Rick wrote:
--- Neil Harris <neil(a)tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
I have a feeling that the ICRA vocabulary may be
copyrighted by ICRA, so
we would not be able to use it without their
permission. However, if a
similar label scheme were to be adopted, it must be
copyright free,
non-subjective, and capable of being used in an NPOV
manner without
endless labelling and re-labelling revert wars.
Even the ICRA labels
(which represent a good attempt at a reasoned
scheme) still have some
subjective aspects to them.
-- Neil
How can anything labeled "offensive" be NPOV? We have
seen in the recent war that many, many people
considered the autofellatio image offensive, while
many, many others considered it non-offensive.
RickK
You missed the point of my comments; "offensive" is clearly a subjective
judgement. Regarding the image in question, literal descriptions such as
"nude photograph", "photograph of human genitalia" (and similar) are
less subjective, and more likely to be useful. Just to repeat, for
clarity: I'm _against_ using the ICRA tags, since they seem to be both
still somewhat subjective (and hence incompatible with NPOV), as well as
in my opinion almost certainly (IANAL, TINLA) legally incompatible with
an open-access, GFDL-licensed wiki.
-- Neil