Wikipedia with viewership ratings
This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum. |
I don't know exactly how this came into my mind; it was just brought to my attention as a combination of 2 things, one of which was the "Kids Wikipedia" being talked about above, the other was the Sex template that got deleted.
I am currently thinking of opinions about having 4 separate Wikipedias with different ratings:
- Kids Only (G)
- General Audience (PG)
- Business (B)
- Mature Audience (R)
Any opinions about this?? (Note that this is something I got from an Internet web page talking about rating web banners that I don't memorize the URL that I stumbled across in the fall of 2003 that I don't know whether it still exists.) 66.32.250.110 00:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Define mature. --Golbez 00:24, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Something that is appropriate for adults only. Wikipedia once had a sex template that was deleted, and I suggest that a mature audience (R) Wikipedia would be more appropriate for it. This Wikipedia should be the general audience (PG) Wikipedia. 66.32.250.110 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Define what's appropriate for adults only. Penis? Traci Lords? Rape of Nanjing? --Golbez 02:14, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Something tells me you're not an anonymous user. Did you forget to log in?
- In any case, if one fork is bad, four forks is a catastrophe. Besides, it will not be possible to reach consensus on what is "appropriate for adults only". I, for one, don't believe there is anything in the current Wikipedia that exceeds the "parental guidance" / general audience level. — David Remahl 00:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NO, NO, and more NO. Wikipedia should never be divided or separated. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Neutrality. Wikipedia is NOT a "kids'" encyclopaedia and has never been intended to be, it is intended for general use i.e. a reasonably mature audience. If young children are reading it, it should be under the supervision of a parent or guardian who takes responsibility for what they read. -- Arwel 01:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nothing is to stop someone for using GFDL permission to create a censored Wikipedia, but I certainly don't want to devote my time to the project. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:41, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
PG, G, and R are trademarked, so we certainly wouldn't want to use those terms. I have my doubts about whether or not there's enough interest to create a single kids Wikipedia. It's way to early to even think about starting three. If people want to start an encyclopedia targetted at kids, I think Wikimedia should support them. It is very much within the goals of the foundation. Yes, the issue of what should be included and what shouldn't is important, and needs to be discussed before the site can be started, but I don't think it's something that the people actually interested in the project can't agree on. Similar objections were raised regarding Wikinews, but it doesn't seem we're going to let that stop Wikinews from getting started. Personally I like Theresa Knott's synopsis of what should be included, what ages should be targetted. Yes, this isn't going to be acceptable to every single parent in the world, but we don't have to create something acceptable to every parent in the world. If this project does get started, it would an excellent place to work on integrating PICS into mediawiki. If all goes well, this might even be something that en can turn on. But what makes this project interesting isn't the censorship, it's the targetting of the content.
If enough people are interested in starting this project, Wikimedia should support them.
But really this discussion has outgrown the pump, and should be moved to meta. That will make it even more clear that this discussion has no impact whatsoever or en.wikipedia.org. Those who oppose it should consider that. anthony 警告 17:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm very interested in this project. If we don't do it others will; Actually I'm not all that sure they don't already, does anyone check to see whether any of the mirrors are censoring the content? I don't see any GFDL reason they can't.
If I were running a G-rated mirror I'd simply run a filter on each database update that rejected all edits by people I didn't know and trust (including all anons). I doubt any more filtering than this would be necessary, I'd run a couple of largely automated processes to keep the list of approved editors up to date and that would be it. You'd lose some good content but you'd have a really useful site with minimal effort.
It's important I think that it be a separate project to English Wikipedia. Any suggestion of censorship of the existing site is a dead duck and rightly so, the current system is highly successful at what it does. Andrewa 20:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)