On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy <lifeisunf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should consider ourselves *bound* > by > > others' decisions either. But I do think that the presence or absence of > > precedents in reliable sources is an important factor that we should > weigh > > when we're contemplating the addition of a particular type of > illustration. > > I believe that we should focus on the criteria behind reliable > sources' illustrative decisions, *not* the decisions themselves. Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they didn't include a particular type of image. As I said, there may be other good reasons such as educational psychology – we make up our own rules at our peril. If we did that for text, we'd be guessing why an author might not have mentioned such and such a thing, and applying our "correction". > As > previously noted, some considerations are applicable to Wikipedia, > while others are not. > > We needn't know why a particular illustration was omitted. If we > apply similar criteria, we'll arrive at similar decisions, excepting > instances in which considerations applicable to reliable sources (e.g. > those based on images' "upsetting"/"offensive" nature) are > inapplicable to Wikipedia ... I don't subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should go out of its way (= depart from reliable sources' standards) to upset or offend readers where reliable sources don't. Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
