Tony Sidaway wrote:
John Lee said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Nor do I. There should not be shock images on
Wikipedia. All images
should be there solely because they appropriately illustrate an
article.
Shall I illustrate our article on shock sites with Goatse and Tubgirl
then?
That may be appropriate. I'd have to see the illustration and its use in
the article.
[IE]
Isn't it kind of obvious? I'd place appropriately resized screencaps of
both sites, and caption the Goatse one "Goatse is one of the most
commonly used shock site on the internet" and the Tubgirl one "Although
not as commonly used as Goatse, Tubgirl is also used on a regular basis
to shock unsuspecting users".
That's not
blocking them on an individual basis. That's _unblocking_
them on an individual basis. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Nigh on completely useless.
I have no idea why you would say that. All images are available, but none
of them are displayed unless the user selects them. I find this to be the
optimal way of browsing.
Not all people do. Is it possible to do this on a per page basis? If so,
there may be some derivable benefit from it, but otherwise, it's just
throwing the baby out with bathwater. Not all people would care to have
to click a few times every time they visit a webpage just to view its
images.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])