Erik pointed out that one size doesn't fit all in terms of filtering
content, even when talking about child-appropriate content. I won't
debate that, nor his (kind of) tongue in cheek remark about putting
advisories on the Christianity (and all other religion?) articles.
But here's where I think that argument falls down. The wikipedia is
fortunately unlike almost every print encyclopedia in that one can (or
will be able to, one day, we hope) find information on virtually
anything. I would guess that, when people see "online, open content
encyclopedia", they think in terms of information available in print
encyclopedia - I imagine it this way, laugh if you like: "Hey mom, I
found this really cool site!" "Really? What kind of site? (<subtext of
normal parental concern>)" "It's an encyclopedia - look at this cool
picture of an aardvark!" "Gee, honey, that *is* pretty cool! Useful,
too!" And mom, seeing it's an educational tool, goes back to doing
whatever, only to have her kid come up later and ask about the
information in the Felching article (and by the way, that looks a lot
like a dictionary entry to me), which might not be at all intelligible
to a pre-teen, at least. I think one size does fit all when erring on
the side of caution. In other contexts that same information might be
seen as abusive towards the child.
Sorry - I don't want to sound like a prude or like I'm some right-wing
fanatic. I just know that I live in a society that expects that, as a
society, we protect our children from things they aren't equipped to
handle - we try to refrain from swearing around them, we (except in the
US, it seems) have a sex and violence watershed on TV, etc. If
individual parents want to let their kids see R-rated films, or play
super violent video games, they can (again, I think the US is actually
more liberal about this). But that doesn't let the wikipedia off the
hook from at least letting people know that there is information on the
site that is not found in "normal" encyclopedias and is certainly not
age-appropriate for young children.
By the way, is anybody referring to articles OTHER than the ones with
explicit sexual (in any variety) details? I can see an argument for the
nightly news not being appropriate for young kids, too, but at least
parents have a good idea of what will be shown - I thought I did, till
they showed a cop being murdered by somebody at a routine road stop.
Julie