Scott Stevenson wrote:
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images? I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images. Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
There is no dispute about the fact that NPOV also applies to images; it's more a question of how it applies. Unless you can edit an image, the image speaks for itself; if it is a photograph of people carrying a placard then the placard says what it says. That much of it is neutral because we would not be acting neutrally if we chose to doctor the photograph, whether we agree with its contents or not. We can, however, exercise NPOV in our choice of photographs, or in the way that we describe them.
It is unfortunate that this issue should come up in the charged atmosphere of anti-semitism/zionism where so many people want to draw contrary conclusions from the picture or to impute motives that may not have been consistent with the view of the placard holders. Scott's fictional duckgull example serves only to muddle the issue, and adds nothing to clarity.
The problem with great principles is that they defy elaboration and clarification. In the case of NPOV such elaboration and clarification is paradoxical.because it can induce a lack of neutrality to the whole notion.
Currently, the "Policy in a nutshell" says, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This also includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." The first sentence is fine. The second presents an inclusion list. It would be possible to add "images" to that list, but next week, or next month, or next year someone will have a good reason to add something else to the list. Why not just change that second sentence to, "This applies to all aspects of an article." would people find some part of the word "all" that they don't understand?
Ec