-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any* problems.
Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile, or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
To do so is censorship, as is removing references just because the source is "direputable". All we need to is give an NPOV description of the source and let the reader decide for themselves.
And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b) considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
I remember a piece in the Signpost a few months back about how an article was written as part of a widespread hoax, duly deleted, and then recreated as an article about the hoax itself. Someone then tried to get the article on the author of the hoax deleted...
I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing the art.
Intent be damned. If it's under a free license and is illustrative we should use it. On Commons we don't even need a use for it, so long as it's under a free license.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \