On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well > discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus > around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial > images. For example, although it may be perfectly fine to include an > image of nude bondage in the "BDSM" article, you probably wouldn't want > it included in the "Rope" article, and almost certainly not in the "Play > (activity)" article. Similarly, you probably wouldn't want to feature an > image of Osama Bin Laden on the en.wiki Main Page on 9/11. Right now, we > rely solely on the discretion of our editors to make sure images are > used in appropriate contexts.
And so far, it's worked. Your words appear to presume people have somehow failed to actually think about this stuff over the past ten years. > It would be useful if we actually had a > policy we could point to if an editor happened to have a catastrophic > loss of discretion. Something simple like: "Potentially objectionable > images should only be used in contexts for which they are directly > relevant and appropriate. In addition, the use of potentially > objectionable images in contexts such as Picture of the Day, Random > Picture of the Day, Today's featured picture, etc. should be avoided as > these uses generally do not provide adequate context for such images." Rules saying "don't be stupid" don't work and encourage less cluefulness, not more cluefulness. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
