On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they didn't include a particular type of image.
As I said, there may be other good reasons such as educational psychology – we make up our own rules at our peril.
If we did that for text, we'd be guessing why an author might not have mentioned such and such a thing, and applying our "correction".
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 ...
I don't subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should go out of its way (= depart from reliable sources' standards) to upset or offend readers where reliable sources don't.
Andreas