3 ms·

> The point of Wikipedia — that it can be edited at any time — absolutely makes it impossible to survive any age rating system other than "adults only". Oh but

> The point of Wikipedia — that it can be edited at any time — absolutely makes it impossible to survive any age rating system other than "adults only". Oh but when it's news at dinner time showing dead children and weapons firing on and on it's all fine, I guess?

ben_w 3y ago
1) When that comes up in UK news, it does get prefixed with "this report has some scenes that viewers may find disturbing". 2) I don't know what the rules are for broadcasts at different times of day, but I do know they exist 3) I have always been perplexed as to why violence is considered so much more acceptable than, for example, sexuality. Outright murder? Apparently a suitable topic for children's shows. Nipples, which are the defining characteristic of the class Mammalia to which we belong? Hide them all! Unless it's a famous statue (then it's Classical Art), or a man's vestigial ones (then it's so unremarkable nobody even says anything).
- rpastuszak 3y ago
  Re 3) FYI this is a relatively US/UK centric approach. In most of the countries I lived in, besides the UK, the bias was against violence, in this context. Edit: there was an IG account posting solely picture of nipples, male and female, cropped so it was hard to ascertain the sex of the photographed person. It existed purely to mess with the IG censorship rules. I don’t recall the name of the account but I think it was a genius idea.
rzwitserloot 3y ago
It's not of course. But 'screening' news casts for 'inappropriate' content is easy and it is easy to point fingers when it doesn't meet 'standards'. Whereas with wikipedia, unless a dedicated team of editors who are contracted or liable to vet _every_ change. Possibly only for the UK, who get a special 'only with vetted edits' version or some such, I don't think wikipedia would be interested in making such a thing. Separate from that, wikipedia has various pages on (conditions related to) our sexual organs, as well as lots of articles about politically contentious things. I don't think they are particularly interested in filtering that either. In contrast to news channels, most of which would have no particular complaints about a bunch of rules about content. As a rule your 9'o clock news isn't going to just casually show frontal nudity (except e.g. Germany because they're fine with it). One obvious problem is all those words in single quotes: Who gets to decide? Evidently you aren't happy with whomever decided how far you can go with the content shown on the news, and I concur that it goes quite far. But the point isn't about the current standards being applied. The point is whether _any_ standard can be applied at all. To news: Yes. To wikipedia: Not in a way wiki foundation would accept.
- anticensor 3y ago
  > Whereas with wikipedia, unless a dedicated team of editors who are contracted or liable to vet _every_ change. A few other Wikipedias including the Turkish one work in that exact manner.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I've not heard of this before, do you have a reference for that? I can't find it easily, but… well… Google's not so great at this kind of thing any more.
    - anticensor 3y ago
      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions

ben_w 3y ago

1) When that comes up in UK news, it does get prefixed with "this report has some scenes that viewers may find disturbing". 2) I don't know what the rules are for broadcasts at different times of day, but I do know they exist 3) I have always been perplexed as to why violence is considered so much more acceptable than, for example, sexuality. Outright murder? Apparently a suitable topic for children's shows. Nipples, which are the defining characteristic of the class Mammalia to which we belong? Hide them all! Unless it's a famous statue (then it's Classical Art), or a man's vestigial ones (then it's so unremarkable nobody even says anything).

rpastuszak 3y ago
Re 3) FYI this is a relatively US/UK centric approach. In most of the countries I lived in, besides the UK, the bias was against violence, in this context. Edit: there was an IG account posting solely picture of nipples, male and female, cropped so it was hard to ascertain the sex of the photographed person. It existed purely to mess with the IG censorship rules. I don’t recall the name of the account but I think it was a genius idea.

rzwitserloot 3y ago

It's not of course. But 'screening' news casts for 'inappropriate' content is easy and it is easy to point fingers when it doesn't meet 'standards'. Whereas with wikipedia, unless a dedicated team of editors who are contracted or liable to vet _every_ change. Possibly only for the UK, who get a special 'only with vetted edits' version or some such, I don't think wikipedia would be interested in making such a thing. Separate from that, wikipedia has various pages on (conditions related to) our sexual organs, as well as lots of articles about politically contentious things. I don't think they are particularly interested in filtering that either. In contrast to news channels, most of which would have no particular complaints about a bunch of rules about content. As a rule your 9'o clock news isn't going to just casually show frontal nudity (except e.g. Germany because they're fine with it). One obvious problem is all those words in single quotes: Who gets to decide? Evidently you aren't happy with whomever decided how far you can go with the content shown on the news, and I concur that it goes quite far. But the point isn't about the current standards being applied. The point is whether _any_ standard can be applied at all. To news: Yes. To wikipedia: Not in a way wiki foundation would accept.

anticensor 3y ago
> Whereas with wikipedia, unless a dedicated team of editors who are contracted or liable to vet _every_ change. A few other Wikipedias including the Turkish one work in that exact manner.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I've not heard of this before, do you have a reference for that? I can't find it easily, but… well… Google's not so great at this kind of thing any more.
  - anticensor 3y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions