I think this is all off the point. We all in good faith understand what reasonable people could be objecting to - namely articles like teabagging, buttplugs, creampies, the list goes on... But its not infinite... I mean concievably someone could go through and stub a whole bunch of these - sexual related terms. But the point is that sex-terms are very very limited. Relative to the whole of the WP. And besides, the content itself isnt pornographic - its not photos of bukakke or what have you - its text and text only. Are we going to allow links to porn sites? Like the Bomis Babe report? Well... The answer of course is no. Which is unlike (in theory) the ethical responsibility that Google has - giving easy access to actual links - rather than info. For a kid to come to an encyclopedia for their sex knowledge - as bizarre as some of it is... is nothing compared to the porn thats avaliable. In fact - its for the kids that the WP has a duty to tackle these topics in an intelligent way. We are not pornographers, in other words - and there is no way we could be called such. Unless we were to put pornographic material up - which I dont see a need for. The web is a big sticky place, and WP is possibly - regardless of any particular articles it has - a dry cave providing shelter from the drizzle. On antother note - the AKFD article is still there - as well as the DTK article which I wrote to make a point about how necessary the AKFD article is. Its got a link to Sebastian Bach's website, for Gods sake - what the hell is that about?? I wasnt around when you all finished "voting" on the general issue of slogans. WikiLove be upon you, - S.McG

koyaanis qatsi wrote: Well, I don't think we should set up a meta-data system so limited that everything has to fit into one category. Both, and the view that end users want to put on the data is up to them. What damage do you envision? Because I'm just not following you at all. --Jimbo