On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
See the comment by Pristurus< https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pristurus%3E at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F
Regards, Jee
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Jeevan Jose jkadavoor@gmail.com wrote:
Already answered on the talk page by the editor who had chosen it.
Comment
there if you really want to help us. Continue the comments here if
other
interests. ;)
Regards, Jee
Ah, thanks. Amazing how handy links are. I was a little surprised to see that even on that talkpage, you asked people to move the discussion to yet a different page. I asked that question because a debate on the merits might be somewhat moot if the still was selected randomly or by software, it's interesting to see that it wasn't.
In any case, Pristurus has a good point and one that it would be hard to craft a policy around. Least astonishment is a useful principle, but it doesn't beat out journalistic and/or educational value. Newspapers, magazines, textbooks and other sources of educational material often pick striking images of tragic or shocking circumstances. The point is precisely to draw attention, to disrupt the consciousness of the viewer so that the meaning behind the image and any accompanying material sinks in and the message is imparted strongly. Good sources of knowledge do this rarely but well; shock sites do it constantly and for no particular reason.
Many Pulitzer prize winning photographs feature dead people, people who have been shot, dismembered, even people in the midst of burning alive. They win prizes because they have extraordinary communicative power and meaningfully illustrate very important subjects. Would anyone truly argue that such images should never be used on the main page of any project?