[Foundation-l] PG rating

[Risker]

On 7 September 2011 21:14, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>
> wrote:
> > On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> >> [...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their
> >> children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
> >>
> >
> > It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
> >
> > Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents
> > a significant number of parents over several cultural groups, and that
> > (b) there is serious indication that if (a) is true those same parents
> > are going to change their stance given the proposed implementation of
> > the image filter?
> >
> > Because, unless we got some serious statistical backing for those
> > assertions, they are just smoke blowing our of asses to the sound of
> > "but think of the children!"
>
> Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
>
> -
>

Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video
games, and other media.  There are literally tens of thousands of pages on
the English Wikipedia that would fall afoul of rating schemes of multiple
countries, although they would vary significantly from country to country.

I recall some time ago, I bumped into an article that  had a video of the
bodies of dead (facially recognizable) soldiers being looted.  I'm pretty
sure that one would have crossed the PG (or equivalent) in many countries.
Sexually explicit pages cross the threshold in many countries as well,
obviously, and there are some that would be rated as "Adults only" in many
countries too.

But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this?

Risker/Anne