Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Parental discretion advised

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page.

Category:Parental discretion advised

Didn't we just go over this elsewhere? There's too much room for POV issues and argument here - I won't rehash the arguments too much, you've heard them before... Dysprosia 09:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What arguments? Where... please give a link....

For example, see the failed proposal Wikipedia:Rating system. Other systems have been disucssed on the Village Pump at times, however, I don't think it'd be that necessary to trawl through the archives in this instance. Dysprosia 09:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's just add [[Category:Parental discretion advised]] to the standard Wikipedia page template and be done with it? Tverbeek 20:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just delete it. We provide information. It's up to parents to try and restrict their children from reading it. We have no obligation to help, and no way to do so effectively because of the wide variety of moral judgments on this matter. Postdlf 23:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only purpose it could serve would to be to direct interested to the juicy content. /Tuomas 10:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here is the crux of the issue: as a parent, I would let my children read Britannica unsupervised, but not Wikipedia in its current state. Why? Because I don't want them reading articles on porn stars including their complete filmography, or detailed descriptions of perverse sexual acts. This attitude, while maybe not universal, is very common among parents in our society. I know there are no such things to be found in Britannica; I know for a fact that such articles exist in Wikipedia. Now, if the community would just decide to mark the Wikipedia articles which Britannica would not include as being un-family-friendly (and that is one reason why Britannica has made the commercial decision not to include articles on those topics), I could set up my web filter to block these articles, and this major disadvantage of Wikipedia v.s. Britannica would disappear; while those who insist on keeping their porn star articles can get their way too. --137.111.13.34 14:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- We could filter out all the evolution articles for your fundamentalist mindset, if you were so inclined... We could filter out all the weapons articles too... Afterall, some people consider violence worse than sex. We could filter out articles on magic, LotR, Harry Potter, hell, general fiction, for those inclined to think it corrupts minds. (Remember all those so-called "good Christians" heeing and hawing over Harry Potter promotion of witchcraft and satanism?). If there's an age filter setting, then it should be General, 6+ and 13+ (13 the traditional age of majority, also when people generally run at puberty, when historically, people started to go to war, when girls start being able to carry babies to full term, etc) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We do need some facility to allow filtered viewing (at the least, removing some pages from appearing in "random page" results) but using a category is a crude mechanism, which is unlikely to help. Categories are for categorising content, not flagging it. zoney ♣ talk 14:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a real issue, but not the solution. I'm also a parent and am very reluctant to let my kids near Wikipedia. Filiocht 14:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

As a parent, you should watch over their shoulders like a hawk whenever they get close to the internet, or what they watch on TV... 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if this is not the solution, what is? Do nothing and pretend there is no problem, while children's minds are poisoned by filth, as usual, I suppose. --137.111.13.34 00:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are they really being poisoned, or rather, are they experiencing what they should actually have experienced, had we still been living as hunter-gatherers? (I've sometimes wondered how peverted our minds are, by the artifices of civilization; afterall, adolescence as a state separate from young adult and as a category of childhood, is a fictional creation of the Victorians) 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Way too POV. I vote for filth. Gamaliel 00:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DELETE, POV, and I'd rather not have some mullah decide that everything is to be banned. 132.205.15.42 06:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)