I very strongly oppose text-only pages for only certain articles,
however, as a general attribute that can be turned on or off by the
user for all pages (With the defult obviously being on FOR ALL PAGES)
i have no real objections.
paz y amor,'
[[User:The bellman]]
rjs
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 23:32:02 -0500, Minh Nguyen <mxn(a)zoomtown.com> wrote:
csherlock(a)ljh.com.au wrote:
I think people are going to have to come to a
better solution than this,
or the software will need some modification (for instance, flagging
images as potentially offensive and giving users a setting to see/not
see these images).
Perhaps we could use transclusion? There would be an [[Abu Ghraib
prisoner abuse (text only)]] article, which could be transcluded to the
[[Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (with images)]] article. Or vice-versa.
[[Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse]] could be used as a dismbig that would ask
if you wanted to see the article with photos.
This would keep both articles in sync, and would allow users to decide
whether they want to view the images beforehand (for students etc.).
This is also similar to what the [[Main Page]] offers, with its link to
[[Main Page (table free)|Text only]]. Except that tables are being
omitted in this case, not images.
I really hope that other articles won't take
up this, for instance
[[clitoris]] might decide to fork over disputes over the image of a
women's vagina on the page (I personally think that these people need to
just get over it, but I'm not everyone). My concern, however, is how to
keep the articles in sync once they have been duplicated.
There are children who use Wikipedia regularly, though. They probably
wouldn't have any business reading articles like [[clitoris]], but they
might accidentally stumble upon these articles. Keeping a text-only version
Further: it's a slipperyly slope when we
start allowing dupes: we have a
similar situation where we had [[Zionist revisionism]] and
[[Israeli-Palestinian history denial]]. Two seperate articles, yet both
talking about very similar things. Perhaps not quite the same, but you
can see how messy things get when we allow duplication of articles!
I would draw a distinction between 1) an imageless version of an article
and 2) two separate yet very similar *topics*.
Ideally, enough people would be monitoring these articles on their
watchlists (that's likely with controversial topics anyhow), so it
wouldn't be necessary to have automatic synchronization.
Ta bu shi da yu
--
Minh Nguyen <mxn(a)zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn(a)myjabber.net; Blog:
http://mxn.f2o.org/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade(a)jabber.zim.net.au
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit