This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
REJECTED: This is a rejected proposal. The concept of a rating system to warn users of possibly offensive content before they would read it surfaced on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and was later proposed by Mike Church in this page. As "test cases", Church also placed rating flags in several pages, all of his original creation. The intentions of the system were entirely noncensorious; no articles would be removed or blocked because of possibly objectionable content, but only flagged so as to warn the user. For many reasons, it was determined that the pursuit of such a rating system would be highly detrimental to the Wikipedia project, and that the aggravations caused would not justify the benefits. The proposal was rejected by most contributors and also disowned by Church as a "bad idea"; he admitted that he had failed to consider all potential unintended consequences of the scheme. Let this document stand as a precedent: It shall represent the fact that such a rating system has been proposed and thoroughly rejected, and that one should not be attempted in the future.
Wikipedia has a wide range of users at this point, including young children, parents, and others who would desire not to be exposed to certain content. I solidly assert that no valuable content should be censored or removed because of its potential to offend, but do recognize the possible utility in having this feature. I would like to propose, and desire feedback upon, a rating system for Wikipedia.
Sites would be rated 0 to 4 for likeliness that a reader would be offended or disturbed by the content at the site. For example, a page like Shock Site would be given a header like:
This article has been rated 4, for graphic depictions of disturbing images. "Rated 4" would link to this page.
0 would indicate a site that is highly unlikely to cause offense. For example, mathematics or Ambition (card game). One note: When a site is rated 0, one should include "for no offensive content." We want the reader to know the rating means the site is "safe", not think the rating might mean it sucks.
1 would indicate a site with minor profanity or mention of violence, but little more. Articles rated 1 would be those which are generally inoffensive and considered acceptable for open discussion, but around which discussion might become heated.
2 would indicate a site which contains matter that most would not consider offensive, but that some would prefer to avoid.
3 would indicate a site that is highly likely to disturb or offend most viewers, at least to some degree. Articles with explicit sexual or violent content would be included here.
4 would indicate the highest level of disturbing content, such as shock site (which contains vivid descriptions of goatse.cx, tubgirl, et al). I would say this rating should be used as rarely as possible.
The purpose of such a rating system would definitively not be censorship. Rather, its purpose (like the spoiler warning) would be to warn readers about content they may not want to be exposed to.
The rater of an article would be expected to identify himself in the Talk page, and consensus of the community could change a rating (for example, if felching were rated 0 by a troll) or, if so desired, take the rating off the page. Ratings would be voluntary according to community standards; if the people contributing to the page did not want it rated, the rating would be removed.
What do you say? Good idea? Bad idea?
The Pros and Cons sections I've made is simply to summarize cases for and against. Please be succinct and add to these sections very conservatively; you can say all you want in the "Favor" and "Oppose" sections. While the Cons outnumber the Pros, IMHO, we have many minor Cons, and one potentially major Pro. Of course, that is open to debate.
Until there is consensus upon whether or not such a system should be implemented, I've only touched pages of my own original authorship. I've provided these examples so you can see what these ratings might look like.
Ambition (card game) - 0 Class in the United States, circa 2004 - 0 Correlation between intelligence and social deficiency - 0 Downsizing - 0 Miserable failure - 0 Penis removal - 3 (graphic depictions of sexual violence) Player (dating) - 2 (term "cockblocker", mainly) Player (game) - 0
The Wikipedia community has presented many problems that would exist in such a rating system, and the proposed system is, as shown by discussion here, highly unpopular. Such a rating system shall not appear on Wikipedia.
May this page remain, only for use in future discussions. Should such a proposal be made again, Wikipedia's rejection of the idea shall be noted as a precedent.
Reviewing the objections, what can I say? It was a bad idea. I stood up and proposed this system, after the concept came up in VfD, and it was deservingly defeated. I will eliminate any outstanding ratings of this sort (unless they have all been already removed). Thank you all for voicing your objections honestly and intelligently. Mike Church 05:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think a Kids' Wikipedia is a great idea. Exploding Boy 15:22, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Mike Church 22:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
REJECTED: This is a rejected proposal. The concept of a rating system to warn users of possibly offensive content before they would read it surfaced on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and was later proposed by Mike Church in this page. As "test cases", Church also placed rating flags in several pages, all of his original creation. The intentions of the system were entirely noncensorious; no articles would be removed or blocked because of possibly objectionable content, but only flagged so as to warn the user. For many reasons, it was determined that the pursuit of such a rating system would be highly detrimental to the Wikipedia project, and that the aggravations caused would not justify the benefits. The proposal was rejected by most contributors and also disowned by Church as a "bad idea"; he admitted that he had failed to consider all potential unintended consequences of the scheme. Let this document stand as a precedent: It shall represent the fact that such a rating system has been proposed and thoroughly rejected, and that one should not be attempted in the future.
Wikipedia has a wide range of users at this point, including young children, parents, and others who would desire not to be exposed to certain content. I solidly assert that no valuable content should be censored or removed because of its potential to offend, but do recognize the possible utility in having this feature. I would like to propose, and desire feedback upon, a rating system for Wikipedia.
Sites would be rated 0 to 4 for likeliness that a reader would be offended or disturbed by the content at the site. For example, a page like Shock Site would be given a header like:
This article has been rated 4, for graphic depictions of disturbing images. "Rated 4" would link to this page.
0 would indicate a site that is highly unlikely to cause offense. For example, mathematics or Ambition (card game). One note: When a site is rated 0, one should include "for no offensive content." We want the reader to know the rating means the site is "safe", not think the rating might mean it sucks.
1 would indicate a site with minor profanity or mention of violence, but little more. Articles rated 1 would be those which are generally inoffensive and considered acceptable for open discussion, but around which discussion might become heated.
2 would indicate a site which contains matter that most would not consider offensive, but that some would prefer to avoid.
3 would indicate a site that is highly likely to disturb or offend most viewers, at least to some degree. Articles with explicit sexual or violent content would be included here.
4 would indicate the highest level of disturbing content, such as shock site (which contains vivid descriptions of goatse.cx, tubgirl, et al). I would say this rating should be used as rarely as possible.
The purpose of such a rating system would definitively not be censorship. Rather, its purpose (like the spoiler warning) would be to warn readers about content they may not want to be exposed to.
The rater of an article would be expected to identify himself in the Talk page, and consensus of the community could change a rating (for example, if felching were rated 0 by a troll) or, if so desired, take the rating off the page. Ratings would be voluntary according to community standards; if the people contributing to the page did not want it rated, the rating would be removed.
What do you say? Good idea? Bad idea?
The Pros and Cons sections I've made is simply to summarize cases for and against. Please be succinct and add to these sections very conservatively; you can say all you want in the "Favor" and "Oppose" sections. While the Cons outnumber the Pros, IMHO, we have many minor Cons, and one potentially major Pro. Of course, that is open to debate.
Until there is consensus upon whether or not such a system should be implemented, I've only touched pages of my own original authorship. I've provided these examples so you can see what these ratings might look like.
Ambition (card game) - 0 Class in the United States, circa 2004 - 0 Correlation between intelligence and social deficiency - 0 Downsizing - 0 Miserable failure - 0 Penis removal - 3 (graphic depictions of sexual violence) Player (dating) - 2 (term "cockblocker", mainly) Player (game) - 0
The Wikipedia community has presented many problems that would exist in such a rating system, and the proposed system is, as shown by discussion here, highly unpopular. Such a rating system shall not appear on Wikipedia.
May this page remain, only for use in future discussions. Should such a proposal be made again, Wikipedia's rejection of the idea shall be noted as a precedent.
Reviewing the objections, what can I say? It was a bad idea. I stood up and proposed this system, after the concept came up in VfD, and it was deservingly defeated. I will eliminate any outstanding ratings of this sort (unless they have all been already removed). Thank you all for voicing your objections honestly and intelligently. Mike Church 05:22, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think a Kids' Wikipedia is a great idea. Exploding Boy 15:22, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Mike Church 22:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)