Gosh. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. You
know there is objectionable
material on Wikipedia because, of course, you have read the content
disclaimer linked from every page.
Nope I've never read it and I'm fairly regular user. There is a whole
market based around the fact that people don't read disclaimers
(psychic readings are for entertainment perposes only etc). However
haveing read it it appears that the general disclaimer does not cover
objectionable material for that I have to follow a further link. So if
a read a disclaimer (which quite clearly not everyone does) then
follow another link to yet another dissclaimer I then get a warning.
Presumerbly good enough for legal cover but I prefer to deal with what
really happens.
Being adverse to seeing nasty stuff,
you click the button on your browser that turns images on or off whenever
you think you're likely to meet something you won't like (the only
internal links to [[Autofellatio]], for instance, are pretty clearly
labeled as to its sexual nature).
The problem with this is that it would rather lower my effectiveness
on RC patrol that is also 4 clicks.
There is also the issue of external links. While I haven't looked into
the issue with regards to Autofellatio I know that one of the reasons
the goatse article is so popular is that it does not contain the
image. There are plenty of places where I can find out what
Autofellatio is with acompyaning pictures (and proabably full colour
vidios if I should want them) where can I find articles on
Autofellatio without images?
--
geni