[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship

Mon Feb 14 01:03:54 UTC 2005

Tony Sidaway wrote:
> Chad Perrin said:
> 
>>The statement that "we" already have this capability built into "our"
>>browsers assumes some things about visitors to the site that are not
>>necessarily true.
> 
> 
> Well you had to dig pretty deep for a not-very-convincing example. :)

That wasn't "digging pretty deep": it was speaking from experience. 
I've had occasion to use w3mmee, even as my primary browser under 
certain circumstances (now thankfully behind me).  The point still 
stands, though -- some people don't have the options you seemed to 
assume were universal.

>>Besides, anything less than a one-click method of blocking all images
>>is  unlikely to make blocking all images palatable to anyone using a
>>graphical browser.  As such, I think that addressing the matter from
>>the  server side is rather important, in the long run.
>>
> 
> I agree that, at most, it's a nice-to-have.  But really the users should
> be taking this issue up with the designers of their browsers, not the
> producers of content.  http is not a push medium.

I both agree and disagree with that.  I agree that users should be 
taking it up with the browser designers, rather than the content 
providers, but I also believe that, in absence of specific reasons to do 
otherwise, content providers should perhaps address the matter as well. 
  In particular, I think it's an idea that should be addressed by 
Wikipedia, because of the goals pursued by the Wikipedia endeavor (both 
in theory and in practice).  Making a universally accessible 
encycolpedia implies making an encyclopedia that strives to be as close 
to universally palatable as is practicable, as well, without betraying 
the needs of encyclopedic quality.

--
Chad