[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

[Alphax]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Geoff Burling wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point,
>>should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been
>>previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
>>Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos,
>>freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial
>>news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser
>>extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity
>>out there to stage photos, for example:
>>
> 
> The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it
> causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any*
> problems.
> 
> Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume
> that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that
> she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile,
> or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV
> that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not
> been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
> 

To do so is censorship, as is removing references just because the
source is "direputable". All we need to is give an NPOV description of
the source and let the reader decide for themselves.

> And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a
> well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex
> indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the
> image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the
> real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it
> will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b)
> considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
> 

I remember a piece in the Signpost a few months back about how an
article was written as part of a widespread hoax, duly deleted, and then
recreated as an article about the hoax itself. Someone then tried to get
the article on the author of the hoax deleted...

> I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different
> photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent
> was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be
> of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to
> share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a
> log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow
> instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a
> windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing
> the art.
> 

Intent be damned. If it's under a free license and is illustrative we
should use it. On Commons we don't even need a use for it, so long as
it's under a free license.

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ2m5y7MAAH8MeUlWAQin9wf/U+wJGOIEMp8HaSkrTx0nfceHjTLYqLR5
YrJT6xgcX/HuGw5q9Jrx00f6aMlAiu4QBMoNXREpibD04hLkAVISW+8k1id1Xa/H
8tmbJZum5LuNZdCtRTaMZjYe4hUBkbWLclSKYffnMNm8jbUFfd6689Lj9GQzx/50
7rXF0iGLlkMDOw+6v4fKHqAUljfQ0vw47A956cLXWouuNIn3sItyQv8gk+5vrcXF
fYsU4v6zF/jbJVD7UZYKvz7/izFBFdq8ylxrE+3v4bahltyW0b684WgIWwQ/y1Pz
MT1/No2r82NCvZvrdqheE6+XMD4ZZAtPRrEspTYyWiC6dMTBtad4qQ==
=HDv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----