John R. Owens wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:38:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] JohnQ / MaryMary - the clitoris guy
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
You're missing MY point. From a relistic
perspective,
sexually explicit images are in a different
category
than articles describing christianity in Western culture. I know it is POV, but I think it is nessessary in a situation like this.
Each category has its own range for what is objectionable. "Sexually explicit" runs from suggestive almost nudity to goatse.cx. Others might find the extreme views of "creation science" and "holocaust denial" to be just as objectionable.
Ec
Creation science and holocaust denial are objectionable, but they are presented as opinion, not fact. That is the main difference. You cant make an NPOV photograph.
--LittleDan
So, umm, just what opinions does a photograph have? As long as they aren't doctored or staged, photographs are about as NPOV as it gets around here. You _can_ make a POV photograph, but you have to try. The inclusion or not is where the POV usually starts to creep in. And it seems to be trying to do so now.
The [[Rachel Corrie]] article had POV problems resulting from the inclusion or exclusion of a certain type of photo, or a certain quanitty of photos. Also, some of the photos were misleading. In one, Rachel was standing in front of the bulldozer in plain site of the person operating it. However, the question arises at what time was it? If it was "moments before her death" as some argued, then the person operating the bulldozer knew she was there. Otherwise, she may have not been visible at the time of her death. I don't want to dredge all of this up again, but photos, maps, and diagrams can be just as POV as statistics and quotes.