On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Leigh: I don't want to cover that up, which is why I explicitly support us having the video and other relevant images, and using them in a way that provides educational/editorial value. Yesterday, most viewers couldn't have played the video the still linked to, because it was in a format relatively few browsers support. Context for the image was only provided in 5 languages, whereas we run projects in 287 different languages. For any viewer who didn't speak one of those five languages and who couldn't play the video (and most viewers can't play the video,) the still wouldn't have had the effect of serving as a shocking reminder of the events of the holocaust. It would've just been a grainy black and white stack of corpses decontextualised from any meaning.
Kevin - can I ask, if the video were playable by many or most people, would that make it acceptable to you? What proportion of Commons viewers (as opposed to the number of languages supported by any Wikimedia project) need to be able to read the explanation before the context issue is resolved? To me, context and accessibility are really secondary questions that assume the fundamental question of appropriateness has already been answered positively.