On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
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 :)
It*is* equally subjective. I can understand where those editors with a
passion for removing decorative images are coming from, but they suffer
from an excess of zeal. But then too there is a point (which I can't
define) where the decorative images can become excessive. Editorial
judgement involves finding balances in this as well as in matters of
sexually explicit pictures.
We get into trouble when we allow rules or software be the substitute
for editorial judgement. However the rules and software are written,
there will always be valid exceptions.
I think that where this whole debate got off the rails was with a one
rule fits all resolution by the Board.
Ray
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
