Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:35, 17 November 2005

Revision as of 21:41, 17 November 2005

Line 140:

::::I too wouldn't support a don't edit this tag, it creates the wrong impression. Rather we should just make an effort in the community to discourage people from insisting over some minor question of taste when the people who did 99.9% of the work disagree. It's important we can insist on points of usefulness, style, and consistency and make those corrections where needed. But that shouldn't be a free pass to demand a photographer modify his image to look slightly better on your broken monitor when it makes it look worse on his calibrated sRGB device, or demand an audio person highpass out the LF rumble that drives your incorrectly configured tiny speakers into producing [[Intermodulation_distortion|IMD]], when the creator(s) of the content believe it to be better with the low end intact. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

::::People shouldn't submit files/content if they don't want people to edit it. If a change is made that makes it worse then it won't be used. [[User:BrokenSegue|'''B'''roken]] [[User talk:BrokenSegue|'''S''']] 20:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:::::That is an oversimplification which I believe to be incorrect. Some changes are easy to measure in an objective manner, I believe that for these changes you are correct in that we will not use an altered version which reduces the quality. However, some changes are highly subjective, simply a matter of taste, and are trivia which we would not even bother making recommendations over in our style guide. For these matters the decision on if the modified version is used depends on what collection of editors happens to be around... The original version is at an inherent disadvantage because we like to see 'collaboration' (even when it takes the form of trivial mucking with something that's already pretty good) and because since there is little to no objective argument that can be made against the changes the original contributors end up looking whiny and overprotective if they object. To prevent the feelings being hurt of people who do all the work to create such content by people who just want to feel important by exerting influence over the finished product, but notwhom don't create any themselves, we should avoid arguing over such maters of trivia and taste when there is no objective criteria to support the argument, instead deferring to the judgment of the people who did the actual work. This doesn't require a "don't edit notice", but only a culture which is aware of the feelings who put in large amounts of work, and an intolerance for people who only come around to 'lay their thumbprint', as the Germans call it, over trivial matters rather than working to actually improve our content. I don't think this is special for media either, but it's more of an issue because there are more subjective issues and there is usually less collaboration. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)