2011/9/13 John Vandenberg
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Fae wrote:
> > On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson wrote:
> >> Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys
> >> doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what
> is
> >> suppo
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Fae wrote:
> On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson wrote:
>> Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys
>> doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is
>> supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but
2011/9/13 M. Williamson :
> Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys
> doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is
> supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a
> piece of stale bread? Wow.
+1
I really hope
On 13 September 2011 18:23, M. Williamson wrote:
> Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys
> doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is
> supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a
> piece of stale bread?
Are you kidding? Pictures of mummies, a cup with a depiction of two guys
doing it that can only be noticed if you look really closely, and what is
supposed to be a depiction of intercourse but actually looks more like a
piece of stale bread? Wow.
2011/9/13 Fae
> > Are there are pages on English
> Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Good candidates that I have had a hand in improving are:
# [[Gebelein predynastic mummies]] - surely gruesome close-ups of
naked dead bodies are PG?
# [[Warren Cup]] - explicit depiction of under-age homosexual anal sex
in
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>> Are there any encyclopedia which have been
>> classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
>>
>> If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies wo
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:24:27PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question
> from another perspective.
Oh, right, sorry. I knew it was a bad idea to post at 5:00 AM. ^^;;
> If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most ratin
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I remember once at the local college library, Adams State, in Alamosa,
> that they had Girl on a Swing in the children's collection.
At my secondary school library (er, I think that's 'high school' for
the US equivalent) we were given a tour o
On 08/09/11 03:14, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
PG rating is a point of view. It breaches "our" constitution to remains
neutral :-)
--
Ashar Voultoiz
___
foundation-l mailing lis
If we didn't all know that Mike is probably following this thread, I think
we would have reached Godwin's law a little while back.
--
~Keegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubs
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> > Are there any encyclopedia which have been
> > classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
> >
> > If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agenc
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> Are there any encyclopedia which have been
> classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
>
> If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would
> decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
editorial self-control.
Always appropriate.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:30 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question
>> from another perspective.
>>
>> Are there any encyclopedia which have been
>> classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
>>
>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question
> from another perspective.
>
> Are there any encyclopedia which have been
> classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
>
> If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating age
Hi Kim,
I think you might be more interested in looking at the same question
from another perspective.
Are there any encyclopedia which have been
classified/banned/bowlderised by any country in the last 50 years?
If Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia, most rating agencies would
decide that the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:00:27PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> http://www.efa.org.au/category/censorship/mandatory-isp-filtering/
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/australian_censorship_measures/
I know, right? That's why it's politically so damned inconvenient
for the board to move fo
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:15:00PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote:
> > Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video
> > games, and other media.
>
> Sure there are a lot of possible problems, but I am wondering if we
> ha
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Phil Nash wrote:
>>John Vandenberg wrote:
>>..
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board
>
> Rubbish, and the article you cite is very poorly-written anyway.
I provided the link to Wikipedia so people unfamiliar with Australia
have somewhere
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote:
>>> Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television,
>>> video
>>> games, and other media.
>>
>> Which rating systems would apply to our content?
>>
>> i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdictio
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote:
>> Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television,
>> video games, and other media.
>
> Which rating systems would apply to our content?
>
> i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote:
>> Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television,
>> video
>> games, and other media.
>
> Which rating systems would apply to our content?
>
> i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over
> Wikipedia?
>
> htt
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote:
> Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, video
> games, and other media.
Which rating systems would apply to our content?
i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.o
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Phil Nash
> wrote:
>> ...
>> [[WP:ANI]] is hardly an example to our children, is it?
>
> ANI isn't a content page.
As I understand it, all of Wikipedia is available to all readers. It follows
that the same standard should prevail througho
On 7 September 2011 21:14, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> 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 tim
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> wrote:
>>..
>> Reality is PG.
>
> ;-)
>
> By rating, I mean external standardised classification systems.
> What individual parents do with those ratings is a different matter.
>
> Does English Wikipedia have content which an external regulato
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> 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 sou
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Phil Nash wrote:
>...
> [[WP:ANI]] is hardly an example to our children, is it?
ANI isn't a content page.
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wi
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>..
> Reality is PG.
;-)
By rating, I mean external standardised classification systems.
What individual parents do with those ratings is a different matter.
Does English Wikipedia have content which an external regulator would
classify
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier
> 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.
>>
On 07/09/2011 9:14 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Perhaps, the problem being that one parent's PG is another's inoffensive
learning material. I can readily see people who wouldn't want their
children anywhere near [[Big Ba
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier 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 somewher
33 matches
Mail list logo
