You mean, it isn't? And I was so sure! See, bring in that knowledge and fact stuff and
everything goes to hell. So much easier to pass judgment without looking.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de>
Subj: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia and "indecent" content
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:40 am
Size: 1K
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
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
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l