Use of Foul Language on a Public Site

[GeorgeLangley]

I have found this site of immense use, that I want to add it to a list of resources for an educational presentation. But am I loathe to do so when there is foul language on it. For example, "to prevent people from just making 'stuff' up" on the semantics page:

http://diveintohtml5.info/semantics.html

is unnecessary and is easily replaced with a more-appropriate "to prevent people from just making their own rel values". This would increase the value and legitimacy of this resource. Thank you.

[nimbupani]

That is ridiculous. This resource needs to be maintained in the spirit of what Mark Pilgrim intended, at best make corrections, not change the way Mark wanted this resource to be read.

Using 'shit', 'fuck' as in this context is not hurting anyone other than those who think these words should not be used in common parlance (even though they already are!).

I am a big -1 on this.

[jonathantneal]

First, if anyone is seriously interested in contributing to this discussion, I recommend reading http://people.howstuffworks.com/swearing.htm

I think this issue merits a real discussion. Those who enjoy the freedom of using inciting language would be very bothered by removing this and other examples of profanity in this resource, as would individuals who would like to preserve Mark's digital personality in Dive Into HTML5. However, profanity does has a strong, emotional, often discomforting and absolutely measurable psychological impact on people, and it wouldn't require science to acknowledge what "cussing" means to people who can read and hear English. Mark's words are used deliberately to express his personal frustration humorously and with mild shock value. An example follows:

Over time, the list of quirks grew, and so did the list of doctypes that triggered “quirks mode.” The last time I tried to count, there were 5 doctypes that triggered “almost standards mode,” and 73 that triggered “quirks mode.” But I probably missed some, and I’m not even going to talk about the crazy shit that Internet Explorer 8 does to switch between its four — four! — different rendering modes. Here’s a flowchart. Kill it. Kill it with fire.

My opinion is that anything unnecessarily negative or profane should be modified so that the resource may be used by all people and all cultures and societies (and as a tangent, the book should be translated too).

[jrhoun]

I think I'd have to agree with what jonathantneal mentioned earlier - while 'cussing' can come across as expression it can also detract from the purpose of education. What I mean is that perhaps the spirit of what Mark wanted, ultimately, was to make knowledge of HTML5 eminently accessible to a broader audience that didn't want to read a technical manual. The spirit of this goal can definitely be accomplished without alienating portions of the reading audience.

[enochchu]

I agree with GeorgeLangley and jonathantneal. Although it might not hurt people to use "shit" or "fuck" (and personally i think its humorous), we can't assume that the way we read is easily translatable to other people (try playing the telephone game).

Furthermore, profanity assumes too much. If I say, this "implementation is fucking wrong", the reader might take "fucking" and assumes that whoever uses that implementation is X, Y and Z. Simply put, good written documentation shouldn't lead the reader to further assumptions.

I'm all for documentation that's easily readable for everybody and at any educational or skill level I definitely benefited from well written material and I hope such benefit extends to everybody regardless of culture, language and educational background. In my opinion, removing profanity is a cheap way to achieve that goal.

[paulirish]

My feeling is that Mark Pilgrim would want his name stricken from the entire project if you remove something so characteristically Mark as his use of foul language.

His voice is what makes this resource such a fun read. Nerfing the personality of the text is a big -1 from me

[mstalfoort]

I have to agree with nimbupani on this one Mark has written this and shared it with all of us. As webdevelopers we have to deal with differences between browsers and it's understandable (and in my eyes perfectly legal) to have a profound statement so now and then. Since it's on github, why not create a fork and make an educational version?

[nimbupani]

:+1: @mstalfoort

[ericelliott]

I agree with paulirish and mstalfoort - fork it if you want to nerf it.

[jonathantneal]

I advertised this discussion really well today, and I'm pleased to read a variety of views.

I want students and educators across a broad spectrum of cultures and societies to use and enjoy this resource. We should not ignore this request and continue exercising our right to be sour with our words at the expense of those who take serious issue with this kind of illicit negativity (even when it is used for shock value in expressing anger humorously). I will remove the profanity, and I'm asking for understanding from Paul, Divya, and Marc.

Mark Pilgrim is not here to decide for us now, nor is he the sole author of this living, evolving resource. However, Mark was, by no means, deeply profane in this work. Statistically, there are over 35,000 words (including code examples) on the main pages of Dive Into HTML5, and about 16 of those words (0.045%) are profane. Furthermore, Dive Into HTML5 is, by invention, an educational resource. Education is its primary goal. This is an educational resource, and removing the profanity from this resource will further its ability to educate. Therefore, we should do this, and it is an improvement. It is the right thing to do. Mark should have done this too.

http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html

These people are not gods, nor are they flawless. They’re just people. Smart people, to be sure. But just people.

[paulirish]

https://github.com/diveintomark/diveintohtml5/commit/38156cbd2f976bb33852797185a9d1505362d287

---

ugh.

[johndrinkwater]

What a ridiculous change.

[zrg]

boo.

[natecavanaugh]

You know, when people say swearing doesn't matter to them, so it should be left in, let me ask, if it doesn't matter, why do they care so much if it's removed?

If people who are offended should get over it because it's just a word, then why can't the people using the offensive word, "get over it" that some other word is used in it's place?

But then again, maybe the "spirit" of Mark Pilgrim is such that he prefers to only reach those people who aren't bothered by swearing. If that's the case, that limits the effectiveness of this resource. But I can't see any argument by which keeping swearing broaden's it's reach, or that using a less offensive word limits it's reach.

[nimbupani]

This 38156cbd2f976bb33852797185a9d1505362d287 is extremely disappointing @jonathantneal I would have thought you would go by consensus and not by random arbitrary views and let this issue receive further discussion.

This is not the resource I would want to recommend any more.

[mathiasbynens]

This is not the cocksocking resource I would want to recommend any more, motherfucker.

FTFY

[ajacksified]

The majority of commenters preferred leaving it alone, and nobody actually spoke up and called it offensive, just that "it's possible that somebody somewhere might think it may be offensive".

Removing the original character of this work is offensive.

Hopefully @jonathantneal reconsiders his executive decision.

[rik]

Although I prefer the original version, I think anyone that is really annoyed by this change should just fork it and host it somewhere else.

[DavidBradbury]

@natecavanaugh Personally, I don't believe in sterilizing language just so that people who 'might' be offended don't have to read it. I personally find it to be more personable and not in bad taste. Programming can already be a dull subject to some people, and throwing a little bit of attitude or spice helps to maintain your interest. If they don't like it, there are plenty of other resources. And yes, I care about swearing just as much as I do any other word - It enriches the language. Like anything, it can be overused and used in bad taste - But that isn't exclusive to swearing.

[ajacksified]

@Rik although in principal, you're right, having a canon version allows all changes to be made against a central repository that everyone can be confident is up to date.Collaboration on a master repository ensures that everyone benefits- that's why it's on Github in the first place.

[kennethreitz]

I reverted this change.

[jayphelps]

Begun the revert wars have.

[leobalter]

@kennethreitz thanks for reverting and reopening this issue for discussion. Arbitrariety is not a way to solve community driven projects.

[jonathantneal]

I saw an opportunity to improve something, I had an opinion, I took a day to think about it, I asked for input, I saw both sides, I quantified it, and I made a change.

Now there is a lot of emotional reaction. It's not wise.

There will not be a revert war either. I reverted Kenneth's change because it was done in haste. I would rather have spoken with him first, as I expected the same from him. I'm sorry for that, and for anyone who felt fear of a revert war. Anyway, Kenneth reverted my revert, and I hope we agree that neither of us gain anything from continuing along that path.

I hope discussions continue.

[lmorchard]

Crimony. Just leave the original material alone and start a derivative fork.

[ajacksified]

I think part of the problem is that the original decision also seemed to have been done in haste:

I took a day to think about it.

I believe that you were acting in what you felt was the best interest, but the change itself feels like a knee-jerk reaction to the original issue; as strong as the community's opinion is about this book and its original author, more discussion should be had before changes are made. The emotional reaction was caused by the suddenness and seeming lack of discussion, or at least, the lack of acknowledgement of what little discussion there was; opening a 'discussion' and yet casting aside the majority opinion.

That said, I appreciate that the discussion can remain open.

[jonathantneal]

Have you visited http://diveintohtml5.info/ ?

A new note about this project. While Mark Pilgrim has ceased updating Dive Into HTML5, we wish for it to continue to grow. We're not just patching old links and updating APIs. We are actively maintaining it; refreshing, updating, and reflecting the relevant and current state of HTML5, just as it had been during Mark's tenure. We attribute this work in the manner specified by Mark, we've purchased a similar domain, and we make modifications to the site's content. We do not in any way suggest that he endorses us or our use of his work. We hope you do.

[jdalton]

@nimbupani

That is ridiculous. This resource needs to be maintained in the spirit of what Mark Pilgrim intended, at best make corrections, not change the way Mark wanted this resource to be read.

Mark abandoned ship. What he wants is just speculation. He deleted the original resource so take from that what you will.

@jonathantneal

Have you visited http://diveintohtml5.info/ ?

A new note about this project. While Mark Pilgrim has ceased updating Dive Into HTML5, we wish for it to continue to grow. We're not just patching old links and updating APIs. We are actively maintaining it; refreshing, updating, and reflecting the relevant and current state of HTML5, just as it had been during Mark's tenure. We attribute this work in the manner specified by Mark, we've purchased a similar domain, and we make modifications to the site's content. We do not in any way suggest that he endorses us or our use of his work. We hope you do.

Thanks for clarifying. Since this is your fork I think you should manage it how you see fit. I personally don't care for the foul language and can see how removing it could help expand the material's reach to more people sooo a big +1.

[ajacksified]

This discussion should be about maintaining the character of the book. Would it expand the materials to reach more devs? Or would sanitizing content turn it into just another dry textbook? Who's qualified to answer that? If nobody, should it even change at all?

@jonathantneal My comment was simply to explain the "emotional reaction", not to justify it. My opinion is, simply, that there should have been more discussion, regardless of my feelings about the content itself.

[jdalton]

@ajacksified

@jdalton This discussion isn't about what Mark wants, it's about maintaining the character of the book. Would it expand the materials to reach more devs? Or would sanitizing content turn it into just another dry textbook?

I was replying to @nimbupani and her comment, I thought I made that pretty clear. I guess not.

[paulirish]

Since this is your fork ...

Back in https://github.com/jonathantneal/diveintohtml5/issues/8 we merged jon's github repo (which was powering the .info domain) with this one.

Thsi is now the canonical repo, and Kenneth, Jon and I are the owners of it. We're also actively trying to get the mislav and html5doctor mirrors of the content to use this repo.

So.. the question as to who's fork this is is a muddy one.

[ajacksified]

@jdalton Indeed, updated to reflect. :thumbsup:

[lmorchard]

Despite what http://diveintohtml5.info says, here's the confusing thing from a github perspective:

"(Mirror of Mark Pilgrim's GitHub)"

It's even got his picture on it. So, my impression is that this is a historical snapshot of Mark Pilgrim's old stuff, not a living project. To see someone edit stuff under his name feels squicky. That means it's no longer a mirror.

If you want a living project, fork it and work from there and be clear about the goals.

[jdalton]

@paulirish

Back in https://github.com/jonathantneal/diveintohtml5/issues/8 we merged jon's github repo (which was powering the .info domain) with this one.

Thsi is now the canonical repo, and Kenneth, Jon and I are the owners of it. We're also actively trying to get the mislav and html5doctor mirrors of the content to use this repo.

So.. the question as to who's fork this is is a muddy one.

Ah ok. Let the battle rage on – peace out

[jonathantneal]

@lmorchard that is what we did. I moved my efforts to this repo to help make it canonical. Paul, Kenneth and I run it. Reverts happen. Reverts of reverts happen, but should happen less. I'm sure we can figure it out.

[jonathantneal]

Well, by we, I mean Kenneth and Paul. I have been removed as a contributor.

[kennethreitz]

@jonathantneal I'll be happy to add you back if you agree to not revert the commit again until this us discussed more. This is not a minor change.

[paulirish]

Totaling up the sentiment here and the various commit comments, there is a pretty significant feeling the Mark's original language should be retained.

I think the onus is on @GeorgeLangley and @jonathantneal to make a case that changing the character of the document is worth it. I've seen reference to it expanding the reach of this content, but haven't seen any justification as to how. Until that case is made and agreed on, Mark's original language should remain.

[mwhooker]

just fork it?

[beaumartinez]

Keep it in. Don't change it. It's not the same without it.

[kiril]

Totally agree that the language should be retained.

[Protonk]

Foul language is an important part of the resource.

Beyond that, when we expunge the language from Dive Into HTML5 we will have completed its transition from breezy and interesting introduction to bloodless committee managed resource that no one bothers to read.

Alternately, just fork it and make an expurgated version.

[zrg]

The fucking language and tone is the fucking point. That's why I like this one. Simple, no bullshit tone.

[jonathantneal]

@paulirish

This is an educational resource, and removing the profanity from this resource will further its ability to educate.

Removing vulgarity means it will be used in presentations and textbooks that currently do not allow vulgarity for the reasons mentioned in my original comment.

Profanity ... has a strong, emotional, often discomforting and absolutely measurable psychological impact on people.

Anything unnecessarily negative or profane should be modified so that the resource may be used by all people and all cultures and societies.

If you must, I will collect resources online that show how cussing is dealt with in public and private schools.

Is it not common sense to understand that cussing is not the root flavor of his text?

[chrisdrackett]

keep it in for sure. fork it if you want to edit it

[brandon-rhodes]

Fork, clean up the language, and release on "dipintohtml5" — the domain is available on both ".org" and ".info".

Consider the school-safe, expurgated version to be the first of many translations — all of which leave the original alone, while mapping it into different dialects and languages. It will work. I always watch the SFW version of the brilliant 7-part Phantom Menace movie review on YouTube, but that's my choice; the original does not need to be changed to suit my tastes.

[rtyler]

[SlexAxton]

What about a button at the top of any page that allows you to make these changes yourself? Opt-in to the no-foul-language-version.

"Would you like us to remove the use of profanity in this page? "

[steveh]

I've no problem with someone maintaining a censored fork, but toning down someone else's original work to make it more palatable to a wider audience seems like an anathema.

[wwitzel3]

Keep the original, fork an academic version.

[michaelhelmick]

-1