Thomas Larsen wrote: >> Actually seeing the image is arguably critical to having a nuanced >> understanding of the debate about the image. As an encyclopedia >> Wikipedia believes it has an obligation to try to be maximally >> informative. >> > > Is seeing the image really critical? I personally don't think so. For > one, I haven't looked at the image myself, and have no intention of > doing so, as I noted in my post. Isn't it possible to just describe > the picture textually, without actually showing it? More importantly, > is showing the image actually scholarly? My main argument against > inclusion is that it isn't. > > —Thomas Larsen > How can you conclude that without ever take a glimps of the image?
This sort of argumentation is very strange to me. It is like: I don't need to take a glimps of any astronomical observations or physical theories, I just THINK the earth is the middlepoint of the universe. Ting _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
