As long as the two sacred principles of "No pictures!" and "Not
censored!" stand in rigid opposition to each other, the conflict will
continue. The "show" solution (with an appropriate note) or even
putting all the images on the "depictions" page (again, with a
prominent note) seem like reasonable solutions. As far as the
"depictions" article is concerned, I can't see how that article can
exist without images.
If this is a "slippery slope", it's because "not censored!" is often
interpreted to mean "dare to be offensive". It is taken to be a highly
POV-pushing statement about how public discourse is to be conducted.
In the present case it represents a statement of defiance against
"fundamentalist" Islam; more generally, it can be taken, with some
justification, as the adoption of a particular liberal, secular,
Western public morality. This is not the only sign of this: we also
tolerate POV-dubious advocacy projects such as LBGT and animal rights,
but I think it would be very hard for there to be a (say) Wikiproject
Fundamentalism, except as a sort of authorized hatchet workplace. I'm
not saying that I want to step up to that really huge issue, because I
simply don't have the stamina for it. I am saying that in the instant
case, I think we can make a reasonable concession and stick to it.
Is there a professional human factors expert in the house?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 24 Feb 2008 12:58
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [WikiEN-l] Musing with professional
photographers: further lessons learned
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On 24/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/02/2008, Chris McKenna <cmckenna(a)sucs.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Florian Straub wrote:
> > > I like the idea, but aren't magnifiers reserved for "search"?
> > In PDF readers at least, magnifiers are used for zoom, and binoculours
> > (sp?) for search.
> My unscientific sample of two said "it'd give you a bigger version"
> when I asked them what they thought it meant. It looks a lot like the
> magnifier on Adobe Acrobat.
I stress again that we need a proper professional human factors expert
on the case. Is there anyone reading this who counts as such, who
could tell us the right questions to ask? Then all interested parties
can run this right set of questions past people they know!
- d.
In a message dated 2/23/2008 5:09:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
itq.wiki(a)googlemail.com writes:
>From a general historical perspective, depictions of Muhammad have been
quite rare (User:Grenavitar/mimages).>>
----------------------
Repeating this a hundred times does not make it any more true.
Depictions of Muhammed are not rare, they are common
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 9:43:03 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
tonysidaway(a)gmail.com writes:
A book cover is not free unless it's specifically licensed as such by
the copyright owner. If that's what you think of as tendentious, it's
hardly going to surprise anyone if you describe a lot of the tagging
as tendentious. "Free" does NOT mean "we can probably get away with
using this here under fair use", >>
-----------------------------------------------------
And no one has ever implied that a book cover is free use. However, imho,
it is *fair use*.
However, some editors want to eliminate any fair use entirely from the
project.
That to me is not in the best interests of the project.
If, in a biography of Patti Smith, we have no free images of Patti Smith,
but we have a book cover of her biography writen by John Brown or whatever, and
that book cover, is in fact, a photograph of Patti Smith, we can and should
use it in the article. That photograph enhances the project, harms no one,
and is fair use. Rejecting it for bureaucratic reasons, making the *rule* more
important than the participants, is not in the best interests of the
project. I'm not suggesting we have a rule for not using book covers. I'm
suggesting that those people who interpret our policy to state that, are harming the
project.
Some editors place the rules as gods over the community, without realizing
that it is the community which made the rules. Some editors place such a high
reliance in their personal interpretations of general policy, to fit
specific situations, that they cannot comprehend how harmful their actions are to
the project, when they create such a level of internal discord, and when the
end-result denigrates the project without creating any enhanced value.
The removal of all fair use photographs does nothing useful for the project.
It does however harm it, by removing useful illustrations from articles
that could use them, replacing their removal with a vacancy filled by nothing.
That isn't progress.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/24/2008 12:17:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
How exactly would you defend that under the doctrine of fair use? I
really can't see a way to do it.>>
--------------------
That might be because you don't have a fair grasp of what the doctrine
states.
Our copyright policy was for the most part put together by people who
have at least a passing knowledge of copyright law. So fair you have
failed to show that you do.>>
This is a fallacy. The copyright policy, like all others, was put together
by us all. The copyright policy does not restrict fair use photographs
except as far as copyright law does as well.
> The removal of all fair use photographs does nothing useful for the
project.
The project is to make a free encyclopedia.>>
Fair Use can be used inside a free project. Essentially you are repeating
what I've already been saying. No fair use photographs are being allowed, at
all. None. All fair use photographs are being removed, because certain
people feel that any fair use photographs cannot be used within a free
encyclopedia.
> It does however harm it, by removing useful illustrations from articles
> that could use them,
So far for your chosen example this does not appear to be true.>>>
Yes it's true in that the article would then have no photograph of Patti
Smith at all. That is not user-friendly. In general we support the addition of
photographs to enhance the value of the project.
>replacing their removal with a vacancy filled by nothing.
> That isn't progress.
>
> Will Johnson
Experience suggests that nothing is more likely to be replaced by a
free image than an image with a really really weak fair use claim.
-----------
And I have never protested *when* a free use photograph is put into an
article. The problem is not however this. But it is when a bot removes all fair
use photographs and there *are* no free use photographs. Please address the
problem which actually exists, instead of one which does not.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 12:31:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thinboy00+wikipedialist(a)gmail.com writes:
Yes, he does need to better control his
emotions in the short run. In the long run, we either need to make an
exception to WP:CIVIL, accept that he will eventually go crazy and
leave us with no bot>>
-----------------------------------------
I find BCBot to be completely unneeded and counter-productive to the project.
If he would simply direct his efforts toward some *other issue*, that would
be much more helpful, than this constant drama-engine he has created.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 10:12:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com writes:
We're representing that this artistic tradition is the primary tradition,
when it is in reality a minority tradition.
For some reason people seem to be forgetting our core content
policies, such as NPOV, the minute images come into play rather than
text.>>>
---------------------------------------
I think this mistakes the issue of the image. I don't think anyone has
stated that "this artistic tradition is the primary tradition". And I don't
think having a picture states that either.
Regardless of that quibble, even within our NPOV policy, we specify that we
do give voice to significant minority viewpoints. So how would you address
the issue that one minority viewpoint, within Islam, is to show Muhammed in a
pictorial representation, while another, perhaps the main one, is not?
Silencing one is not the way we generally resolve these issues.
So what's your suggestion?
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:53:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
I find it surprising that you seem to not notice there are extremist
viewpoints demanding the inclusion of these images, as well as
extremist viewpoints demanding their removal.>>
-----------------------------------------
No this doesn't represent my point-of-view.
My point-of-view is, we have images of each major religious figure.
That is standard, consistent, and neutral, from *our internal* point-of-view.
That point has been made clear cross-wiki, it's not new. In general, we add
images to any article, we are encouraged to do so because readers like
images.
The *extremists for*, are arguing, that images are standard, helpful, and
informative. That we include them, regardless of whether they are photographs,
paintings or drawings. That they do not necessarily represent the actual
truth of what a person looked like.
The *extremists against* are arguing from the point of their own religious
dogma, asking us to support that dogma. They are, in general, only here to
argue against the images, and have very little to no edits in other articles.
Those two positions are in no way the same.
All right-thinking, enlightened, torch-bearers of justice, truth and other
things, agree with me :)
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:00:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl writes:
ITYM All book covers are fair use on an article about the book itself.>>
--------------
By the way, "Fair Use" is not defined based on the appropriateness of the
image to the article, if you're referring to copyright law.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:18:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl writes:
We at enwiki cannot change those rules, we have to follow them, and BCB
is doing exactly that. You will have to convince the board if you want
to change this policy.>>
-------------------------------------------
I'm not advocating changing it. I'm advocating understanding it.
It does not prevent the use of "Fair Use" photographs.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)