On 3/29/06, Geoff Burling llywrch@rdrop.com wrote:
On Sun Mar 26 19:08:45 UTC 2006 Steve Bennett stevage at gmail.com wrote:
On 3/26/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very curious that of all the things they can attack wikipedia for, the fact that wikipedia is not censored is the one they focus on. Very strange indeed.
All the more reason to tag Wikipedia articles as kidsafe/worksafe.
It occurs to me that this entire debate about tagging articles is entirely moot. If a school or workplace wishes to filter Wikipedia content by articles, we have already provided the means for them to identify unwanted material: use the article category.
It should be a straightforward task for any computer technician to create a filter to keep out all of the articles marked [[Category:Sex]], [[Category:Porn star]], & even [[Category:Pokemon]], if a school or workplace desires. Explicit metatags duplicate information that is already part of the article & thus is unneeded -- unless some person starts making contributions that confuse this categorization, for example adding pictures of naked bodies to articles like [[Triangle]] & [[George W. Bush]]. In that case these edits would be vandalism & dealt with accordingly.
What about articles like [[Latin profanity]]? Last I checked, that article had an image near the top that's certain to trigger comments and questions from co-workers, but at the same time, no red-flag categories, and a title that sounds linguistics-related.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]