Erik -
I think sophistry is the word you're looking for. Your last on the fact that there is a disclaimer - if one knows where to look, and certainly not highly visible on the main page - only proves my point and objection. There is a certain mindset that says that doing things that are clearly unethical or against the spirit of the law (rule, more, code, standard, etc.) are all right as long as they follow the letter of the law. I'm sorry you think that's enough.
Oh - and when did helping people make informed choices stop being a courtesy and become a form of censorship?
JHK
Julie-
I think sophistry is the word you're looking for. Your last on the fact that there is a disclaimer - if one knows where to look, and certainly not highly visible on the main page
Would you really find it tasteful for our main page to contain a "here there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that would blow the perceived problem a little bit out of proportion?
- only proves my point and
objection. There is a certain mindset that says that doing things that are clearly unethical or against the spirit of the law (rule, more, code, standard, etc.) are all right as long as they follow the letter of the law. I'm sorry you think that's enough.
I can't follow you here. Which standard are we only following to the letter, and not to the spirit? And why should that be my standard, if it is yours?
Oh - and when did helping people make informed choices stop being a courtesy and become a form of censorship?
I'm all for helping people make informed choices. I therefore support putting double square brackets around the world "encyclopedia" on the main page, so that anyone who does not know what to expect can read it up.
Regards,
Erik
Julie - speaking of cigars - where do you stand on the Monica issue? Earlier on, some people (no names) mentioned including Bill Clinton in the context of "Adult content" - this is what raised the hairs on the back of my head.
I cant think of a better example of how to politicize something that starts off as a simple issue of filtering out naughtytalk. Do you think [[Bill Clinton]] should be flagged at all - and if so to what degree?
-Steven
Erik Moeller wrote:
Would you really find it tasteful for our main page to contain a "here there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that would blow the perceived problem a little bit out of proportion?
I don't think we should have any form of 'here there be dragons' notice on the front page. If anything, such a disclaimer should appear on a case by case basis before particular pages, but even that is a lot more problematic in terms of generating pointless quarrels than what I'm proposing.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Would you really find it tasteful for our main
page to contain a "here
there be dragons" notice? Don't you think that
would blow the perceived
problem a little bit out of proportion?
I don't think we should have any form of 'here there be dragons' notice on the front page. If anything, such a disclaimer should appear on a case by case basis before particular pages, but even that is a lot more problematic in terms of generating pointless quarrels than what I'm proposing.
--Jimbo
Well, that works, but only to a certain degree. When I encounter a page on a book or movie that says it has spoilers in it, it's still hard for me not to read it because I'm already there. But I guess a notice on the main page wouldn't really help that either...
I still think there should be a general disclamers page, saying, in addition to the mature content warning, that we don't give medical advice, do give spoilers, etc. There should be a link to this from the main page. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I still think there should be a general disclamers page, saying, in addition to the mature content warning, that we don't give medical advice, do give spoilers, etc.
Yes, this would be a good idea. I urge you to work on [[Wikipedia:Content advisory]].
There should be a link to this from the main page.
This is discusses on [[Wikipedia talk:Content advisory/placement]]. But many people seem to think (and I would agree) that the advisory should be finished before deciding this. (And indeed, the advisory is rather finished, unless Dan adds legal and medical disclaimers -- which shouldn't stop him from doing so IMO, since it'll become finished again before too long.)
-- Toby
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I don't think we should have any form of 'here there be dragons' notice on the front page. If anything, such a disclaimer should appear on a case by case basis before particular pages, but even that is a lot more problematic in terms of generating pointless quarrels than what I'm proposing.
Certainly that would generate many quarrels (pointless or not), but for the past week there's been pretty general acceptance of linking to a detailed content advisory from [[Wikipedia:About]].
-- Toby