But there's still the difference of "expectation". You can't go to an
article about private parts and expect to see no pictures.
The Titanic article is a whole different story, though I think some
people are really overreacting about this. What about the famous "King
of the World"-scene. Shouldn't that make for a nice image to add to
the article?
--Mgm
On 4/13/05, Tom Haws <hawstom(a)sprintmail.com> wrote:
Zoney wrote:
Why cause offence even to a minority when it
is trivial to avoid doing so without comprimising the article (or
perhaps even improving it)?
This reminds me of nagging concerns I have had about many of the images
I have seen used to illustrate human private parts.
First, in too many cases they are, quite simply put, ugly or gross
images. I realize that we specialize in harnessing dilettantism, and
that means we often get whatever can be produced off-the-cuff in a
moment or two, but we are not winning any awards in the quality
department with ugly snapshots of private parts. See [[Mull of Kintyre
rule]]. Have we no airbrushes or line-drawing artists "on staff"?
Second, also related to our dilettantism, many of the images fail to
illustrate well the subject. At [[Nipple]] there was a profile of a
female human nipple, but there was no cross-sectional line drawing. We
came off looking like, well, a dilettantism-driven and troll-infested Wiki.
Is an ugly or gross and controversial image better than no image at all?
Tom
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l