventually), and Jimbo's children,
and everyone else's children can browse wikipedia in a state where they
can still see a picture of autofellatio on the article autofellatio but
can go to the article on USB or the main page and not see a picture of
some guy's anus blown up to cover the whole page. I think that we
should stick to not censoring wikipedia at all and it really isn't up to
us to take care of what people can see, it's the parent's, teachers, or
whoevers job as guardians to make sure that the kids aren't browsing
into the nudity on wikipedia which btw legitimate pictures of nudity on
articles are few and far between.
-Jtkiefer