On 5/16/03 3:39 PM, "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, that would have to be staged.
I guess I phrased myself wrong. But I wasn't saying that pictures are POV, I was saying that _if we use_ photographs in the way we might, it could be considered POV. But that doesn't really make sense, what I'm saying. It's kinda meta-POV; I can't explain it. But the issue here isn't really POV. The atribute of POV or NPOV can't be applied to pictures like this (with yours as an exception), just how we use them.
Arg. The creeping nonsense of jargon. Try writing the above without using acronyms, and maybe it'll start making sense.
It is impossible for anything to be truly neutral. Once people are willing to admit that, we can all work usefully to discover, admit, and counteract bias.
But if we as a Wikipedian community persist in claims such as "X is NPOV", "Y is POV", we'll always fail.