Censorship is a scare word that does not accurately describe the internal debate over images. If hte government tells us not to print something, that is censorship. If we decide not to print somethin because of our own editorial standards, that is not censorship.
If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, and to be used as widely as possible, then we need to hold ourselves to decent editorial standards. That might mean taking some very small steps such as putting some content behind a spoiler-like warning. This way, people know that reading the text of articles will be school/work-safe, and they can make an informed decision to view the images so-tagged.
Regardless of what you call it, the discussion has been held many times. There simply isn't anything near consensus for any sort of censorship in the community (and it is censorship, don't kid yourself, just read the first sentance in [[Censorship]]). The discussion has been had, lets just levae it at that.
Johntex
John Tex wrote
Censorship is a scare word that does not accurately describe the internal debate over images. If hte government tells us not to print something, that is censorship. If we decide not to print somethin because of our own editorial standards, that is not censorship.
But it could be described as self-censorship - depending on what 'editorial standards' we are talking about.
If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, and to be used as widely as possible, then we need to hold ourselves to decent editorial standards.
It is taken seriously. It is used so widely that the servers are constantly groaning.
That might mean taking some very small steps such as putting some content behind a spoiler-like warning. This way, people know that reading the text of articles will be school/work-safe, and they can make an informed decision to view the images so-tagged.
It absolutely will not do that. For several reasons.
(i) Once you start on a list of things that might offend someone, you never end, as this thread will no doubt demonstrate. (ii) The article could be edited in the next five minutes, to become not-schoolwork-safe.
The only way to do the suggested kid-safe thing is a fork or a distro on CD-ROM (say) that has been checked for obvious no-nos.
We absolutely cannot take on ourselves parental/teacher style responsibility for the content of a live wiki. Or of all outgoing links. No way can one give 'protection of minors' warranties. I don't see this is going to change. We have this in common with the rest of the Web.
Charles.
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It is taken seriously. It is used so widely that the servers are constantly groaning.
Widely is not the same thing as seriously. Spam (the meat) sells well. Does anyone take it seriously?
It absolutely will not do that. For several reasons.
(i) Once you start on a list of things that might offend someone, you never end, as this thread will no doubt demonstrate.
This is one of those arguments I really dislike. "If we try and improve things, people will want us to improve them even more, and it will never end!"
(ii) The article could be edited in the next five minutes, to become not-schoolwork-safe.
The only way to do the suggested kid-safe thing is a fork or a distro on CD-ROM (say) that has been checked for obvious no-nos.
Look at it the other way. Don't label a page kid safe. Label it *not kid-safe*. Then if someone edits the pornographic article to remove all the porn, then no harm is done. We shouldn't (can't, really) make any guarantees that no kids will be shocked, but hopefully in time, people can draw their own conclusions about the level of risk. At the moment, the risk is high, because a user can easily stumble on [[autofellatio]] or whatever. If all those pages are tagged correctly, then the only risk is that someone sticks tubgirl on [[GWB]] for 2 minutes - a substantially lower risk.
We absolutely cannot take on ourselves parental/teacher style responsibility for the content of a live wiki. Or of all outgoing links. No way can one give 'protection of minors' warranties. I don't see this is going to change. We have this in common with the rest of the Web.
You're right. No warranties. But warnings, and the option to "opt out" with suitable software. Just like with every other site of which "a fairly large portion is pornographic". :)
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Widely is not the same thing as seriously. Spam (the meat) sells well. Does anyone take it seriously?
WP is quoted by top-quality media sources. That's being taken seriously.
It absolutely will not do that. For several reasons.
(i) Once you start on a list of things that might offend someone, you never end, as this thread will no doubt demonstrate.
This is one of those arguments I really dislike. "If we try and improve things, people will want us to improve them even more, and it will never end!"
Well, you are leaping to the conclusion that a subtraction (to appease some group offended) is an improvement.
Look at it the other way. Don't label a page kid safe. Label it *not kid-safe*. Then if someone edits the pornographic article to remove all the porn, then no harm is done. We shouldn't (can't, really) make any guarantees that no kids will be shocked, but hopefully in time, people can draw their own conclusions about the level of risk.
More assumptions. I think parents are more likely to be 'shocked' than kids; especially those naive about what one can google for.
At the moment, the risk is high, because a user can easily stumble on [[autofellatio]] or whatever.
Not that high, clicking Random Page. High enough, if you look in the sexological categories.
If all those pages are tagged correctly, then the only risk is that someone sticks tubgirl on [[GWB]] for 2 minutes - a substantially lower risk.
'Only risk'; I think you forget how many sites WP links to. I think you forget that interwiki links may (within Wikipedia) take one to pages not subject to any scrutiny by us, the English Wikipedia.
We absolutely cannot take on ourselves parental/teacher style responsibility for the content of a live wiki. Or of all outgoing links. No way can one give 'protection of minors' warranties. I don't see this is going to change. We have this in common with the rest of the Web.
You're right. No warranties. But warnings, and the option to "opt out" with suitable software. Just like with every other site of which "a fairly large portion is pornographic". :)
A fairly small proportion of WP is 'explicit', and little is pornographic.
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP is quoted by top-quality media sources. That's being taken seriously.
That's called living dangerously :)
Well, you are leaping to the conclusion that a subtraction (to appease some group offended) is an improvement.
Yes, I am leaping to the conclusion that making Wikipedia an attractive resource for teachers for use with kids is an improvement. What would you call it?
More assumptions. I think parents are more likely to be 'shocked' than kids; especially those naive about what one can google for.
Yep. And what do parents do when they're shocked by something their kid saw on Wikipedia? Anything pleasant, useful, or beneficial to the Wikipedia project?
Not that high, clicking Random Page. High enough, if you look in the sexological categories.
Even higher if you type "sex" into the search box, which most kids probably at some time or another. I agree with your point about the random page though (Britannica was way off the mark with "large proportion").
'Only risk'; I think you forget how many sites WP links to. I think you forget that interwiki links may (within Wikipedia) take one to pages not subject to any scrutiny by us, the English Wikipedia.
That's a lower risk, to me. I think it's significantly less likely that a person would stumble onto a pornographic site by clicking interwiki links. Hell, the chances of your "average" English speaker clicking on an interwiki link at all are fairly remote, let alone one that took them from a "safe" page to an "unsafe" one.
You're right. No warranties. But warnings, and the option to "opt out" with suitable software. Just like with every other site of which "a fairly large portion is pornographic". :)
A fairly small proportion of WP is 'explicit', and little is pornographic.
I know that, and you know that. "They" don't though.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP is quoted by top-quality media sources. That's being taken seriously.
That's called living dangerously :)
Well, you are leaping to the conclusion that a subtraction (to appease some group offended) is an improvement.
Yes, I am leaping to the conclusion that making Wikipedia an attractive resource for teachers for use with kids is an improvement. What would you call it?
I would call it a complete change from five years of getting the encyclopedia written. It bears repetition: the mission is to get the encyclopedia written, the free NPOV encyclopedia. Not to try to gather plaudits from classroom teachers. It's an old discussion here: GFDL means _someone else_ can perfectly well make the fork that is more child-safe.
More assumptions. I think parents are more likely to be 'shocked' than kids; especially those naive about what one can google for.
Yep. And what do parents do when they're shocked by something their kid saw on Wikipedia? Anything pleasant, useful, or beneficial to the Wikipedia project?
With any luck, they revise their views on the Internet as a whole. The place is not 'safe for minors'. I don't know where they might have got the idea that it is.
That's a lower risk, to me. I think it's significantly less likely that a person would stumble onto a pornographic site by clicking interwiki links. Hell, the chances of your "average" English speaker clicking on an interwiki link at all are fairly remote, let alone one that took them from a "safe" page to an "unsafe" one.
It's good to know that the fine old tradition of monolingual Anglo-Saxons is in such good shape.
But the whole concept of a 'safe' Wikipedia is just crocked. What we have is 'knowledge wants to be free', and a few semi-permeable membrances put up on the wiki will not suffice to counter the osmotic pressure.
Charles
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:44:36 +0100, you wrote:
What we have is 'knowledge wants to be free', and a few semi-permeable membrances put up on the wiki will not suffice to counter the osmotic pressure.
For some values of knowledge. I don't really see the merit in copying and pasting the one-sentence "biography" of a minor porn actor from a website which already acts as a repository for such crap if one were needed. Guy (JzG)
On 3/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
For some values of knowledge. I don't really see the merit in copying and pasting the one-sentence "biography" of a minor porn actor from a website which already acts as a repository for such crap if one were needed.
For me, it's no worse than the equivalent from IMDB for minor bit-part non-porn actors.
-Matt
Matt wrote:
On 3/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I don't really see the merit in copying and pasting the one-sentence "biography" of a minor porn actor from a website which already acts as a repository for such crap if one were needed.
For me, it's no worse than the equivalent from IMDB for minor bit-part non-porn actors.
On the one hand I agree with you both. But on the other hand (this is me being a handwringing fence-sitter :-) ) there can be quite a bit of value in having all the world's information *all in one place*. Wikipedia is already replacing google for certain kinds of searches for me -- rather than doing a google search and then picking which of the first ten hits is likely to best tell me what I want, I'll cut to the chase and do the same search in one of my always-open Wikipedia windows instead.
(But with that said, I'm certainly not trying to condone the irreverent copying of any information, bulk or trivial, mainstream or borderline, from other websites into Wikipedia.)
I think you may have misunderstood me, so as to clarify:
* I think no article should be created by copying-and-pasting a biographical stub paragraph from another website * I tend towards inclusionism so long as there's sufficient biographical info available to verify and there's an indication that the person has done something somewhat notable (my standards are very low there)
I'd support having a verifiable stub on both the porn actress and the b-movie actor.
-Matt
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:59:19 -0800, you wrote:
I'd support having a verifiable stub on both the porn actress and the b-movie actor.
Depends what you mean by verifiable, doesn't it? As far as the porn community goes, the vast majority are sourced from primary sources (video covers) or unreliable secondary sources (IADB), and the inclusion of what I would consider minimum biographical data - name and date of birth, for example - is sometimes reverted as "too dangerous" because of stalkers. The idea of coverage in non-trivial reliable sources seems to be waived in these cases. Guy (JzG)
For some values of knowledge. I don't really see the merit in copying and pasting the one-sentence "biography" of a minor porn actor from a website which already acts as a repository for such crap if one were needed.
Guy (JzG)
OK, just don't tell me we could take out all references to zoophilia on the site, and still have a mythology coverage.
Charles
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I would call it a complete change from five years of getting the encyclopedia written. It bears repetition: the mission is to get the encyclopedia written, the free NPOV encyclopedia. Not to try to gather plaudits from classroom teachers. It's an old discussion here: GFDL means _someone else_ can perfectly well make the fork that is more child-safe.
Wait, where did anyone mention plaudits? You want to get the encyclopaedia written. I want the encyclopaedia to be useful to people. These goals are not incompatible.
With any luck, they revise their views on the Internet as a whole. The place is not 'safe for minors'. I don't know where they might have got the idea that it is.
You could hope for that.
It's good to know that the fine old tradition of monolingual Anglo-Saxons is in such good shape.
It's in excellent shape. And it's pretty much monolingual anglosaxons who have driven Wikipedia thus far.
Of course, if you were trying to insult me, you missed your target :)
But the whole concept of a 'safe' Wikipedia is just crocked. What we have is 'knowledge wants to be free', and a few semi-permeable membrances put up on the wiki will not suffice to counter the osmotic pressure.
How about a "safer" Wikipedia? We have spoiler tags on articles about movies and TV shows, and that didn't seem to cause anyone a philosophical crisis. How would content tags be vastly different?
Answer: They would be invisible to most users.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
It's good to know that the fine old tradition of monolingual Anglo-Saxons is in such good shape.
It's in excellent shape. And it's pretty much monolingual anglosaxons who have driven Wikipedia thus far.
Oh, to hell with that as a comment. Sheer ignorance of the contributions of many German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French and Spanish native speakers. And particularly when Wikipedia was a babe in arms.
Charles
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Oh, to hell with that as a comment. Sheer ignorance of the contributions of many German, Dutch, Scandinavian, French and Spanish native speakers. And particularly when Wikipedia was a babe in arms.
Ok, I've obviously offended you. My remark was intended as a vague sympathetic sigh agreeing that there are vast numbers of monolingual anglosaxons in the US, that do indeed have a great deal of influence, being as numerous as they are.
I think "driven" was a pretty poor choice of words - I didn't mean to imply that they were somehow the leadership of the Wikipedia effort, but rather, the meat and potatoes or something. Not that I really have any idea.
My apologies again.
Steve (only claim to fame is that I'm bilingual and living in France)
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Ok, I've obviously offended you. My remark was intended as a vague sympathetic sigh agreeing that there are vast numbers of monolingual anglosaxons in the US, that do indeed have a great deal of influence, being as numerous as they are.
Just remember that the guy editing next to you has better English, and she's Swedish.
Charles
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/28/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I would call it a complete change from five years of getting the encyclopedia written. It bears repetition: the mission is to get the encyclopedia written, the free NPOV encyclopedia. Not to try to gather plaudits from classroom teachers. It's an old discussion here: GFDL means _someone else_ can perfectly well make the fork that is more child-safe.
Wait, where did anyone mention plaudits? You want to get the encyclopaedia written. I want the encyclopaedia to be useful to people. These goals are not incompatible.
You want Wikipedia to be "safe for work", where "work" includes in classrooms. The logical conclusion is that being "classroom-safe" will earn us plaudits from teachers. "Wow, a free encyclopedia, which doesn't include all the naughty things which are illegal to teach in Texas/Kansas/North Korea!"
With any luck, they revise their views on the Internet as a whole. The place is not 'safe for minors'. I don't know where they might have got the idea that it is.
You could hope for that.
That an openly editable, largely unmoderated, uncensored website will be "safe for minors"? OTRS gets enough complaints from *adults* about "pornographic vandalism". Why should we offend minors any less?
It's good to know that the fine old tradition of monolingual Anglo-Saxons is in such good shape.
It's in excellent shape. And it's pretty much monolingual anglosaxons who have driven Wikipedia thus far.
Odd, I could have sworn that it was the German language Wikipedia which had produced three hardcopies of its content...
But the whole concept of a 'safe' Wikipedia is just crocked. What we have is 'knowledge wants to be free', and a few semi-permeable membrances put up on the wiki will not suffice to counter the osmotic pressure.
How about a "safer" Wikipedia? We have spoiler tags on articles about movies and TV shows, and that didn't seem to cause anyone a philosophical crisis. How would content tags be vastly different?
A spoiler warning indicates the *fact* that an article contains "plot or solution details" on the subject of the article. Content warnings would be incredibly objective and POV - once you start putting up "offensive content" tags, it's a slippery slope to...
"Warning: This article contains graphic descriptions of electron flow"
in [[electricity]].
Answer: They would be invisible to most users.
Really? So, if they're "invisible to most users", what's the point of having them? Why not just leave them out altogether?
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, where did anyone mention plaudits? You want to get the encyclopaedia written. I want the encyclopaedia to be useful to people. These goals are not incompatible.
You want Wikipedia to be "safe for work", where "work" includes in classrooms. The logical conclusion is that being "classroom-safe" will earn us plaudits from teachers. "Wow, a free encyclopedia, which doesn't include all the naughty things which are illegal to teach in Texas/Kansas/North Korea!"
Yeah, sorry, I'm just not seeing where you're getting "plaudits" (praise, accolades) out of all this. There are other motivations for doing useful things than wanting a pat on the back.
You could hope for that.
That an openly editable, largely unmoderated, uncensored website will be "safe for minors"? OTRS gets enough complaints from *adults* about "pornographic vandalism". Why should we offend minors any less?
I suspect adults complain because the content is there. Teachers etc know that the web is filthy, they just (afaik) want a reference site where their kids aren't going to be looking at porn.
Odd, I could have sworn that it was the German language Wikipedia which had produced three hardcopies of its content...
I retract the comment.
A spoiler warning indicates the *fact* that an article contains "plot or solution details" on the subject of the article. Content warnings would be incredibly objective and POV - once you start putting up "offensive content" tags, it's a slippery slope to...
So, plot details are facts, but naked breasts are subjective. I disagree completely. If anything, I think what is a spoiler is very subjective - no distinction is made between details of unaired episodes, minor plot points and character deaths, soapies and suspense thrillers, for example. Whereas, as we've seen, the examples where content ratings are contentious are fairly contrived, and mostly come down to whether nude art is pornographic or not.
"Warning: This article contains graphic descriptions of electron flow" in [[electricity]].
Sure, that's a great example. No, really.
Answer: They would be invisible to most users.
Really? So, if they're "invisible to most users", what's the point of having them? Why not just leave them out altogether?
Presumably you would make the same argument for removing braille markings from food products in supermarkets.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Wait, where did anyone mention plaudits? You want to get the encyclopaedia written. I want the encyclopaedia to be useful to people. These goals are not incompatible.
You want Wikipedia to be "safe for work", where "work" includes in classrooms. The logical conclusion is that being "classroom-safe" will earn us plaudits from teachers. "Wow, a free encyclopedia, which doesn't include all the naughty things which are illegal to teach in Texas/Kansas/North Korea!"
Yeah, sorry, I'm just not seeing where you're getting "plaudits" (praise, accolades) out of all this. There are other motivations for doing useful things than wanting a pat on the back.
Earlier you wrote "Yes, I am leaping to the conclusion that making Wikipedia an attractive resource for teachers for use with kids is an improvement."
You could hope for that.
That an openly editable, largely unmoderated, uncensored website will be "safe for minors"? OTRS gets enough complaints from *adults* about "pornographic vandalism". Why should we offend minors any less?
I suspect adults complain because the content is there. Teachers etc know that the web is filthy, they just (afaik) want a reference site where their kids aren't going to be looking at porn.
Ok, so someone else could fork us and produce a meta-stable "clean" version. Wait, doesn't answers.com do that already?
A spoiler warning indicates the *fact* that an article contains "plot or solution details" on the subject of the article. Content warnings would be incredibly objective and POV - once you start putting up "offensive content" tags, it's a slippery slope to...
So, plot details are facts, but naked breasts are subjective. I disagree completely. If anything, I think what is a spoiler is very subjective - no distinction is made between details of unaired episodes, minor plot points and character deaths, soapies and suspense thrillers, for example. Whereas, as we've seen, the examples where content ratings are contentious are fairly contrived, and mostly come down to whether nude art is pornographic or not.
Whoops, we should probably swap all instances of "subjective" and "objective" in those two paragraphs.
However, "offensive" is most definately a subjective term - the term "bugger" can be offensive in certain contexts, as can the infamous phrase "so where the bloody hell are you"...
"Warning: This article contains graphic descriptions of electron flow" in [[electricity]].
Sure, that's a great example. No, really.
So, you're willing to tag *all* articles based on their content?
Are you then willing to tag the list of tags?
"Warning: this set of articles have been identified of being of a biologically accurate/theologically dubious/unscientific nature"? (sex, evolution, and creation respectively)
Answer: They would be invisible to most users.
Really? So, if they're "invisible to most users", what's the point of having them? Why not just leave them out altogether?
Presumably you would make the same argument for removing braille markings from food products in supermarkets.
Braille on food products is expected by people with impaired vision. Who is going to which readers do and don't see the warnings? Please stop trying to build strawmen...
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So, you're willing to tag *all* articles based on their content?
Are you then willing to tag the list of tags?
"Warning: this set of articles have been identified of being of a biologically accurate/theologically dubious/unscientific nature"? (sex, evolution, and creation respectively)
Why stop at articles? "Warning:This talk page contians geni's spelling"
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
So, you're willing to tag *all* articles based on their content?
Are you then willing to tag the list of tags?
"Warning: this set of articles have been identified of being of a biologically accurate/theologically dubious/unscientific nature"? (sex, evolution, and creation respectively)
Why stop at articles? "Warning:This talk page contians geni's spelling"
Maybe our tagline should be
"From Wikipieda (Hi mum!), the communist's free encyclopeedia that anywun can eddit ON WHEEELS!!1!!eleven (buy V1aGr4)"
(No, this is *not* a suggestion for April Fools Day...)
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier you wrote "Yes, I am leaping to the conclusion that making Wikipedia an attractive resource for teachers for use with kids is an improvement."
Yeah, I still don't get where plaudits come into anything.
Ok, so someone else could fork us and produce a meta-stable "clean" version. Wait, doesn't answers.com do that already?
No comment.
However, "offensive" is most definately a subjective term - the term "bugger" can be offensive in certain contexts, as can the infamous phrase "so where the bloody hell are you"...
It's probably not so much the context as the hearer/reader that matters. And notice that my example was objective: "naked breasts". Yours is subjective: "offensive". Kind of logical that a subjective term is hard to apply objectively.
So, you're willing to tag *all* articles based on their content?
Are you then willing to tag the list of tags?
I don't really understand your objection here. It's like me saying "we should fix spelling errors" and you saying "are you personally willing to fix every spelling error in every article?"
"Warning: this set of articles have been identified of being of a biologically accurate/theologically dubious/unscientific nature"? (sex, evolution, and creation respectively)
I feel mocked. Ah well.
Really? So, if they're "invisible to most users", what's the point of having them? Why not just leave them out altogether?
Presumably you would make the same argument for removing braille markings from food products in supermarkets.
Braille on food products is expected by people with impaired vision. Who is going to which readers do and don't see the warnings? Please stop trying to build strawmen...
Braille is "invisible" to most sighted people, because it's not useful to them, and they simply aren't aware of its existence. Of course, a blind person is very much aware. The same would go for content tags. I imagine that certain software can find content tags in <META> html tags, or even <!-- HTML comments-->. The average user would be blissfully unaware. Anyone with appropriate software would still be able to make use of them.
Work with me here, eh?
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
And notice that my example was objective: "naked breasts". Yours is subjective: "offensive". Kind of logical that a subjective term is hard to apply objectively.
Naked breasts - the last thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait. The first thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait, the breasts should be exposed to the kid, but one at a time. Good thing newborns have good enough grasp of subjectivity and objectivity not to be confused. Or offended. No wait, they grasp fingers, but I think they don't really grasp ... never mind, the confusion seems to lie elsewhere ...
Charles
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
charles matthews stated for the record:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
And notice that my example was objective: "naked breasts". Yours is subjective: "offensive". Kind of logical that a subjective term is hard to apply objectively.
Naked breasts - the last thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait. The first thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait, the breasts should be exposed to the kid, but one at a time. Good thing newborns have good enough grasp of subjectivity and objectivity not to be confused. Or offended. No wait, they grasp fingers, but I think they don't really grasp ... never mind, the confusion seems to lie elsewhere ...
Charles
Charles, Charles, Charles. That is such a straw man. Everyone knows that it is (are?) only pert, young, virginal breasts that kids must not see. It is perfectly all right to expose children to breasts (or vice versa) /as long as they are lactating/ (the breasts, not the children).
/me goes to see what [[fetish]] has to say about the subject.
- -- Sean Barrett | The other side to the Wikipedia that nobody really sean@epoptic.org | likes to talk about... is that a large portion of | the content is fairly pornographic, and actually | quite lewd. --Encyclopedia Britannica spokesman
Sean Barrett wrote:
charles matthews stated for the record:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
And notice that my example was objective: "naked breasts". Yours is subjective: "offensive". Kind of logical that a subjective term is hard to apply objectively.
Naked breasts - the last thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait. The first thing young kids should be exposed to. No, wait, the breasts should be exposed to the kid, but one at a time. Good thing newborns have good enough grasp of subjectivity and objectivity not to be confused. Or offended. No wait, they grasp fingers, but I think they don't really grasp ... never mind, the confusion seems to lie elsewhere ...
Charles
Charles, Charles, Charles. That is such a straw man. Everyone knows that it is (are?) only pert, young, virginal breasts that kids must not see. It is perfectly all right to expose children to breasts (or vice versa) /as long as they are lactating/ (the breasts, not the children).
So, a girl can't look at her own breasts then.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
So, a girl can't look at her own breasts then.
Seems only fair: if we can't look at them, why should she?
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Earlier you wrote "Yes, I am leaping to the conclusion that making Wikipedia an attractive resource for teachers for use with kids is an improvement."
Yeah, I still don't get where plaudits come into anything.
Neither do I.
<snip>
Really? So, if they're "invisible to most users", what's the point of having them? Why not just leave them out altogether?
Presumably you would make the same argument for removing braille markings from food products in supermarkets.
Braille on food products is expected by people with impaired vision. Who is going to which readers do and don't see the warnings? Please stop trying to build strawmen...
Braille is "invisible" to most sighted people, because it's not useful to them, and they simply aren't aware of its existence. Of course, a blind person is very much aware. The same would go for content tags. I imagine that certain software can find content tags in <META> html tags, or even <!-- HTML comments-->. The average user would be blissfully unaware. Anyone with appropriate software would still be able to make use of them.
Work with me here, eh?
Okay, I just wasn't sure how you'd make them "invisible to most users" and yet still useful...