On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <polime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/5/8 Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org>: > > > I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be > family-friendly, > > and to let the specialists get their information in specialist resources. > > 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". > I don't know what you're going to do, but that's certainly not what I was suggesting. I was thinking more the content that's "educational" only to a narrow niche of abnormal psychologists and/or medical professionals. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Excirial <wp.excir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you believe that there is a need to make a "choice" between groups > of people? You agreed yourself that there were certain images that were "inappropriate for children", but would be educational and/or informative for certain niche professionals. That sounds to me like a choice needs to be made. It's just like the choices that are made in every encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. Present the topic in a way geared toward niche professionals, or present it in a way geared toward the general public. I wouldn't consider either choice to be "censorship", not by any reasonable definition of the term. We can easily supply all the data - it is up to the user to decide > if they want to access it. > Supplying "all the data" and letting "the user" decide what they want to access is not at all helpful. A raw dump of facts is not helpful. No, choices have to be made in order to turn that raw dump of facts into an educational resource. And that means choosing your audience. Am I saying that audience should be families, and there is no other acceptable choice. No, I'm not. There are plenty of other acceptable choices. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > For what it's worth, I personally don't see the issue as one of making > Commons (or Wikipedia or any other project) "family-friendly." > > If we judge Commons content simply on the basis of "Does this content > serves the mission of the projects?" there is no doubt that some content > will removed, some offensive content will not be removed, and Commons will > no longer be a kind of "dumping ground" for anything and everything > regardless of whether content lacks encyclopedic usefulness. I don't think so. At least not by the standard deletion processes that are currently in place. Just about any content can be said to "contain encyclopedic usefulness" if you take that to mean it could conceivably be used for educational purposes by someone. Even the most obscene and information-lacking content can be argued to be "educational", if for no other purpose than the purpose of giving an example of content which is obscene and information-lacking (and moreover, I've seen these types of arguments being made). "Encyclopedic usefulness" is meaningless without first defining your audience. Yes, the term "family friendly" is often used to mean something akin to "prudish christian conservative", but that's not the way I intended it. I intended it exactly the way it is written, content which is useful for teaching within the context of a family. That includes nudity, violence, sex, and "Tank Man", all things which a family would be negligent in *not* teaching their children about (or at least giving them the materials to learn for themselves). I didn't say anything about whether or not the images are "offensive". The idea that "family friendly" would mean "not offensive to anyone" is a bastardization of the English language, not the terminology I was using. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l