Stan Shebs said:
It's not so much whether people know how to operate the web
browser, it's that it makes referring to WP an unduly risky
activity. For instance, suppose I'm in the office of a less-clueful
boss, and am trying to get the boss to understand a detail, and I
know WP has a good explanation; it's not going to help my case if
I have to ask the boss to turn off image display before I have
him/her bring up a WP page.
Precisely. You're blaming Wikipedia for your boss's cluelessness.
This is another variant on the child-safe debate
Indeed. We could make Wikipedia "child safe" (another utterly pointless
term when applied to anything a three-year-old couldn't choke on), we
could make it "granny safe", but it would be silly because all the people
demanding that we make Wikipedia "such-and-such safe" are blaming their
communication problems on Wikipedia and saying Wikipedia must be changed.
Why do they do that? Presumably because it would involve less effort on
their part if Wikipedia were to change to suit *their* personal
requirements, and forget all that stuff about making a great
encyclopedia. They wouldn't have to go about their difficult personal
responsibilities, those of educating their clueless boss, or their
children, or their granny, or failing that, ensuring that their
non-Wikipedia-safe boss, child or granny is not operated in a manner that
could cause damage to Wikipedia.
, and maybe
the filtering needs to be done by a downstream organization
Or a downstream brain cell?