Sorry about that edit conflict!
On the gg talk page. That's a new one for me. I suspect it's not a big deal on the talk page, but should I just delete my question and get out of the way? Happy to do so. Just let me know, thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I *think* I was able to restore it without removing anything else. Also no worries, it happens all the time. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You were correct
Thanks for allowing the section to stand. I admit that my "interjection" at Do we consider NPOV issues... may not have answered the direct question being asked at that point in the section. I apologize for that. I did feel that it may have spoken to the title of the section however, for whatever that may or may not have been worth. Next time I will place any such comments in a more appropriate location within a given setion. Scott P. (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. Though I'm not an admin nor am I a regular watcher of WT:NPOV, so I don't know if someone else will consider that new section germane or not. I can also understand why you replied as you did in that section, since the scope of the discussion wasn't made very clear w/ the section title or opening post. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Links to documents
I put in the health document which you removed saying "rm purely decorative image. A screencap of a document, really?". The screencap is not the attraction - the document that a person gets by clicking through is. I put other documents in other places. There is no Wiki-policy about this because so far as I can tell, I am the only person who puts documents into articles. People often remove documents. I am not really sure why.
Currently pictures are encouraged, videos sometimes are, and other media is out of the Wikipedia article and probably not appropriate for external links. Personally I like providing pdfs which are relevant.
- Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory is a project to put external links to non-free videos in the body of articles - unorthodox but community supported, and an example of linking through to content in an article body
- I tried posting the arrest document for an issue at Devyani_Khobragade_incident#Arrest. It seemed obvious to me that 30+ journalists in popular media had never seen the original document despite it being short, free, readable, and rather unlike anyone's reporting. It was removed also, probably mostly for being a document.
- I try to pressure all health organizations to release copyright on their content and post it in-wiki, as at Antibiotic_misuse#Instances_of_antibiotic_misuse
I appreciate your attention. I would like more pressure on more organizations to make their documents have free licenses and that might contribute to my bias about including documents in articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: Videos are tough to square with this interpretation, but I really feel articles should be written so that they're still sensible in print and on mobile (the mobile view for that page is a mess, requiring a reader scroll past 4 images before they reach the text in the lede). In print (or in a resource that consumes the page and presents it in a print-like format) the image does very little. I guess more broadly I feel that images should compliment the text above all else. In this regard the generated image of a miracle cure is probably also largely decorative, however the FDA's justification in making the image seemed good enough that it should be in the article (though probably not at the top of the page), since it is showing an image which is obviously at variance to the marketing material we see on bottles.
- I think we can and should re-host freely licensed documentation, but I'm not convinced that it's best for readers to display them as inline images. I think we should consider a reader browsing an article as the modal use case and write for that. Does the image, as it stands on the page, help inform the reader? For the case of documents embedded in an article I can't see it. If reading the document enlivens a reader who might choose to do so, we should place it in the external links. People probably don't follow external links as much as they might follow an image link to a document at the top of the page, but that's not reason enough (in my mind) to place it on the page.
- I'm not sure if there is a guideline or policy proscribing this. There are hundreds of those pages I've never read (not even counting the MOS). Maybe there is (maybe it even follows my above argument). But I have no idea. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)