Sorry but I am afraid that the point got missed a little bit. The core of my remark is that we do not always act as amateur photojournalists. I am concerned that we start applying standards (or ideals, rather...) of photojournalism to documents which are not. What I have seen of criticisms of Wikipedia gives me concerns that there could be massive and unfair criticism of Commons for hosting both photojournalism images and encyclopedic documents, if we encouraged people to consider us to be journalists. For the best and the worst, we are not journalists. Using the "digitally altered images" template on all and every image seems to me as an intrusion of photojournalism precautions into the realm of encyclopedic documents. It is a good thing to use it, but many will not bother, and legitimately so. -- Rama
On 22/04/2009, Eusebius wikipedia@eusebius.fr wrote:
David Gerard a écrit :
2009/4/22 Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com:
EXAMPLE 1 Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing because the original crop was too tight. I think that it makes for a better photograph for an encyclopedic purpose, but the nature of the manipulation was exactly that of the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy ) Am I being dishonnest when I publish this photograph, or is it OK because it is for encyclopedic purposes? But then, where is the limit?
If actually editing an image (not merely adjusting levels, but actually changing the content of the picture), I would expect that people would detail all doctoring on the image page, and also upload the undoctored version and link it from the edited image as "original version".
Actually I'd expect exactly the contrary: leave the original as it is and upload the retouched version as a new file.
Eusebius