I would certainly like this very much in many circumstances, but I
would not love that unconditionnally.
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?
The US Army has been involved in several incidents where such
manipulations on innocent images created minor scandals
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738342.stm and
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/us_army_releases_do…
), so this can clearly become a problem more quickly than anticipated.
EXAMPLE 2
Speaking of the US Military, what should be think, for instance,
of images like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W_Bush_on_the_deck_of_the_USS…
?
How does this image fare with respect to rules 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 ?
There are gazillions of such examples. This should suggest that
either these rules are not taken seriously by photojournalists, or
they are lax to the point of near irrelevance. I have seen Wikipedia
singled out for shortcomings shared by traditional encyclopedias often
enough, I do not want this to begin with Commons too.
In conclusion, I think that because we are not only photojournalists
but also encyclopedists, these rules are not always well suited to us;
and when they are, it would be good to remind that we will shall not
be more bound to these than photojournalists of the mainstream media
are. And then, yes, they are most admirable ideals towards which
photographers should strive.
-- Rama
On 22/04/2009, Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
I would love to see these adopted for Commons
photographers. The issue
will become knowing when these principles are being violated. For
example, if you're going to alter audio to serve your own POV, you're
not going to make it obvious you've done so. Detection is one problem,
but even if you've detected that the audio was edited, there's no
telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was
deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily
resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we
should strive for as a community.
-Mike
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher
<
brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)verizon.net>et>:
> The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some
> core
> principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to
> maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV
policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to
the
standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work
to
avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special
consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime
or
tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has
an
overriding and justifiable need to see.
5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to,
alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images'
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any
way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for
information or participation.
8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might
seek
to influence coverage.
9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to
photos made for commons?
