Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I offer these observations.

A major aim of the project is distribution through means other than the web. Accordingly, the statement that much of the Internet contains content more objectionable than Wikipedia is specious.

Wikipedia already self-censors, so discussion would be better framed in terms of the degree of self-censorship rather than whether or not it occurs. The de facto standard would appear to be that content of dubious moral character with only minimal edificative value is removed. Further, this judgement is made all the more quickly when the material is widely offensive

Print dictionaries and encyclopaedias all self-censor to a greater degree than we do. To User:Tristanb's point, while any unabridged dictionary will have definitions for flowery language, such definitions are limited in scope. You won't find literary excerpts and comparisons to synonyms for, say, "fuck", even though other words of equal significance to the English language are so treated. In that same light, encyclopaedic treatment of fringe religious and sexual practices, lockpicking, and body modification techniques is nonexistant.

I believe that the most NPOV way to write about such content is to consider it "controverial," a term that has seen widespread use in writing about historical cultural events that pushed the boundaries of their day.

Parents and schools will censor controversial content. We have neither a choice in this matter nor a hand in it. By suitable classification of entries, we could provide a means for the remainder of Wikipedia to be available to users under the cloud of such restrictions. Most topically inclusive web sites, such as search engines and indexes, classify content for exactly this reason.

Koyaanis Qatsi points out the potential conflict between NPOV and the value judgements inherent in any sort of classification system. I believe that a NPOV approach can prevail provided that, first, a consensus is reached on some objective content classification standards.

I believe that this would best be approached as a classification system for identifying controversial articles rather than as a censorship, content warning, or disclaimer system. A checkbox (or statement) that "the suitability of this article for young audiences is controversial" is NPOV and gets the job done.

Such an approach would preserve Wikipedia's freedom to cover the widest possible range of topics while gaining greater distribution. It would stanch criticism from those who promogulate a strict moral code (c.f. http://www.lcms.org/cic/life.htm), or at least answer such criticism.

Kat 17:01 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Kat, these are all good points, and your check box idea is good, but probably not the best. See the mailing list discussion that has been going on for a week or so on this subject. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/thread.html MB 17:25 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Excellent. Two observations:

First, Wikipedia is GFDL'd, so anyone interested in developing a classification system to facilitate distribution could easily do so.

Second, I agree that NPOV could be abided by if we could come up with some objective standard of content classification; however, I think it's impossible to do this, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

Your proposed system of labeling "controversial" articles seems relatively straightforward, but I am unclear on what standard of "controversial" we are abiding by - is this merely decided by whim of the editors (e.g., if KQ feels Botulism is controversial he may so designate it) or must such a designation be defended (i.e., KQ must show that Rastafarians find botulism offensive in order to label that article controversial). Graft 17:29 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

How about this: Profanity - fuck, nigger, kike, wop, cunt, motherfucker, shit, asshole, boob (when used for a woman's breasts), spic, slut, chink, sandnigger, piss, shit, cum

Many of the Seven Dirty Words are in there, as well as an array of slurs against various ethnic, racial, and religious groups. The above represent the dirtiest words I know (as well as some sex related slang).

Most of these, to the extent they appear here at all, are part of legitimate encyclopaedic content and are appropriate in context. I do not believe that these pieces of language are the source of concern.

Kat 18:09 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

MB, I did not see any relevant discussion in the rather lengthy list of emails. Can you direct me to a specific thread? (tnx)

"I am unclear on what standard of "controversial" we are abiding by" --Graft

Start with what most parents wouldn't want their 12 year old to read. I offer these suggestions:

Articles that describe sexual practices or techniques

Articles that describe criminal activities in sufficient detail to permit imitation (specifically including production and use of controlled substances or explosives)

That's about all for me. I'm not aware of any violent content here, though that should perhaps be included too.

I think we're OK as long as we don't shy away from topics that are uncomfortable to some readers merely because they conflict with the reader's world view. This is where NPOV saves the day. There are readers who will disagree with a NPOV stance (e.g. "any article that treats creationism as science is wrong because it disagrees with the Bible" and the like). These are fringe views that can safely (more or less) be ignored.

To your point about the GFDL permitting others to remove information as they see fit-- though technically and legally possible, this is not likely to be done for resource reasons. Your typical junior high school teacher or libarian isn't going to try it, NetNanny and SafeSurf aren't going to try it. They don't have time and don't believe that it is their role. They'll make a decision based on whatever editing and classification has already been done.

Kat 18:09 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wow, lots of discussion going on about this! Let me ask this: What specific problems, if any, do people see with the content disclaimer as it currently stands? Seems I've been the one making the most drastic revisions to the page, so I'm curious to hear criticisms of what is there now. -- Wapcaplet 18:10 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, Wapcaplet. Tannin 18:14 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My $.02

A mere disclaimer, by itself, probably does not accomplish anything useful, unless it is there for legal reasons on the advice of qualified counsel.

In the present state of the Wikipedia, a disclaimer should state that the site is not suitable for children because of the presence of sexual content inappropriate for them

Others can copy edit and refactor better than me, but someone should

Kat 18:15 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think the point that has been made by several people (which I agree with) is that to even presume why someone might find the content objectionable would itself be POV. What is/isn't suitable for children is not for anyone, except the parents of those children, to determine (and certainly not for Wikipedia editors to determine). I think the disclaimer is useful outside a legal context, simply for its informational content. Parents may be wondering, "Hmm, would Wikipedia be suitable for my children?"; the disclaimer informs them, "Hey, here's some of the stuff that Wikipedia has. You may want to consider it before deciding."

It's not just for parents deciding what to let their children see, either. Adults sometimes don't want to read certain subject matter. This disclaimer serves as a warning to them, too. -- Wapcaplet 18:23 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Of course, if we want a genuinely NPOV, we must not proclaim the POV that it is for parents to determine what their children read. Tannin

Okay, let's not get *too* carried away here. Next we'll be saying that it's POV to claim that NPOV is the best approach. Anyhow, it doesn't explicitly say that anywhere, so as of right now the POV is safely contained within the confines of this talk page :) -- Wapcaplet 18:29 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer parody

Huh? -- Wapcaplet

 Now it's up and running ... Rickyrab

Okay, and what exactly is the purpose of that page? -- Wapcaplet 18:36 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To make fun of rhe content disclaimer, of course.

Humor - or is that Humour? :-) Stan 18:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Both. Rickyrab :-)

Keystone Kops, and not Peter Cook, I take it. Koyaanis Qatsi

Wapcaplet, you have kids?

I don't have kids. But I do remember being a kid once. Back then, doors were taller than they are now. Martin

I would kindly suggest that there is a basis in fact for some of the material here being unsuitable for children. JHK alludes to this above. I myself first used an encyclopaedia at the age of 9 years (World Book). Articles on eroticism are not suitable for people of this age. This is a matter of fact, not POV, that is addressed by any number of well-controlled studies (as well-controlled as anything in the social sciences, at least). I don't have cites. Perhaps others can provide them. It is also a matter of consensus among parents. I will bet you a slice of pizza that you cannot find a parent of a 9 year old who believes that photographically illustrated articles on, say, anal fisting, are suitable for that child, however well researched and NPOV such articles may be.

Kat 18:40 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, you and JHK both mention "psychological studies" that you have no citation for. Do you mean to say that you read these studies once but forgot where? If so, you might want to mention that. People may be inclined to suspect that psychological studies will bear out their opinions on psychology (after all, they believe those opinions to be correct), so it doesn't mean much if somebody simply suspects (or heard of in urban legend fashion from a similarly minded friend) that such studies exist. Even if you do recall specific studies, that won't mean much unless you know that there aren't any studies drawing an opposite conclusion. Really, only a child psychologist familiar with the literature would be likely to know that. Perhaps that's you -- but then you should say so if you intend people to take your references to studies seriously. -- Toby Bartels 09:15 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been studies about the inclination of people to make up psychological studies... ;-) Martin

But I carefully said "may be inclined", not "are known through psychological studies to be inclined". ^_^ And despite your smiley, I should point out that I'm not charging anybody with making anything up. -- Toby Bartels 10:04 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, I do not have kids (yet). And no, I would not personally want my kids to be reading some of the subjects you mention. If it is not a POV issue, then obviously, no parents exist who would allow their nine-year-old to read articles on erotic topics. So logically, it would be impossible for me to find one, eh? I guess I owe you a slice of pizza :) -- Wapcaplet 18:45 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There are kids having sex at 10 years old, who could expand some of the articles we have on various sexual practices. Koyaanis Qatsi

In general, these are the types of kid's whose parents would not care at all what they look at online (or at least won't supervise or talk to them about it). This is for those people who are responsible enough to take care of thier kids. MB 19:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

KQ, that isn't germane, and isn't really true. The studies show that the onset of sexual activity at that young age is rare, and in most cases is related to incest or abuse. Besides, that doesn't make such content any more suitable for that age group. Bear in mind that we're not talking about health-related information, birth control, condomns, or relationships; the discussion is on the suitability of articles about sexual techniques and practices for this age group. Kat 20:05 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

that is being on a pretty thin string, but...abused children often don't tell anyone what happen to them, because they feel what is being done to them is normal (so the abuser say), or justified (because they have been "bad"). Also, they sometimes feel so unconfortable trying to explain what is done to them (no words, no understanding, no concept, nothing except hurting sensations and shame) that they prefer to shut up for years. Some social workers even prefer that a kid doesnot close himself in shame and non-understanding, and know a bit, which means either is taught by his parents what is acceptable from what is not, either finding information by herself (in particular when parents are especially mute on the topic). user:anthere

You may not perceive it as germane, but that's because you also don't perceive it as true, and I'm telling you it is. Furthermore, it happens in cases where the children haven't been abused, but have for whatever reason become sexually active quite young. Your argument, in essence, seems to boil down to the plaintive "think of the children" cry so often heard, based on the mythical notion of children as naive and unsullied with any idea of how the world works. I think this is essentially an idea that is itself naive and unsullied with any idea of how the world works. I think, furthermore, that the kind of parents concerned about what their children will see will not be placated about any disclaimer, and we might as well simplify it further: "If you are concerned about reading about murder, torture, deviant sexual practices, or the other bizarre and/or harmful things that people do, then this site is not for you. We're trying to write a complete encyclopedia; people do those things; we write about them." Koyaanis Qatsi

I don't think you have kids, and I challenge you to find someone who does who agrees with your reasonsing.

In any event, you are miscasting my statement as being broader than it was.

I believe that children should have access to factual information about sex, conception, contraception, mastrubation, and other topics that are relevant to their own understanding and discovery of sexuality.

In time, they will reach an age and maturity level where they should have access to whatever material they wish to pursue. If they're 16 and are bound and determined (so to speak) to find out everything they can about bondage, well, that's probably OK (though there are some legal limitations they would have to work within until they're 18 for some material).

But it's not OK if they're 9 years old. And it's probably not OK if they stumble across such information without actively seeking it. Though it may well be a separate topic, the Wikipedia has a good deal of crosslinking to distantly related sexual topics that makes this problem worse.

While we've been discussing this in the context of sexual content, the same reasoning applies to, say, recipies for nitroglycerin.

I believe there is a duty to the broader community to share all such information responsibly.

Kat 22:23 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Whether I have or care for children is, quite frankly, irrelevant. If I've^H^H^H^H^HSince I've mischaracterized your arguments, I apologize. Nonetheless I maintain that annotating specific articles with warnings will be POV, and that the "need" for the disclaimer to begin with is largely more imagined than real. In the case of nitroglycerine, I'd be inclined to think of a disclaimer as a way of avoiding the obligations of expressing potential danger of the chemical within the text of the article about it. aKoyaanis Qatsi 22:28 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I mentioned kids because so many bright young people of college age or a little older are too caught up in their own recent battles for adulthood to be able to see clearly on this issue. Someone who is, say, 22 years old is often still reeling from being told, too many times and for too many years, that they aren't at a point in their life where they can buy whiskey, drive a car, have a house of their own, etc etc.

In other words, because we actually remember what it was like to be a child, our perspectives on children are untrustworthy? Give me a break! It's one thing to mess up your own children, but lay off Wikipedia. -- Toby Bartels 09:15 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Once that mind set begins, perspective is difficult to restore. Having a kid or two will do it, though, in most cases. That's why I asked. I can see why you think it's irrelevant, and strictly from a point of debate you're right. I pointed it out in hopes that it might help you see the subject from a parent's perspective as well as that of a young adult's perspective.

You have mentioned several times a conflict between NPOV and content rating. First of all, I believe that the Wikipedia stance is that article content is NPOV. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia doesn't have any POV on any topic; quite the contrary. Wikipedia has a clear consensus on such issues as IP and copyright, English usage, how the Wikipedia is to be organized, and so on. To be sure, the articles on such topics are NPOV, but the choices made in the layout and content of the wiki reflect a clear and relatively consistent POV. Classifying an article in one of several ways is no more a referendum on the value of the article than is, for example, linking to it from the main page; particularly when the criteria for such classification is objective. Kat 13:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand our NPOV policy. Some of the decisions made regarding Wikipedia are POV, sure. It's a little bit POV to prefer correct spelling and grammar, fact over fiction, clear layout over messiness. It's POV to prefer not to get our asses sued by intellectual property holders. NPOV is a policy regarding the bias present in the content of the articles themselves. In part, this means that Wikipedia does not take moral stances on any issue - and I think that would include taking a stance on what material is appropriate for whom. It means we don't state opinions (merely facts about opinions). This, to me, would include the opinion that Fuck is not appropriate for children. If you can find a way to phrase a claim such as "Anal fisting is a controversial topic" in a factual or fact-about-opinion manner, then maybe we can rate articles in a neutral fashion, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that such claims can be made neutral and unbiased. -- Wapcaplet 16:01 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Kat, please keep in mind that nobody is claiming or implying that Wikipedia is, or should be, appropriate for children in any way. If you would like to create a wiki for a younger audience, you are free to do so, since Wikipedia's content is licensed under the Free Documentation License. -- Wapcaplet 00:44 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There have been some contradictory pages. In particular, there has been discussion of having a goal of seeing the Wikipedia used in schools. If the Wikipedia is not intended to be appropriate for children, then it should be identified as such as a service to the community. That makes the disclaimer easy. ("www.wikipedia.org is not intended for use by children.") But since most of the content is suitable, it would make for a sad loss of audience.

And if the Wikipedia is going to be a site solely for adults, we should put up one of those splash pages that says "Are you 18, yes or no" and redirects the visitor to yahooligans.com if they click the No button.

Kat 13:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Particular threads on the mailing list related to this are the thread titled "The Kils-Viking thing", and "Content Advisory (was The Kils-Viking thing)" Some qoutes from the big man User:Jimbo Wales:
I generally agree with this. Content _advisories_ can be helpful to some people, but _filtering_ or _removing content_ is going down a path that will cause us more trouble than good, I think.

I can't even bear to imagine the arguments such a policy would generate!
The wrong sort of disclaimer would certainly send the wrong signal, but I don't think it's impossible to come up with something soft and tasteful.

--Jimbo
There is also a thread started by Jimbo which talks about "filtering" which you guys might be interested in: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-June/004070.html
MB 19:09 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Groan. I'm not sure that I'm ready to wade through all that chaff in search of a kernel of wheat. I'll try. Kat 20:07 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I gave some good qoutes. If you want to read the 5 or 6 messages, use the find command in you browser, and search for the string "The Kils-Viking thing". MB 20:15 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For the mailing list, you'll want to look at recent posts that discuss the possibility of setting up a separate Edupedia (nothing at that link yet, but when there is, that's where it'll go). This idea is based on the Sifter project, which is now stalled, but could easily be revived in this form. This would leave Wikipedia itself untouched by categorisation schemes, but would allow people to link to a separate Edupedia site, which would give access to Wikipedia with customisable filters based on its own categorisations. -- Toby Bartels 09:15 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anyway, the question of appropriateness for children aside, does anyone have comments or criticism of the disclaimer as it is currently written? -- Wapcaplet 20:26 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is great right now. However, right now, it is no longer linked to on the main page, because people thought it was intrusive where it was. So we need to discuss where this will be linked to from. Please do so at Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/placement. MB 20:43 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think placement is the critical issue - this space is perfectly appropriate. Before you folks run around inserting it places I think we should agree on where it's appropriate first, yes? Graft 01:01 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In reply to Kat, who said:

But it's not OK if they're 9 years old.

Why is some content not appropriate for a 9-year-old? If they can intellectually grasp the idea, surely they should know about it? I don't have children, but I know parents who would agree with this idea and would shy away from the idea of setting boundaries on knowledge for their children. Do you have some compelling reason to think someone would suffer mental trauma if they read an article on felching? If you are merely worried about "moral corruption" or something equally specious, I see no reason to abide by this standard. How have you arrived at this position?

I can't agree with the notion that kids need to be "protected" from some material, or that the identification of this material is immediately evident and uncontroversial. The idea that sex is a subject reserved for adults, e.g., is not universal, and any anthropologist will tell you that exploring sex at young ages is perfectly normal human behavior.

Would we put a content advisory on How to run with scissors? Graft 01:01 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, with regard to sex, the psychological studies are out there regarding overly graphic content at too young an age, though as I have said I don't have a citation to share and am not up on the details enough to provide a precis. I myself am unconcerned about "moral corruption" but rather specific, measurable, documented effects.

The issue of other content with more acute hazards to immature readers is already addressed elsewhere in this article and I refer you there for answers to your "run with scissors" question.

But in reality, none of our opinions matter on this. The real reason to address these concerns is that 3rd party content-rating organizations will end up listing the whole wikipedia unless we give them a way to list only parts of it. And that limits the audience.

Kat 13:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tristanb's reply to Kat's: "...while any unabridged dictionary will have definitions for flowery language, such definitions are limited in scope."

If I look up, say, apple in the dictionary I find:

1. A deciduous Eurasian tree (Malus pumila) having alternate simple leaves and white or pink flowers.
2. The firm, edible, usually rounded fruit of this tree.
1. Any of several other plants, especially those with fruits suggestive of the apple, such as the crab apple or custard apple.
2. The fruit of any of these plants.

But I expect to find a much larger article in wikipedia on apple.

It's the same with other things (e.g. fuck). I'd also expect it with any reference material of wikipedia's scope, yes, even printed ones. I wouldn't expect a disclaimer giving me advice about good parenting.

As a compromise, I wouldn't mind a link Wikipedia:Parental concerns under the About the Project heading.
But not some prominent banner implying the wikipedia is full of porn, drug recipes and racism.

I don't believe any of the print encyclopedias have a fuck entry, or entries for some of the age-limited content we've been discussing. They don't consider such content part of their mission.

Wikipedia has a broader mission and that puts it in a unique position. Most highly controversial or adult-only content in print media is clearly identified as such and has little nonadult content, leaving little room for confusion. For example, you might find "The Anarchist Cookbook", "Getting it on", or "High Times" at a (print) bookstore. The nature of the content is clear from the title and cover in each case.

But not Wikipedia. It has articles on Apple and Telephone and Submarine. Such content is rarely, if ever, aggregated with adult content in print media.

Kat 13:54 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The following comment by Camembert on wikipedia talk:profanity seems relevant here, so I'll copy it over. Btw, if everyone here would like to wander over to there and express their opinion in the "vote block" at the top of the page, that'd be great! Martin

The new edition of the New Grove Dictionary of Music, if I remember correctly, has an entry on the Sex Pistols, and therein reference is made to Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols (not Nevermind the B******* or anything). I would expect any encyclopaedia to do the same thing. Many books of quotations include the WC Fields quote on why he didn't drink water ("Fish fuck in it"). Any dictionary or encyclopaedia of art which discusses Bruce Nauman's 100 Live and Die will have to mention the word "fuck", as it is central to the piece (the The Thames & Hudson Dictionary of Art and Artists does just this; see [1]). Likewise, there is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ and Helen Chadwick's Piss Flowers - no serious encyclopaeidia is going to censor those names. Encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and other reference works, will not shy from using "foul language" where it is necessary to do so. Books specifically for children, of course, will. --Camembert

I'm going to move placement content to Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/placement. Unless I get distracted by something else :) Martin

Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder

Doesn't everything? At least, if you're going to use such vague terms as "may." --Charles L. 17:54, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should not censor, because there is an amendment to the Constitution which allows for freedom of speech, I think this site should be site that allows for free thought!

Wikipedia has no responsibility about the contents of external pages

How do you think about Wikipedia has no responsibility about the contents of external pages to be included in each article that contains external links? optim

It is obvious that Wikipedia has no control over the contents of external pages, and I for one am getting pissed off about the number of disclaimers floating around. --snoyes 18:53, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What problem is this a solution to? Martin 19:24, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see no point. I think that it is obvious that we aren't responsible for other internent sites. Just my 1 franc. Also, many articles include links, and there haven't been any problems with people blaming wikipedia for their content. Greenmountainboy 19:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would seem to be stating the obvious that we have no control over external sites, but having said that, a lot of sites do include such a disclaimer. Maybe just a note in Wikipedia:About would be a good idea if people feel it is an issue. I certainly wouldn't want it appended to every external link though! Angela . 21:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My opinion: All disclaimers and such should be stated on About wikipedia or such, with the exception of maybe the spoiler warning. I too see no reason to state the obvious every here and there. — Sverdrup (talk) 21:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I thought that a disclaimer like this might be a good idea for articles that contain external links that the reader could find questionable or offensive. Sorry I was at the netcafe and I hadn't enough time to explain my point very well. I propose such a disclaimer to be included in some page like About and also in every article that contain questionable external links. I just want to make sure that the Wikipedia reader will understand that we give the links only for informative purposes. Such a disclaimer would be probably useful for articles regarding politics and sex etc. I thought about this when I was adding some links about culture & politics in some article, but because I knew that some people (esp. in my country) could find the material very questionable, I added a small disclaimer under the External links section. Then, I thought that it would be better first to ask other wikipedians about their opinion on this disclaimer, so I removed it and I asked this question here. Thanks for your answers. Optim 23:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary. This is the type of warning we used to see 5 years ago from companies fearing the unfamiliar. Our big "Wikipedia" boilerplate stuff at the top and left of each page is enough to let people know whether they're still on Wikipedia. Tempshill 01:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think its good practice to describe quite fully what lies beyond an external link whether its liable to be offensive or not. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 02:27, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We already warn users if a link is offensive (see Shock site), so this has already been addressed. Greenmountainboy 03:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adult Content

I have heard some users complaining about some of the unsuitable content articles. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a msg to be put on the top of the page, just to let people know. Something like:

This article contains adult content.

or whatever. LUDRAMAN | T 21:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, we already have a disclaimers link on every page, which links to a content disclaimer. There is no need to add this to articles as well, in the same way that we no longer add the medical disclaimer to medical articles. See also Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer and Wikipedia talk:Profanity. Angela . 21:56, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

a) The normal editing process for pages with such content insures that such pages quickly reach a metastable state governed by community consensus. In other words, whatever is in Wikipedia is already acceptable. If not, someone will change it until it is. Wikipedia is not a treasure-trove of prurient materials. It falls somewhere in the same range as "Our Bodies, Our Selves" or discussions on daytime television talk shows. It is IMHO far less sexualized than Cosmopolitan magazine or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

b) If it were easy to everyone to agree on precisely what constitutes "adult content", this might be a harmless idea. Since in fact such issues are contentious, it would probably provoke edit wars and waste a lot of time.

c) Exactly how many pages with adult content have you personally encountered that you were not specifically seeking? Unlike a print encyclopedia, it is not easy to riffle through the pages of Wikipedia and encounter such content.

d) Having seen such a warning, what normal human being would ever be able to resist peeking just to see what content was being warned against? How much "protection" does such a warning provide?

e) Such a mechanism would, of course, make it much easier for prurient souls to locate all the juicy Wikipedia stuff by going to Wikimedia:Adult and clicking on "What links here." Or, for that matter, Googling on "Wikipedia adult content." Whether that is an argument for or against such labelling, I leave to others to determine.

f) Older children and adolescents are exposed, and to some extent seek out, sexual content all the time. Witness the episode in Tom Sawyer where Tom catches Becky looking at a nude plate in the schoolteacher's anatomy textbook. It's all a matter of degree. When I was a kid some of us got a charge of sorts out of looking up words like "intercourse" and "rape" in the dictionary. But it was trivial compared to the calendars I saw in the office areas of the auto repair shop. My own kids got some of their sex education out of "The Whole Earth Catalog." On the Internet, Wikipedia is like the dictionary or the Whole Earth Catalog. The auto repair shop calendars are to be found elsewhere.

I mean, it's just not that big a deal and it's not worth worrying over. Dpbsmith 13:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)