[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas K.]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Whether to add a media file to an article or not is always a
> > cost/benefit not is always a cost/benefit question. It does not make
> > sense to argue that any benefit, however small and superficial,
> > outweighs any cost, however large and substantive.
>
> Agreed.  I'm not arguing that.
>
> Your replies seem indicative of a belief that my position is "Let's
> include every illustrative image, no matter what."  That isn't so.  My
> point is merely that we aren't bound by others' decisions.
>
> David Levy
>


David,

I think we've reached about as much agreement in this stimulating exchange
as we're likely to. I don't actually know what your position in any specific
dispute around illustration would be; I don't think we've ever met in one of
those on-wiki. I don't assume that we'd necessarily be far apart.

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.

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. 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.

Regards,
Andreas