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. 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 and instances in which considerations inapplicable to reliable sources (e.g. those based on images' non-free licensing) are applicable to Wikipedia.
For example, if a reader complains about images in the article on the [[rape of Nanking]], it is useful if an editor can say, Look, these are the standard works on the rape of Nanking, and they include images like that.
An editor *can* do that. It's the inverse situation that requires deeper analysis.
If someone complains about an image or media file in some other article and we cannot point to a single reputable source that has included a similar illustration, then we may indeed be at fault.
Quite possibly. We'd need to determine whether the relevant criteria have been met.
David Levy