Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough, too
technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks up something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something 'obscene', or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
Garion
It is entirely unecessary. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", its written everywhere. I absolutely refute the claim one would "accidently" "stumble" upon wikipedia and be unaware of this.
Take a gander at wikipedia or a external link from google. It is written multiple times across the screen, so much as to be excessive. "Their enjoyment of fiction"...? The enviroment in which we edit and prepare the project determines the quality and status of wikipedia. Treating wikipedia similar to social networking or movie site hurts wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Comparing the view of an imaginary reader's "potential harm from learning something new" hurts wikipedia. We share knowledge freely. To say otherwise at the fictional argument of "consideration" is not in view of an encyclopedia. - Zero _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.