On 5/16/2011 12:56 PM, Chris McKenna wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2011, Stephen Bain wrote: >> In this context, applying some sort of 'least surprise' based approach >> to what goes on the main page is simply a reasonable step toward >> protecting a person's right to avoid speech they wish to avoid. > But who defines what topics are acceptable for a "least surprise" > approach? It's not topics that define how a "least surprise" approach is applied, it's the setting and context. *All* topics can be put through a least surprise analysis. This relates closely to another issue in this debate, the question of what has educational value. Media have educational value according to the setting and context in which they are presented. Many pictures, including very good ones, would completely lack educational value without some kind of explanation or context of what the picture is showing.
For the purposes of this kind of analysis, the main page of Commons (or another project like a particular Wikipedia language) is not a setting that provides very much in the way of context for featuring a picture. As a result of this lack of context, it only makes sense that we would need to exercise a little more editorial judgment than usual in selecting what pictures appear there. --Michael Snow _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
