Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer/placement

Location
Not on all pages. Just selective pages on and related, or with links, internal and external, to:
 * Definitely anything sexual: paraphilia, ~ organs, nudity
 * Destructive mentally and/or physically:
 * wars: Middle East conflicts, Afganistan, bombs
 * drug
 * torture: SM, rape, murder
 * obscenity: fuck, nigger
 * ~ music: hardcore punk, rap
 * prejudice and discrimination: racism, sexism, agism, ableism

Probably a few more, but limited. Most articles offer no objectionable content whatsoever to normal parents. Prententious, abnormal and obssessively false-finding parents may think even articles like Hanja are invading their native "culture", whatever that is. --Menchi 02:36 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The only cases I see a warning is needed, is when linking to an external site that contains material which is seen as offensive by some pepole, or a photograph that portrays the human body in a way that can be considered offensive. But warnings in these cases already exist! see, for example clitoris, or goatse.cx.

-- Rotem Dan 08:17 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I would agree with a simple content advisory warning on questionable articles, as well as a notice on the main page that links to Content advisory, where the situation is explained to adults who might be wondering whether Wikipedia is appropriate for their children. Wapcaplet 12:37 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We should also come up with a good concise "content advisory" sentence that can be placed at the top of questionable articles, sort of like the spoiler warning is now. -- Wapcaplet 15:05 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I have started a spoiler type warning, see the bottom of the page titled Content Advisory. I think this is ready to be inserted onto the Main page.  Where do you think would be a good place?  Top?  Bottom?  MB 15:20 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-

There seem to be three levels at which we're operating here:


 * 1) No content advisory at all
 * 2) Content advisory on main page only
 * 3) Content advisory on articles like Prince Albert piercing

As I understand it, the arguments go:


 * 1) We don't wish to abide by arbitrary standards of morality for what needs a "content advisory" because this would violate the NPOV - therefore we should not include a content advisory at all.
 * 2) It's true that there are arbitrary standards for what needs an advisory, but we can at least provide a general content advisory on the main page, so that people are aware there is some content that is questionable by some standard in Wikipedia.
 * 3) Parents should be able to prevent their children from viewing articles on subjects they disapprove of, and so we should place advisories on articles that have questionable content.

Given that in some instances even simple information offends (e.g. evolution), I think that #3 is a really bad course of action and will only result in long fights over what does and does not deserve a content advisory. This is worldwide, after all - something that includes Kansas, the Northwest Frontier Provinces, and Rio de Janeiro. Is anyone interested in fighting between #1 and #2, or can we agree that #2 is a reasonable compromise? Graft 15:33 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I second #2 being a resonable compromise. MB 15:36 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Thirded. The only time a viewer would *not* see the spoiler on the main page (aside from when they're not paying attention) is if they reach one of our articles through Google or the like. Probably quite likely, but I do agree that #3 is probably going a little too far, and would indeed violate NPOV, now that I think about it. -- Wapcaplet 15:46 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * #3 and/or #2. --Menchi 15:49 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * #1. I could live with #2 though. #3 is highly undesirable and, in practical terms, completely unworkable anyway. Tannin 16:04 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The category of potentially offensive subject matter is broad


 * information on practices that may be dangerous manufacture of explosives, archaic chemical or photographic processes that are now considered unsafe, food preservation processes not considered acceptable by Modern Authorities, autoerotic asphyxia
 * information on practices that may be criminal or have criminal applications lock-picking, hydroponics
 * subject matter describing details of sexual practices which some readers consider inherently offensive when presented NPOV, or at all, due to their value system

Kat 16:22 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I was just thinking about that, and just how many things are covered by the category of potentially objectionable subject matter. Yet another reason, I suppose, that it would be crazy to try and put a content advisory on all potentially objectionable articles! Maybe we should break it down a little, into some of the specific kinds of subject matter that might cause problems. It's probably good to be broad and general, though - part of the idea here is that we're admitting "hey, we have some stuff you might not like - but we'll let you decide for yourself." -- Wapcaplet 16:31 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I've been bold and placed the disclaimer on the main page. We will see how things go. MB 18:38 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * My it looks prominent on the main page.


 * Are you sure it's ready for prime time? There are still some mechanical problems in the Content Disclaimer page itself.  I would edit it myself but I'm not sure I have the sense of the meeting.


 * Kat 20:07 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just adding my disagreement about the disclaimers. I think they're stupid. An article on anal sex might contain content offensive to children? pardon the pun, but no s**t!

Wikipedia is on the internet, and as many people have said there's a lot worse than wikipedia on the internet. Many (every?) kid has looked up rude words in the dictionary, and even more fun could be had with a medical encyclopedia. Yet i've never seen a dictionary with any sort of disclaimer. It'd be ridiculous. --Tristanb 00:52 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the idea of putting a warning on only the "offensive" articles is a horrible, horrible idea, and if that's ever implemented, that will be the day we stand on the beach and watch NPOV sail away. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:51 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Against putting it on pages, blatant violation of NPOV. Against having it on the main page, anyone concerned about offensive material will already be concerned about it, wastes space. Arguments for having content disclaimers have not really been given, as far as I can tell - it's simply been assumed that it would be a good idea.

A content Advisory is under development. I think it is ready for deployment on at least the Main page. Where do you guys think it should go? I think the top of the page is a good spot. If you want to see is see the bottom of the content advisory page titled "Content Advisory". Where do you think would be a good place? Top? Bottom? MB 15:26 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

''Wikipedia is a multilingual project to create a complete and accurate open content encyclopedia. We started on January 15, 2001 and are currently working on 131099 articles in the English version. Visit the help page and experiment in the sandbox to learn how you can edit any article right now. Attention: As with any web site, children may require parental supervision while using Wikipedia. See our content disclaimer for more information''

Those last two lines are irrelevant and out of context for the presentiation of what is wikipedia. I think just putting the Content disclaimer link itself somewhere or giving some recommendation to read it, would flow better with the main page, which is already cluttered, and also, the disclaimer is not only relevant for children, but anyone who may be offended by the site's content. -- Rotem Dan 18:52 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Another idea is to integrate it into the software and put it somewhere on the bottom or top so the link will be visible in any page (for occasional visitors who didn't go through the main page) -- Rotem Dan 18:55 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I think it looks fine the way it is. MB 19:53 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already figured out it looks fine to you, 'nuff said. -- Rotem Dan 19:55 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't like the "As with any web site..." line.  It sounds apologetic, corporate, and is unnecessary.  Much better to just be out with it and not mince words.  Plus, it's not true that children using 'any web site' may need supervision (for example, Disney is probably safe for the kiddies) Marteau


 * Yeah, I guess so, I removed it. MB 20:44 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the disclaimer is too prominent... was it agreed that it should go in the first paragraph rather than the bottom or side or somewhere? Pcb21 20:47 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Nope. MB 20:48 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We really should try to keep the main page free of uninformative verbiage. That content disclaimer tells nobody anything at all that they didn't already know, and it just wastes what, on the main page, is the most precious commodity of all, spage. It ought to go. Tannin 22:23 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Eh. I dunno.  It's fairly innocuous.  Ignoring some examples of tasteless text for the moment, there are several highly explicit pics floating around this wiki, and I see no problem with devoting fifty or so bytes on the main page to err on the side of caution, so we can say, "well, we warned you, right up front".  And although, in a perfect world, parents would know that a wiki encyclopedia might not always be appropriate for Junior to use unattended, not everyone is that on-line savvy. Marteau

What is going on with that children disclaimer? It looks ridiculous. Might as well say "Don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge." Really. As this is under discussion and dispute, it should not appear on the front page. --The Cunctator


 * I agree that we should not have such a disclaimer until we have some kind of consensus. Martin 09:16 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the above few comments as well. In general, I think a content disclaimer is a good idea, but its location and phraseology on the Main Page were not ideal. Perhaps a link at the bottom of the page next to "About Wikipedia" (requiring a software update) or something similar would be more appropriate. -- Minesweeper 09:35 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

While I agree that the disclaimer should be removed for the moment, I think we should eventually have some sort of disclaimer on the mayn page. Perhaps on the bottom. LittleDan 13:11 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't. But we might put a link back on the word encyclopedia, so that those who don't know what an encyclopedia is can look it up easily. This should tell them what to expect. --Eloquence 21:49 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I certainly think yes on about, no on Main Page. I'm not sure about on individual articles - if we can find a form of words which doesn't express a POV, then I might support the idea. Martin