On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Leigh: I don't want to cover that up, which is why I explicitly support us
having the video and other relevant images, and using them in a way that
provides educational/editorial value. Yesterday, most viewers couldn't have
played the video the still linked to, because it was in a format relatively
few browsers support. Context for the image was only provided in 5
languages, whereas we run projects in 287 different languages. For any
viewer who didn't speak one of those five languages and who couldn't play
the video (and most viewers can't play the video,) the still wouldn't have
had the effect of serving as a shocking reminder of the events of the
holocaust. It would've just been a grainy black and white stack of corpses
decontextualised from any meaning.
Kevin - can I ask, if the video were playable by many or most people, would
that make it acceptable to you? What proportion of Commons viewers (as
opposed to the number of languages supported by any Wikimedia project) need
to be able to read the explanation before the context issue is resolved? To
me, context and accessibility are really secondary questions that assume
the fundamental question of appropriateness has already been answered
positively.