On 16/11/2014, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 16/11/2014 07:34, Yoav Nir wrote: >> >> Imagine Wikipedia with nothing controversial: nothing about abortions, >> religions, genetics, evolution… > > And that will not happen, so Wikipedia will simply ignore "safe", so > browsers > set to request "safe" will just get raw Wikipedia, so "safe" will be > useless > for parents wishing to censor their children's access to Wikipedia. > This straw man serves as a handy informative illustration. Wikipedia doesn't (currently, or likely into the future) offer a 'safe' option. Wikipedia doesn't offer a 'safe' option, so of course the hint isn't for them, so of course they will ignore it. Us standardising the preference doesn't suddenly force the entire web to present safe/unsafe versions of everything. > Thanks; this is a good illustration of why this whole thing is a pointless > fig leaf. > Once again, this hint is just a means of preempting the server's question: "do you want safe mode?" The example that comes to mind is Google's 'safe search', which I presume is the naming phenotype. If they don't ask the question, they can ignore the answer. I wonder, again, if renaming it to "Prefer: x99-bob" would assuage most peoples' concerns, at least had the renaming happened before opinions were formed. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/