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

[Andreas K.]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.




Ah well, that *is* second-guessing the source, because unless the author
tells you, you have no way of knowing *why* they didn't include a particular
type of image.

As I said, there may be other good reasons such as educational psychology –
we make up our own rules at our peril.

If we did that for text, we'd be guessing why an author might not have
mentioned such and such a thing, and applying our "correction".




> 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 ...




I don't subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should go out of its way (=
depart from reliable sources' standards) to upset or offend readers where
reliable sources don't.

Andreas