[WikiEN-l] Britannica quote of the day (Johntex)

[Steve Bennett]

On 3/29/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at 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