Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively
technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't
quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode
characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously
obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally
spoilt.
>It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or
not complete enough, too
technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a
reader looks up
something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something
'obscene',
or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot
summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
>Garion
It is entirely unecessary. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", its written
everywhere. I absolutely refute the claim one would "accidently"
"stumble" upon wikipedia and be unaware of this.
Take a gander at wikipedia or a external link from google. It is written multiple times
across the screen, so much as to be excessive. "Their enjoyment of fiction"...?
The enviroment in which we edit and prepare the project determines the quality and status
of wikipedia. Treating wikipedia similar to social networking or movie site hurts
wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Comparing the view of an imaginary
reader's "potential harm from learning something new" hurts wikipedia. We
share knowledge freely. To say otherwise at the fictional argument of
"consideration" is not in view of an encyclopedia. - Zero
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice.