Call me a prude, but….

  • I was looking for help with CSS and found a list of links in the Codex. Cool. So I clicked on Flumpcakes CSS Optimizer. I was surprised to find that the only graphic on the page was the silhouette of a woman in high heels, in a “compromising” position, with her wrists chained. The implication is pretty obvious, even to a prude. I am just glad my young sons weren’t sitting by the computer when I clicked this link. “Mom, what’s that lady doing…?”

    I expect that sort of stuff when I’m clicking around the web to unknown places, but when a site comes “recommended” by something as professional as the WP Codex, then I expect to end up at a site that is equally professional. Maybe Flumpcakes should be asked to clean up the site if s/he wants to be connected so closely with WP.

    Just a thought….

Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)

  • Clearly you can’t police outside sites, that’s not what I was suggesting.

    Whether or not it’s “part of the codex” is a subtle and debatable point.

    The issue as I see it is one of protecting the WordPress name and reputation, and by association, webmasters who use the software on their sites.

    My suggestion would be to clearly segregate (on a separate page) ALL “outside” links with a loud disclaimer and warning. This would keep open an avenue of contribution while distancing WP from the damage that can (and has already) result from links/submissions with questionable content.

    Clearly this is fruitless. Can we close this thread?

    I never actually found the link in the codex. I did the find the site itself through google. Would somebody mind posting a link to the codex page it’s on? I’m just curious to how the link looks.

    As long as it civil, I consider these kinds of discussions helpful. We all have a stake in the codex.

    Fruitless??? I will drop WP like a piece of used dental floss if I continue to see crap like that in the codex.

    go to the CSS page and give me a screen shot of where you see any “tasteless” graphics on that page.

    There.
    Are.
    None.

    You have to LEAVE THE CODEX, after seeing a “potentially NSFW” comment.

    manstraw – what you have to understand is that SOME people ^^ can’t keep ANY discussion civil.

    A note to moderators. Should you feel that someone is out of line in a post on this thread, I would hope that you remove the offending post rather than close the thread.

    I would still appreciate it if someone posted a link to the page in the codex we’re discussing. -update, I see someone did while I was typing. Thanks.

    Manstraw: https://www.ads-software.com/support/topic/77431?replies=23#post-401308

    and thanks again HandySolo.

    my take: it’s a silhouetted graphic. it’s not a pr0n site. the resources are quite helpful. and there’s a warning IN the codex, which is all i feel WP needs to be responsible for, IF that. a simple statement at the top of the page stating the lack of responsibility on WP’s part for anything found on any pages outside of www.ads-software.com should suffice. i think the notation made by VB or whoever is considered part of “the extra mile” and is more than sufficient to protect WP users.

    if you can’t comprehend the WHOLE concept of “open source” and wikis, then maybe you shouldn’t be using OS software anyway.

    https://codex.www.ads-software.com/CSS
    Section 3 – Intro to CSS

    Until it is civil and no personal attacks are involved – we don’t want to close it.

    And just my $0.02, not as a mod, but as another WP user, contributor to the Codex, to this forum etc.
    The Codex is a community effort (as it was stated many times) – and I am glad there is no “authority involved” in its editing, beyond the spam removal. Spammers get banned.
    Anybody, including deko, can log in, and re-edit ALL the Codex pages (I guess there are several hundreds!) removing the links to outside resources and put them all in a single giant page, of course grouped nicely by the topics of the pages you’ve removed them from. Then see if the visitors are happy with your purist action ??

    Hi again,

    yep, ladydelaluna has it correctly. That’s what *I* would prefer: “a simple statement at the top of the page stating the lack of responsibility on WP’s part for anything found on any pages outside of www.ads-software.com should suffice.”

    ‘Cause else I’d say rightwing, fascist, religious and vulgar sites also need a warning. Just for fairness’s sake.

    https://codex.www.ads-software.com/Codex:General_disclaimer

    Codex:General disclaimer

    * All content on this site is provided on an “as-is” basis.
    * The WordPress project, and the team of volunteers who created the articles on this site do not accept any responsibility for any damages, direct or indirect, that may arise from using the information on this site.
    * All content on this site is provided under the GNU General Public License (https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
    * You are free to use the information on this site, but no claims are made regarding the trustworthiness, or the dependability of the same.

    Basically, have a good time, and remember that everything on this site has been provided by volunteers who spared their free time to make life easier for you. Do not try to make life more difficult for the volunteers. Pitch in and edit whatever you find misleading or incorrect.

    Thank you!

    Thread Starter kalico

    (@kalico)

    My goodness, folks! Take it easy! I simply suggested that WP be cautious who they link to.

    Manstraw suggested I could take care of it, b/c anyone can edit.

    Viperbond DID take care of it, agreeing that visitors should simply be warned.

    Deko made my point perfectly: it’s about WP’s reputation.

    I own my prudishness. That kind of stuff is fine for the bedrooms of consenting adults, not a direct link off the WP codex. I made a suggestion, as a WP user who stumbled on something offensive (to me, and potentially to others). My kids didn’t see it, I don’t work on WP with them sitting on my lap, and it’s really none of anobody’s business how I parent anyway. But how WP comes across to everyone on the internet — even the prudes — IS the business of EVERYONE here.

    It was a hypothetical comment about the kids — the main point was that this is a professional site, and outgoing links should try to honor that. The thing is, we all need to have a CHOICE about what we look at. I don’t enjoy that kind of art, but someone else does. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s freedom, I’m just suggesting that it should not be thrust upon anyone who is not expecting it, whether an adult or a child.

    When I see a link in blue on the codex, telling me it’s a good resource, I’m going to assume it’s professional. It LOOKS like WP endorses the content of it, because the codex isn’t a FFA links site. The disclaimer is good, but should also mention that links OFF SITE are not the responsibility of the codex maintainers…or something like that. Not everyone knows how a wiki or codex works, and the assumption is easily made that the links are all endorsed by the site you’re on.

    ‘Nuff said. The problem has been resolved in a way that doesn’t harm anyone or prevent anyone from using a good tool, so let’s keep it civil and stick to the facts, K?

    I agree with Yosemite to close this thread…but I see the point that as long as it’s civil, it can continue. Personally, though, I have much better things to do with my time than keep this going. Like get back to tweaking my WP site. ??

Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • The topic ‘Call me a prude, but….’ is closed to new replies.