On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ? >> There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and >> vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars, >> articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of >> things to be deleted in order to make our projects more "family friendy". > > Has it occurred to you that we could simply _age-rate_ articles, rather > than delete them? An article on a pornographic novel could be 18-rated, > just like the novel itself. Same with porn star bios, which aren't likely > to be of interest to 9-year-olds.
I object to the assertion that images and discussion of reproductive organs is "unsuitable" for children under a certain age. This is primarily a Western Anglophone cultural assumption – and it doesn't hold true in all such parts of the world either. There's certainly no medical or psychological research which suggests that exposure to educational content about reproduction has a negative impact on child development. I grew up in Suburban Sydney. When I was barely five years old my parents gave me, as part of a "How My Body Works" series, a book about human reproduction, including detailed diagrams and illustrations. It is *NOT* *OUR* *ROLE* to decide what is and is not "appropriate" for children to view on our website. That role is to be discharged solely by parents and supervisors of those children. The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly. The infrastructure would be technically simple. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
