In T76983#833783, @Gilles wrote:

Furthermore, the interesting argument you make about voting over this sort of thing being meaningless because people will always lean towards the processed version can be applied against the voting you had organized about sharpening.

In T76983#833773, @Gilles wrote:

Your statement is contradictory, you dismiss destructive post-processing as something people will lean towards because it artificially makes the images "look better", yet you defend a specific destructive post-processing step. If the goal is indeed to stay as close to the original as possible for encyclopedic and fidelity purposes, no sharpening should be applied. Why should sharpening get a pass and something like a slight saturation increase be a big no-no?

In T76983#833505, @Gilles wrote:

In T76983#833298, @Smial wrote:

Sharpening has been introduced in 2006/2007: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T8193. We then had long discussions, most links can be found in that bugzilla report.

Thanks for the link, it's very useful, but the discussion seems to have happened between a small amount of users, all German-speaking, with no blind testing and over a small amount of test images.

In T76983#833053, @Gilles wrote: