geni said:
Well I've just shown you that Wikipedia *is* a very good shocksite. A concrete example: fred1245 makes a userpage and pops the clitoris picture, enlarged to fill the browser page, into the page, saves that and then blanks it. Then he posts the innocent-looking Wikipedia URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Fred1245&oldid=12302327 on the Rapture Ready forum.
At that is a bad thing how?
I'm not going to argue about whether it's a bad thing, I'm just showing you that Wikipedia is easy to use as a shocksite in a manner that would be hard to detect prior to first use.
The picture in question is a still from a PG13 movie, placed on an article about that movie. If people go to that article, presumably they expect to see stills from the movie. If they don't, there's nothing we can do to help them.
And how am I ment to know that titanic is PG13 (a rating that doesn't even exist in my country)?
It's probably best to assume that *all* movies may contain things that some very sensitive people will find upsetting to look at. Fast cars, violence, explosions, extreme cruelty, glorification of stupidity, and last but not least the occasional bare chested young lady. People who are likely to be upset by movies know who they are and precisely what it is that is likely to upset them. We don't--hence this display of mutual incomprehension between those of us who don't know what the fuss is about and those who think it's blatantly obvious.