[WikiEN-l] One reason why Wikipedia is not presently classroom-safe

Sun Feb 20 18:37:54 UTC 2005

On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 08:21:08PM +0800, John Lee wrote:
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >Well, that's precisely what I am *not* seeing.  I'm seeing a substantial
> >minority, nearly 40%, who are in favor of inlining.  This tells me that
> >there is not a consensus that it's such an offensive image.>
> > 
> 40% of *editors*. Not readers. Big difference. People like us who have 
> so much time to spend on an online "open source" encyclopedia probably 
> have far more liberal mind sets than average folk.

To pretend to speak in the name of those who don't care to speak for
themselves is very easy to do, but the words thus spoken carry no added
weight.  They are merely the words of the speaker himself, dressed in
the Potemkin-village clothes of the "Silent Majority".  Indeed, such
words are weakened by the false banner under which they travel.  By
pretending to a voice that is not your own, you give up yours.

When you speak for "the readers", nobody can hear the readers.  One can
hear only you, putting on the voice of "the readers" as a phony accent,
like a bad American actor pretending to Cockney.

> >Only in one country.  The rest of the world was left scratching its heads
> >and wondering what all the fuss was about.  US news programs even carried
> >th images with the breast pixellated out, while non-US news programs
> >showed the incident uncensored.  Please do not assume that the standards
> >of one country are universal.>
> >
> That may be true, but our readership is generally American. I'm not 
> denying a substantial portion of our patronage would not be offended, 
> but a substantial amount *would* be offended. If we were to link instead 
> of inline an image, I doubt the "non-offended" would complain, and if 
> they did, it would be hardly as much as the furore from the other side 
> were we to carry the image inline.

What, precisely, is so terrible about being offended once in a while?
In truth, being offended regularly is quite educational, and betters a
person.  Those who go for too long without the experience of being
offended become fossilized in their opinions of Mankind, and develop the
false belief that all others are like unto themselves.  When, later,
this belief is suddenly shown false, such persons are caught entirely
unprepared, and retreat to childish outbursts and violence.

I propose that offending people is a Virtue and not a Vice, if one does
so in a manner which is simultaneously informative & educational.  It is
of no use to offend gratuitously; that is, to rehash tiresome offenses
which no longer teach the offended person anything.  But to be offended
and to receive knowledge at the same moment, is to receive knowledge
twice over.

> >This is not part of my argument.  IE is available to 95%+ of the web-using
> >population and it will download images or not at the user's option.
> >
> I spent four or five years of my life using IE and I've never run across 
> the option to block images on an individual basis. I did find the 
> ability to disable all images, but I should not need to throw out the 
> baby with the bathwater.

You have the power in your hands to prevent the terrible offense to
yourself, which offense you so vehemently decry.  Yet you choose
willingly not to use that power, insisting that it is Someone Else's
Job.

Either the offense is not really so bad, or else you are cutting off
your nose to spite your face.

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>