Andreas Kolbe wrote:
But if we use a *different* style, it should still be traceable to an educational or scholarly standard, rather than one we have made up, or inherited from 4chan. Would you agree?
Yes, and I dispute the premise that the English Wikipedia has failed in this respect.
I think we have already agreed that our standards for inclusion differ from those used by reliable sources.
Yes, in part. You wrote "traceable to," not "identical to."
I elaborated in the text quoted below.
As I've noted, we always must gauge available images' illustrative value on an individual basis. We do so by applying criteria intended to be as objective as possible, thereby reflecting (as closely as we can, given the relatively small pool of libre images) the quality standards upheld by reputable publications. We also reject images inconsistent with reliable sources' information on the subjects depicted therein.
We don't, however, exclude images on the basis that others declined to publish the same or similar illustrations.
Again, on this point you advocate that we should differ from the standards upheld by reputable publications.
Indeed, but *not* when it comes to images' basic illustrative properties. Again, I elaborated in the text quoted below.
Images widely regarded as "objectionable" commonly are omitted for this reason (which is no more relevant to Wikipedia than the censorship of "objectionable" words is). But again, we needn't seek to determine when this has occurred. We can simply apply our normal assessment criteria across the board (irrespective of whether an image depicts a sexual act or a pine tree).
For the "Pine" article, we examine the available images of pine trees (and related entities, such as needles, cones and seeds) and assess their illustrative properties as objectively as possible. Our goal is to include the images that best enhance readers' understanding of the subject.
This is exactly what reputable publications do. (The specific images available to them differ and sometimes exceed the quality of those available to us, of course.)
This process can be applied to images depicting almost any subject, even if others decline to do so. I don't insist that we automatically include lawful, suitably licensed images or shout "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED!" when we don't. I merely advocate that we apply the same assessment criteria across the board. Inferior images (whether they depict pine trees, sexual acts or anything else) should be omitted.
We're coming back to the same sticking point: you're assuming that reputable sources omit media because they are "objectionable", rather than for any valid reason, and you think they are wrong to do so.
No, I'm *not* assuming that this is the only reason, nor am I claiming that this "wrong" for them to do.
We *always* must independently determine whether a valid reason to omit media exists. We might share some such reasons (e.g. low illustrative value, inferiority to other available media, copyright issues) with reliable sources. Other reasons (e.g. non-free licensing) might apply to us and not to reliable sources. Still other reasons (e.g. "upsetting"/"offensive" nature, noncompliance with local print/broadcast regulations, incompatibility with paper, space/time constraints) might apply to reliable sources and not to us.
Again, we needn't ponder why a particular illustration was omitted or what was available to a publication by its deadline. We need only determine whether the images currently available to us meet the standards that we apply across the board.
David Levy