[WikiEN-l] Re: Suggestions for a work-safe encyclopedia

[geni]

> Precisely. You're blaming Wikipedia for your boss's cluelessness.

IT departments exist for a reason. I supose that you are going to try
and use your learn to use your browser argument again. Unfortuently
you don't appear to have thought about what we would have to do in
order to allow people to do this. Supose I turn off images. Now supose
I view an article and want to see the pictures. How do I know if the
picture I am about to allow through is work safe? Well I can hope it
is mention in the caption but if we take say this version of the
article it clearly isn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_%281997_movie%29&oldid=10580793

So YOU are denying me the ability to make an informed descission.


> 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.

Do you have any evidence of the above? 

BTW  since when did I have a responsibility to educate people?

> Or a downstream brain cell?

downstream braincells can only react passivly . We can act activly.

-- 
geni