On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]]. Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.
Those photos are fine, and are found in reliable sources.
Many Wikipedians generally argue that because Wikipedia is not censored,
it
should always be appropriate to show an image or video of what the
article
is about. According to this reasoning, an ideal article about rape would show a video of rape.
It currently does. In this case, they're paintings rather than photos, but they certainly and graphically show the subject matter at hand.
They do not. They do not even show a disrobed male. They are a far cry from the alternative we're discussing – and good job too.
An article on suicide would have embedded videos of
people killing themselves.
For such a broad topic, I think we might want more general illustrations. But if we really did have such an image, of appropriate license and high quality, I could see considering it.
I know you could. :) Again, unprecedented in educational sources, and for good reason. Try finding a publisher who will let you edit a book on suicide for them with that editorial approach.
An article on marriage would show a video of a
marriage's consummation.
No, it wouldn't. The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant. Photos of weddings and married couples in various cultures would be much more relevant. The meaning of "consummation" should be briefly touched on, but would not need anywhere near enough detail to be an illustrated section.
The consummation of a marriage is tangentially relevant? *Tangentially?*
An article on fatal car accidents would show a
video of a fatal car crash one.
[[Vehicle accident]] currently includes photos of the aftermath of several car crashes, including a couple that look likely to have been fatal. If we had appropriately licensed video of a vehicle accident occurring, why on earth wouldn't we use it there?
A number of reasons, one of them reader psychology. A normal human being would react with shock, concern and compassion for the people whose deaths they just witnessed, and would probably be put out of the mood to read the article. Websites put together by competent educators don't feature such videos. I realise that what educational sources put together by qualified experts do is irrelevant to the average unqualified Wikipedian.
An article on Russian roulette would show
someone playing it. And so forth.
Given that it's illegal in many areas, I would not hold out a high likelihood of us seeing someone voluntarily release a video of it. But let us presume that someone did. Isn't that exactly what the article is about?
Sigh. I think this is roughly where we stopped two years ago. :)
This argument is not motivated by a desire to educate, or by educational competence for that matter.
Andreas, I realize we disagree on this in a lot of ways, but I think anyone who works on this project has a desire to educate. I think we can discuss this without questioning one another's motives or calling people incompetent.