On 09/14/11 5:01 PM, Heather Ford wrote: > On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah<slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011<de10...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about >>> the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of >>> people who lived through certain parts of it. There is no inherent POV >>> issue there, so long as we observe NPOV, just as we do with text. >>> Primary sources are already allowed, so long as used descriptively and >>> not interpreted. >> I had no idea we were so liberal about original research/primary sources >> from the countless hours I spent in #wikipedia-en-help telling new users why >> their cited references were rejected. Well, now we can finally have those >> thousands of articles about cure-alls and diet-pills, and penis-enlargement >> exercises, since the manufacturer's own research would satisfy those >> standards. > I'm not sure how this is related to the multimedia and images question? Will > having multimedia illustrating an article mean that we have more cure-alls > and diet-pills articles? Or is this a slippery-slope argument? > I suppose such articles have their place, as do the manufacturer's own research and accumulated testimonials. Stating where the information is from is also important. If we can find no independent scientific research about the product we should state that too. The public needs to know this.
Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
