[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

[Fastfission]

Well, the thing is that your photos weren't "intended to make a
specific point". If you took pictures of a piece of trash in Crater
Lake, and posted it on the article page with a caption along the lines
of "In recent years, Crater Lake has become full of trash", that would
be an illustration of what he was talking about.

In the end, though, I don't see any necessary reaction to this except
our normal enforcement of NPOV and maybe a little good judgment. It
doesn't take an art historian to know that images can be inherently
manipulative.

FF

On 11/2/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> 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"?
>
> 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 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.
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>