On 12 April 2012 21:24, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > With respect to audience, on Wikipedia we write for a general audience yet > our medical content is still used by 50-70% of practicing physicians. > Lonely planet lists hotels in different section based on price. On > Wikipedia we use editorial judgement about what to include and what not to > include. We have subjective policies like [[WP:DUE]]. Just because > something is subjective does not mean it cannot be done. There are books > like the 1000 must see places before you die. > http://www.1000beforeyoudie.com/ Referencing of this content is possible. >
It is one of the most pernicious myths in Wikimedia-land that we aren't riddled with subjective standards. 1. As an English Wikinews reviewer, I make decisions as to the importance and newsworthiness of what goes on the homepage every time I publish a story. Is the latest development in the Trayvon Martin case more or less important than Facebook buying Instagram? On what basis do I make such a decision? Oh yeah, "newsworthiness". That well known, objective measure! ;-) 2. On Commons, there is a category called "Suggestive use of feathers". Is there some sort of Platonic measure of how one uses feathers suggestively? Same for "Erotic pole dancing". Am I to believe that Commons editors are deciding on some purely objective basis whether pole dancing images are erotic or not? (I pick on the erotic/suggestive categories solely because of the BLP-esque issues Commons often raises and fails to adequately deal with.) Subjective decisions happen all the time on the projects. There's a reason why we generally prefer our admins to be made of flesh and blood rather than just building hyper-intelligent AIs to run the projects. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l