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. 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 and instances in which considerations inapplicable to reliable sources (e.g. those based on images' non-free licensing) are applicable to Wikipedia. > For example, if a reader complains about images in the article on the [[rape > of Nanking]], it is useful if an editor can say, Look, these are the > standard works on the rape of Nanking, and they include images like that. An editor *can* do that. It's the inverse situation that requires deeper analysis. > If someone complains about an image or media file in some other article and we > cannot point to a single reputable source that has included a similar > illustration, then we may indeed be at fault. Quite possibly. We'd need to determine whether the relevant criteria have been met. David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
