Charles Matthews said:
[[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]] is there; [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia
is not]] mentions 'Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of
minors'.
Declaration of interest: I wrote that section myself with reference to the
content disclaimer.>
The operational WP criterion is 'adds to the
encyclopedia', and on the
whole this is fine for what we do; its opposite would be more like
'gratuitous', rather than 'could offend someone'. It is obvious enough
why we can't use 'could offend someone' and still write WP. I'm not
great myself at watching graphic bits of medical dramas on television;
I would make that a reason for not clicking around pages on surgery,
rather than any sort of criterion for what is there.
Yep. That's not so far from my reading of the thing. I've got no
hang-ups about linking--that's fine by me. I think content that doesn't
add to Wikipedia should not be there, and that includes images. The only
point of difference I think I have had with anybody here is where my
judgement of what adds to the encyclopedia collides with someone else's
judgement of what somebody (quite often somebody other than the speaker)
wouldn't like to see.
I hope we stay with (roughly) the same content guidelines and find a way
to filter content for school use, which would also make a site that could
be browsed unsupervised by children (though not necessarily by small
children).