2007/12/5, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de>:

David Gerard wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com>
[...]
> I seems like Commons does not have a
> NPOV policy and thus the pictures will be there until they manage to create
> one.

NPOV is not easily applicable to images - a requirement to host only "neutral"
images would be very harmful, we would for example no longer be able to host
example of propaganda: this would all have to go
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda>. And a lot more, I suppose.

So, I do not think we can or should require individual images to be NPOV - but
commons as a whole, and also pages on commons, should be - if
POV/offensive/derogatory material is shown, it should be commented, and it could
be moved to a sub-page. Categories are a problem though, since there, all images
appear unsorted and uncommented. This is a technical limitation.

> I do not agree that such pictures be presented in Ariel Sharon's page
> and I think you should interfere (as commons community clearly don't have
> the policies to deal with this case) and correct this serious offence before
> it is released to the press in Israel.

I do believe that if *relevant* (and free) propaganda or satire against/about
someone or something exist, it should be available (and findable!) on commons -
but, as I sad, presented in a neutral, educational fashion.

After a quick brainstorming on IRC, relevance/notability seems to be a decent
criterion for the inclusion of POV/offensive/derogatory material: *documenting*
such things *is* in the scope of commons, while *pedaling* it is certainly not.

So, lets try to apply some taste and common sense in the face of hate and
stupidity. Should commons tolerate racism? no. Should we document racism? yes.
Is racist material necessary to do so? yes.

Regards,
Daniel

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l