On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> wrote: > On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote: > >> Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for >> perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful. >> >> >> "Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily > defined. In many otherwise non-controversial articles we have pictures that > do not further the contents of the articles. They may have a loose > connection with the article's topic, but they don't add any information to > the topic. They do, however, break up solid blocks of text, and make it > more readable. > > But isn't that an equally subjective matter; I know several editors who consider such images (to break up prose) a hindrance and they remove them with vigour.
To me you're just making an argument for a "Images used in a decorative capacity" category, so those people can read undisturbed :) Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
