On Apr 7, 2005 5:40 PM, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
Neil Harris wrote:
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.
I suppose Wikipedia is big enough to come up with our own tags. In the
first place, our needs for 1.0 are much bigger than child/sensitivity
protection, which is what the ICRA addresses. In the second place, we
shouldn't be surprised if whatever standard we develop (with our
incredible community focus power) becomes adopted widely. ICRA may be a
nice example in certain ways, but we needn't be shy about going in our
own direction.
Tom
Not responding directly to Tom, though his mention of 1.0 brought this to mind.
This and other similar conversations leads me to be a bit pessimistic
about the printed 1.0 project. I believe that it is a given that 1.0
cannot contain every article in Wikipedia -- perhaps not even every
article that meets some necessarily subjective criteria for quality.
There's just too much to print in a single volume, and I don't foresee
our first non-topical print edition being a multi-volume work.
How will the community go about deciding what should be in 1.0? If
Autofellatio meets some subjective criteria for quality, will it be
included? What about all of the pages of Pokemon characters? The
articles about every small town in the state of Michigan (to pick a
state name at random)?
Will there not need to be some sense of "appropriateness" used to
determine the actual content? Is [[Autofellatio]] appropriate? How
about [[Mewtwo]]? [[Shoreham, Michigan]]?
Anyone care to define an NPOV way to decide this?
-- Rich Holton
en.wikipedia:User:Rholton