Greetings, Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]] that involves [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] surrounding an image and neutral point of view. The article is prominently displaying an image with a caption that does not establish the relevance of the image to the article. I have tried to include in the caption that the image's source believes it to be an example of Anti-Semitism but my edit have been reverted. Due to text in the image being small and difficult to read, at first glance the image does appear anti-Semitic but upon further analysis it is arguably sooner an example of anti-Zionism. My edits to establish what the image's source has said about the image (and thereby establish it's relevance to the article) were removed with the reasoning that we should, "let the reader decide". I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images. I pointed out that WP:NOR states as much and yet I'm still rebuffed. Since, another editor has joined the discussion and agreed that the image should have a caption establishing it's relevance to the article but he too has been rebuffed. Some additional eyes on this would be very helpful. See this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg and this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_poste...
Thanks,
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images.
[snip]
Without looking at the situation beyond your post here, I'd say that you sound correct. (i.e. if you were misrepresenting it, I wouldn't know)
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
An example of in image which had been removed due to NPOV concerns, but restored with an attributing caption is at [[Terry_Schiavo#Rehabilitation_efforts]].
If there is a citable dispute over an image, we should never include the image without making an attempt to explain the situation in a neutral and factual manner.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images.
[snip]
Without looking at the situation beyond your post here, I'd say that you sound correct. (i.e. if you were misrepresenting it, I wouldn't know)
Then why on earth would you comment?
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without actually knowing what is going on. I haven't argued for any "weaker NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.
Jay.
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Without looking at the situation beyond your post here, I'd say that you sound correct. (i.e. if you were misrepresenting it, I wouldn't know)
Then why on earth would you comment?
Because I can comment on a hypothetically. My position stands so long as the input was good. I've now read into the matter some, and I see nothing counter my initial impression.
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without actually knowing what is going on. I haven't argued for any "weaker NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.
So, I'm guessing you'd think it would be perfectly NPOV to add a picture of you to [[Psychopathy]]? If not, then explain why.
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings, Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]] that involves [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] surrounding an image and neutral point of view. The article is prominently displaying an image with a caption that does not establish the relevance of the image to the article. I have tried to include in the caption that the image's source believes it to be an example of Anti-Semitism but my edit have been reverted. Due to text in the image being small and difficult to read, at first glance the image does appear anti-Semitic but upon further analysis it is arguably sooner an example of anti-Zionism. My edits to establish what the image's source has said about the image (and thereby establish it's relevance to the article) were removed with the reasoning that we should, "let the reader decide". I've explained that in accord with NPOV, text saying that "Source X says Y about Z" needs to be added to the caption but Jayjg has Wikilawyerly asked me to show specific NPOV text that applies to images. I pointed out that WP:NOR states as much and yet I'm still rebuffed. Since, another editor has joined the discussion and agreed that the image should have a caption establishing it's relevance to the article but he too has been rebuffed. Some additional eyes on this would be very helpful. See this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg and this talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_poste...
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism. The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about. Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article itself.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section of policy he thinks this violates. If there's any wikilawyering going on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal to actually quote the policy.
In addition, I find it tiresome that people bring their article content disputes to this list. This is the fourth place Netscott has insisted on having this discussion; on the article Talk: page, on my Talk: page, on WP:AN/I, and now here. If he wants to raise an article RfC let him do so.
Jay.
No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding to the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of Zombietime.com) "Zombie of Zombietime.com describes this poster as, "the most anti-Semitic sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just been presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image but what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of neutral point of view.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism. The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about. Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article itself.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section of policy he thinks this violates. If there's any wikilawyering going on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal to actually quote the policy.
In addition, I find it tiresome that people bring their article content disputes to this list. This is the fourth place Netscott has insisted on having this discussion; on the article Talk: page, on my Talk: page, on WP:AN/I, and now here. If he wants to raise an article RfC let him do so.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding to the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of Zombietime.com) "Zombie of Zombietime.com describes this poster as, "the most anti-Semitic sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just been presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image but what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of neutral point of view.
What I have a problem with is people turning up at articles they've made no contribution to, in an area they've done no research, making an image invisible, adding an OR tag, wikilawyering about policies, violating 3RR, starting a thread on AN/I, starting various threads on people's talk pages, and now starting another one on wikiEN-l.
The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism. Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image. Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
Sarah
That's a rather dishonest addition to this thread there Sarah. You know perfectly well that I've previously discussed this image and its prior fair use status when requested to do so by [[User:Itsmejudith]] and that was some time ago. Here are some sensible words regarding captioning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Captions#Some_criteria_for_a_good_cap... #3 and #4 are seriously lacking.
What is the problem with citing what the source of this image is saying about it? In terms of the image he's the only reliable source even discussing it.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
No one's responded to me about why NPOV shouldn't be followed in adding
to
the caption the quote from the image's source (Zombie of Zombietime.com) "Zombie of Zombietime.com describes this poster as, "the most
anti-Semitic
sign ever seen at any protest rally in the United States." I've just
been
presented with straw man arguments. I've got no problem with the image
but
what I do have a problem with is when an image is presented outside of neutral point of view.
What I have a problem with is people turning up at articles they've made no contribution to, in an area they've done no research, making an image invisible, adding an OR tag, wikilawyering about policies, violating 3RR, starting a thread on AN/I, starting various threads on people's talk pages, and now starting another one on wikiEN-l.
The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism. Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image. Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
What I have a problem with is people turning up at articles they've made no contribution to, in an area they've done no research, making an image invisible, adding an OR tag, wikilawyering about policies, violating 3RR, starting a thread on AN/I, starting various threads on people's talk pages, and now starting another one on wikiEN-l.
ROFL. But thats exactly how you conduct yourself SlimV! :) Case in point, from my talk:
"Speaking of which, here's an entry from Denis Dutton's Fourth Bad Writing Contest (1998). It reminds me somewhat of the previous introduction to God and the current introduction to Beauty:"
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism. Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image. Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com".
If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e. "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we should -- or need to -- assume that.
If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing only one of those two POVs.
FF
On 8/25/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e. "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
[snip]
I think thats a good solution as well, although I prefer the concrete citation rather than the weasel words since the citation makes a pretty good argument. But yes, exposing the debate is important.
On 8/25/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism. Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image. Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes.
If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e. "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest. Unfortunately, with these highly politicized articles on Wikipedia, particularly anything connected to Israel, rationality and common sense are the first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any intelligent editing done.
Sarah
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest. Unfortunately, with these highly politicized articles on Wikipedia, particularly anything connected to Israel, rationality and common sense are the first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any intelligent editing done.
I understand that, and in no way meant to imply -- in case I did -- that I was pointing fingers at anyone in particular.
Since I'm already writing long and unmanageable opinions about NPOV, I thought I'd append one more: the more I think through NPOV, the more I realize what a truly radical position it is. It is often derided by people who claim that it is not possible or that it is not desirable, but it really does act as a powerful conceptual tool once you start to take it seriously as a goal. It is not the same thing as objectivity at all -- obviously one does not want to jettison an attempt for objectivity, but objectivity does not imply neutrality (I can be objectively non-neutral in my position on a given topic). In academic scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be, neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical, approach. And yet I find myself trying hard to write for positions that I think are objectively wrong, or to point out the criticisms (without denigrating them) of things that I think are objectively correct. It is a strange exercise, one very contrary to most other forums for writing about and discussing issues. Beyond being a pragmatic tool for making a collective encyclopedia work -- which it does as well -- it is a very strong epistemological stance. I hadn't really quite realized that when I first started here, and I have only really begun to comprehend the depth of the stance in the last half-year or so. It does not surprise me that academics in particular have difficulty with it (and I say this as an academic).
FF
On 8/25/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Since I'm already writing long and unmanageable opinions about NPOV, I thought I'd append one more: the more I think through NPOV, the more I realize what a truly radical position it is. It is often derided by people who claim that it is not possible or that it is not desirable, but it really does act as a powerful conceptual tool once you start to take it seriously as a goal. It is not the same thing as objectivity at all -- obviously one does not want to jettison an attempt for objectivity, but objectivity does not imply neutrality (I can be objectively non-neutral in my position on a given topic). In academic scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be, neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical, approach.
I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the grain.
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
Sarah
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki? --Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: On 8/25/06, Fastfission wrote:
scholarship it is very rare that anybody tries to be, or wants to be, neutral: neutrality is seen as "not taking a side" in an important debate, and only the most disingenous or aloof intellectuals would think not taking a side on issues is a good, much less ethical, approach.
I've also noticed that people from academic backgrounds have difficulty with NPOV, because they're being asked to be equally fair to positions they believe are nonsensical, and it goes against the grain.
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
--------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
On 25/08/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
They have *consistent* quality. At our best we're fantastic, at our average we're probably better than nothing ...
- d.
That was slimvirgin's claim, not mine. I have no interest in an argument over whether Britinnica is better, more NPOV, etc. I asked slimvirgin to provide a positive outside example that exhibits NPOV. Such as, "Zombietimes.com consistently represent the best cases of NPOV", as opposed to, "On a sunny day with a blue sky, no clouds, and no bugs, Fox News can provide a fair forecast for the next hour". I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I take it it's not representative of the "average" diligence that Wikipedia puts into content review.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 25/08/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
They have *consistent* quality. At our best we're fantastic, at our average we're probably better than nothing ...
- d.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
On 8/25/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
That was slimvirgin's claim, not mine. I have no interest in an argument over whether Britinnica is better, more NPOV, etc. I asked slimvirgin to provide a positive outside example that exhibits NPOV. Such as, "Zombietimes.com consistently represent the best cases of NPOV",
On the basis that it described the film V for Vendetta as pro anarchist I think that claim can be dismissed.
On 25/08/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
That was slimvirgin's claim, not mine.
sorry, it wasn't clear from your formatting ... it's sometimes hard to tell in your posts which bits are yours and which bits are quotes.
I have no interest in an argument over whether Britinnica is better, more NPOV, etc. I asked slimvirgin to provide a positive outside example that exhibits NPOV. Such as, "Zombietimes.com consistently represent the best cases of NPOV", as opposed to, "On a sunny day with a blue sky, no clouds, and no bugs, Fox News can provide a fair forecast for the next hour". I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I take it it's not representative of the "average" diligence that Wikipedia puts into content review.
I think we're improving. To credit Slim, she's working her butt off on living bios. Even if she errs a bit toward sympathetic point of view. But they're getting cleaned up much better than they were this time last year. Because they're treated as important. Which, arguably, they are; but mostly we have a lot of volunteers who think they are. And it's all good work, so that's good.
- d.
On 8/25/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki?
s/experts/previously notable/
Calling someone an expert requires a difficult value judgement. We don't find experts we find notable sources.. who are usually notable because they are experts or because they are very much not experts. ;)
Importantly, we don't present their views as fact.. we attribute them. (unless, of course, were presenting widely agreed on info.. in which case, we optimise out part of the buffering language)
On 25 Aug 2006, at 23:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/25/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Given that Britannica is both an easy target here and not NPOV according to your original research, do you have a paradigm for NPOV other than yourself and Wiki?
s/experts/previously notable/
Calling someone an expert requires a difficult value judgement. We don't find experts we find notable sources.. who are usually notable because they are experts or because they are very much not experts. ;)
Of course, any system can make it hard to introduce revolutionary ideas.
All the experts will share the same view, and have made their living and reputation supporting this view. They are unlikely to admit their life's work was based on fallacy, perpetuating the misconceptions.
Admittedly most revolutionary ideas are cranky, but most valuable innovations are revolutionary. It's a balance between ability to fix things and inertia.
On 26/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
Of course, any system can make it hard to introduce revolutionary ideas. All the experts will share the same view, and have made their living and reputation supporting this view. They are unlikely to admit their life's work was based on fallacy, perpetuating the misconceptions.
Sucks to be a tertiary source then.
Admittedly most revolutionary ideas are cranky, but most valuable innovations are revolutionary. It's a balance between ability to fix things and inertia.
I think NPOV is pretty innovative.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think NPOV is pretty innovative.
Agreed... and publicly accessible revision controlled webpages.
Wanna take bets on which of the two will have a greater influence on the world outside wikipedia a decade from now? :)
On 26/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think NPOV is pretty innovative.
Agreed... and publicly accessible revision controlled webpages.
That was Ward Cunningham's ;-) (Did his do version control?)
Wanna take bets on which of the two will have a greater influence on the world outside wikipedia a decade from now? :)
I think NPOV is more powerful than is usually appreciated. To harp on slightly, it's quite the powerful innovation in writing about Scientology, for example.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 26/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think NPOV is pretty innovative.
Agreed... and publicly accessible revision controlled webpages.
That was Ward Cunningham's ;-) (Did his do version control?)
Heck, even ours doesn't properly do version control. You can't branch, tag, ...
Hrm. Anyone want to re-implement MediaWiki with a /real/ version control back end?
Wanna take bets on which of the two will have a greater influence on the world outside wikipedia a decade from now? :)
I think NPOV is more powerful than is usually appreciated. To harp on slightly, it's quite the powerful innovation in writing about Scientology, for example.
I wonder, what has made Wikipedia so popular? That we're NPOV, or that we're a wiki? For some reason, people seem to think that "Wikipedia" is a generic term to describe a wiki ("They have their own Wikipedia"), or that "Wiki" is our name ("Please let me post this on Wiki"), or something...
On 8/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder, what has made Wikipedia so popular? That we're NPOV, or that we're a wiki? For some reason, people seem to think that "Wikipedia" is a generic term to describe a wiki ("They have their own Wikipedia"), or that "Wiki" is our name ("Please let me post this on Wiki"), or something...
Wiki-ness makes us popular. NPOV keeps us relevant.
-Rich Holton
On 26 Aug 2006, at 08:51, Richard Holton wrote:
On 8/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder, what has made Wikipedia so popular? That we're NPOV, or that we're a wiki? For some reason, people seem to think that "Wikipedia" is a generic term to describe a wiki ("They have their own Wikipedia"), or that "Wiki" is our name ("Please let me post this on Wiki"), or something...
Wiki-ness makes us popular. NPOV keeps us relevant.
MPOV makes us popular. It's only later that people discover NPOV ;-)
On 26/08/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
That was Ward Cunningham's ;-) (Did his do version control?)
Heck, even ours doesn't properly do version control. You can't branch, tag, ... Hrm. Anyone want to re-implement MediaWiki with a /real/ version control back end?
You do. Use git - the key insight for git is that the working unit is the project, not the file; so with Wikipedia, the key insight is that the working unit is the project, not the article. So blame-per-phrase can be preserved wherever a sentence wanders in the wiki! And just imagine the author list for a particular article *that* will give us ...
- d.
Cheney Shill wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Different POVs depend on a different selection of expert POVs. Being fair to those who do not represent your expert's POV means that you don't try to massage your opponent's views so that they seem worse than they really are.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
To me, the most important aspect of NPOV has nothing to do with being "fair". It has to do with removing your own personal opinion and accepting that of the experts on the topic, thus satisfying verifiability, even if it goes against what you prefer or previously believed.
Different POVs depend on a different selection of expert POVs. Being fair to those who do not represent your expert's POV means that you don't try to massage your opponent's views so that they seem worse than they really are.
I think we agree here. I compressed experts of all editors (aka, reputable & reliable sources, not simply notable) into a single statement. Given that you are working on an article with a group, the experts are not simply going to be the ones initially preferred and believed by you or the other editors.
They do, however, all have to meet the policy requirements for sources, which are very different from those requirements to simply have an article about a person. A person doesn't need to be an expert on anything to have an article about them. Another crucial aspect that Jimbo pointed out recently is that being verifiable (in the general non-policy sense) and notable is not equivalent to being reputable and reliable, or everything printed in tabloids, PR releases, religious texts, and advertisements would become equivalent to Nature or 60 Minutes.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
G'day Sarah,
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
At our best, we *can* be much better than Britannica. This is for a variety of reasons, but I don't think NPOV really is one. NPOV is Good, yes, but it doesn't make us Better. Maybe this is because my POV is closer to Britannica's than yours is, and I'm thus biased.
There's nothing wrong, in my view, with being POV but objective (thanks to Fastfission for pointing out the distinction). The best POV for any encyclopaedia, including Wikipedia, to adopt is Mark Gallagher's Point of View. This is quite obvious to me; any encyclopaedia which explains itself clearly, objectively, and undeniably biased towards Mark Gallagher's viewpoint will be much, *much* better than one that aims towards some impractical ideal of NPOV. As long as the POV is *consistent* and *known to the reader* ...
The problem --- the only big problem --- with MGPOV is that some smart young lady will undoubtedly point out, "Well, what's wrong with Sarah's Point of View? Why shouldn't Wikipedia be written from *that* instead?" And while it's quite obvious that SVPOV is inferior in every way to MGPOV, I don't really have a good explanation as to *why* at this stage. Then we get a certain historian saying that, since he's more of an expert than Canberran university students in certain matters, history articles should be written according to FFPOV. Then some smartarse will pipe up with, "Who founded this project anyway?" and we'll have fights over whether to go with JWPOV or LSPOV.
NPOV is a compromise. It says that even though that pinko Aussie bastard Mark doesn't get to POV-push, neither does that awful crypto-fascist[0] Sarah. NPOV is a good idea for a project like Wikipedia, for the comfort of readers and especially writers who don't share Mark Gallagher's Point of View, but that doesn't necessarily mean a project which adopts NPOV is "better" than a project which doesn't, in much the same way as a policy of Not Being Lame About English Variants works well for Wikipedia but is not necessarily better than a policy of Use International English And Be Damned To What The Americans Want.
[0] I don't actually know what the phrase "crypto-fascist" means, but it's part of the standard Pinko Aussie lexicon, so I use it anyway.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Sarah,
The thing that always strikes me now when I read the Encyclopaedia Britannica is how POV it is, and I often wonder why we're aiming to be as good as them, when in fact (at our best) we can be so much better.
At our best, we *can* be much better than Britannica. This is for a variety of reasons, but I don't think NPOV really is one. NPOV is Good, yes, but it doesn't make us Better. Maybe this is because my POV is closer to Britannica's than yours is, and I'm thus biased.
Well, I suppose it depends on what you think the purpose of an encyclopedia is. In my opinion, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be a good tertiary source---that is, to document the current state of many fields, as a way of quickly gaining an overview and pointer to more detailed information. As such, it should be neutral and dispassionate, and one that is *is* in fact better than one that takes a point of view.
It's the point of primary and secondary sources to investigate what's *actually* true; to argue for or against various claims and interpretations; and generally to try to take the point of view they see as correct. I want an encyclopedia to provide me a map of those primary and secondary sources, not to constitute one itself.
In that respect, I think Britannica is indeed worse in many cases. If what I wanted was a POV summary of a topic, I'd look for those opinions in a book published by a well-respected author in the field, or in a survey/review article in a peer-reviewed journal.
-Mark
On 8/26/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's the point of primary and secondary sources to investigate what's *actually* true; to argue for or against various claims and interpretations; and generally to try to take the point of view they see as correct. I want an encyclopedia to provide me a map of those primary and secondary sources, not to constitute one itself.
In that respect, I think Britannica is indeed worse in many cases. If what I wanted was a POV summary of a topic, I'd look for those opinions in a book published by a well-respected author in the field, or in a survey/review article in a peer-reviewed journal.
Exactly right. The articles with a byline are the worst ones in that respect: articles by experts giving only their POV, which we could read in any of the papers or books they've written about the subject, and after reading the entry, we're still left with the question: "But what do other people think about this?" Wikipedia, at its best, answers that question. Britannica, at its best, doesn't often manage to.
Sarah
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Fastfission, I agree with you, and in a sane and rational world, I'd have written exactly the kind of caption you suggest.
It *is* a sane and rational world - its called Wikipedia.
Slogan: "Wikipedia: Leave your baggage at home (or else be prepared to deal with it)"
Unfortunately... rationality and common sense are the first things to fly out the window, and it is very hard to get any intelligent editing done.
Well we certainly dont want to see lots of *unintelligent editing.* Your reverts certainly do qualify. But your acknowledgement is apology enough.
Again, this is part of a wider problem where with growth comes disorder, and people feel the need to use sharp elbows to get stuff done. Lots of wasted energy. If Jimbo doesnt step up, Im going to have to appoint an editorial board. You should be on it of course, SlimV.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/25/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
Again, this is part of a wider problem where with growth comes disorder, and people feel the need to use sharp elbows to get stuff done. Lots of wasted energy. If Jimbo doesnt step up, Im going to have to appoint an editorial board. You should be on it of course, SlimV.
Yes, because people who revert war out citations in violation of NPOV on their pet subjects[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=7160268...] are exactly the sort of people we want on an editoral board. :-/
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, because people who revert war out citations in violation of NPOV on their pet subjects[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=7160268...] are exactly the sort of people we want on an editoral board. :-/
Greg, that isn't fair. That was done within a context of a very difficult editing situation on that page, with troublemakers turning up to cause all kinds of problems. We've got a couple of them on the page at the moment actually trying to change quotations.
I intend to wait until the page has quietened down and then I'm going to write a caption that fully reflects the debate and what the sources say, but there's just no point at the moment.
Sarah
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, because people who revert war out citations in violation of NPOV on their pet subjects[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=7160268...] are exactly the sort of people we want on an editoral board. :-/
Greg, that isn't fair. That was done within a context of a very difficult editing situation on that page, with troublemakers turning up to cause all kinds of problems. We've got a couple of them on the page at the moment actually trying to change quotations.
I intend to wait until the page has quietened down and then I'm going to write a caption that fully reflects the debate and what the sources say, but there's just no point at the moment.
I owe you my apology then, it didn't occur to me that you were avoiding making the improvement at the moment because of the current controversy there. I'm sorry for concluding otherwise.
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I owe you my apology then, it didn't occur to me that you were avoiding making the improvement at the moment because of the current controversy there. I'm sorry for concluding otherwise.
No worries, and thank you. :-)
Sarah
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I intend to wait until the page has quietened down and then I'm going to write a caption that fully reflects the debate and what the sources say, but there's just no point at the moment.
Sarah
The image is going to be deleted as a copyvio so the issue is largely academic.
Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Yes, because people who revert war out citations in violation of NPOV on their pet subjects[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=7160268...] are exactly the sort of people we want on an editoral board. :-/
Greg, that isn't fair. That was done within a context of a very difficult editing situation on that page, with troublemakers turning up to cause all kinds of problems. We've got a couple of them on the page at the moment actually trying to change quotations.
I intend to wait until the page has quietened down and then I'm going to write a caption that fully reflects the debate and what the sources say, but there's just no point at the moment.
No point to write or keep an accurate caption, but point enough to revert over and over again, so much so as to cause 3RR violations? If there's no point, why bother reverting?
It also seems that the article title has a very definite spin to it that would be better captured under Hezbollah or a Pro-Lebanon article considering that the opposition of the "New" is not just Israel.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
On 8/26/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
It also seems that the article title has a very definite spin to it that would be better captured under Hezbollah or a Pro-Lebanon article considering that the
opposition of the "New" is not
just Israel.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what the article is about?
Jay.
jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/26/06, Cheney Shill wrote:
It also seems that the article title has a very definite spin to it that would be better captured under Hezbollah or a Pro-Lebanon article considering that the
opposition of the "New" is not
just Israel.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what the article is about?
It's about Israel being a demon of satan and working with the other demon the USA. It's obvious by the picture and a picture is worth a 1000 words so why read?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
As just one clarification... when I suggest we need to spell out our neutrality explicitly, I don't mean it to sound like I am assuming a dumb audience. That's not true at all. But if the "neutrality" comes from someone having to have a meta-view of the image -- "Oh, what an interesting image. When I look at it, I see it as anti-Semitism, but others would say it is only anti-Zionism. How clever." -- I don't think that's neutral. For one thing, the ambiguity of the image -- the entire claim for it being a good illustration up there -- is exactly one of the reasons that such ambiguity needs to be outlined explicitly (if we know someone is likely to interpret only one POV in the image, we need to point out that we don't mean for there to be only one POV in the image).
A less-charged analogy would be using the picture of the famous Duck-Rabbit illusion (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg) to illustrate the article on "Rabbit", with a caption saying, "A famous picture of a rabbit." Now, one could argue that the point of using the image would be to show the reader that a picture of rabbit could also look like a duck, but by not spelling that out explicitly, and using it at the top of an article called "Rabbit," I think we are easily sending the message that the illustration is of a Rabbit. Whether or not we are worried about prejudicing the reader -- who cares, in this case -- the real problem is that it looks like Wikipedia is taking a stance on the issue. Now, if we changed to caption to, "In the famous duck-rabbit illustration, one can see a duck or a rabbit," then it is made perfectly clear. It isn't dumbing it down at all, it is just making explicit the point of putting the image in the article, and making it clear that Wikipedia itself is not taking a position on the issue. It is also a better caption, if that is what the image is meant to represent. "A picture of a rabbit," is actually NOT descriptive of the image, if it is being used to illustrate conceptual ambiguity.
If it isn't obvious to numerous editors that something is neutral -- and I think it is clear from the dispute that it is not obvious in the case of the new anti-Semitism image -- then it is probably safe to assume that it is NOT neutral. In this case I think a slight tweaking of the caption would fix it perfectly and bring it into line with our stated goal of neutrality, without stepping on anyone's toes.
FF
On 8/25/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism. Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image. Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of zombietime.com".
If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e. "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we should -- or need to -- assume that.
If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing only one of those two POVs.
FF
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism.
No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random spectators think of the image.
You are making a value judgement about the image by putting it on the article.
The source of the image (http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/) includes an extensive analysis of the symbolism in the image to justify their position that the image is anti-semitism.
Netscott would seem to be satisfied by attributing the claim and linking to the source. What can your objection to that be? To me it would seem to best match NPOV.
The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about.
And hopefully the claims in the article are sourced and are not original research.
Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article itself.
If it's explained, it's only explained through original research. To resolve this problem we attribute the claim to it's source, who makes a good effort to back it up.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section of policy he thinks this violates.
On the talk page of the image he quite clearly argues that he believes our description of the image as Anti-Semitic is original research. I am inclined to agree. His editing history on the article has attempted to attribute the claim to the source of the image, along with a link to their argument. I am inclined to agree that doing so ls likely the best resolution of this absolutely idiotic edit war.
If there's any wikilawyering going on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal to actually quote the policy.
It's inappropriate to respond to simple criticisms backed by easily understandable arguments with a demand to cite chapter and verse of the policy.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism.
No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random spectators think of the image.
Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint the caption with OR.
You are making a value judgement about the image by putting it on the article.
As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it in an article.
The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about.
And hopefully the claims in the article are sourced and are not original research.
Of course they are, with literally hundreds of high quality footnotes. Again, why would you comment about something that you had not actually looked into?
Thus, again, as has been explained, the arguably ambiguous nature of the image is a perfect example of the topic of the article itself.
If it's explained, it's only explained through original research. To resolve this problem we attribute the claim to it's source, who makes a good effort to back it up.
See Jkelly's earlier e-mail in the thread, and the statement above.
Something about this image bothers Netscott, and he has tried to modify, explain, remove, etc. this image on various grounds. He keeps claiming it violates policy; yet when asked to explain what policy he thinks it violates, he keeps making vague (and changing) references to various policies, but refuses to actually quote the specific section of policy he thinks this violates.
On the talk page of the image he quite clearly argues that he believes our description of the image as Anti-Semitic is original research. I am inclined to agree.
But we *haven't* described the image as anti-Semitic, so how can it possibly be "Original research"? It is Netscott who keeps insisting it must be described as anti-Semitic, I'm arguing against that!
His editing history on the article has attempted to attribute the claim to the source of the image, along with a link to their argument. I am inclined to agree that doing so ls likely the best resolution of this absolutely idiotic edit war.
What "claim" are you talking about? We make no claim that the picture is anti-Semitic.
If there's any wikilawyering going on, it's Netscott's claim that something violated policy, but refusal to actually quote the policy.
It's inappropriate to respond to simple criticisms backed by easily understandable arguments with a demand to cite chapter and verse of the policy.
However, baffling and constantly changing arguments, that appear to have nothing whatever to do with policy, need some actual quotation of policy so that people can pin down exactly what the person is talking about.
Anyway, I'm done responding on this thread. If you want to talk about this, take it to the Talk: page.
Jay.
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As the article Talk: page has made quite clear, some people look at the image and think it is a clear example of anti-Semitism, others look at it and think it's anti-Zionism.
No orignal research Jay, I could care less what you and other random spectators think of the image.
Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint the caption with OR.
Jayjg,
Excuse me but how it is original research to include what the source of the image's own view of the image is?
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. Nor do I care. Nor should those opinions be included to taint the caption with OR.
As you pointed out, it's clear that the intention of this poster is arguable... if somewhat obvious to most. The mere inclusion of it on the article without attribution to the claim of it's meaning is orignal research.
You are making a value judgement about the image by putting it on the article.
As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it in an article.
and we would likely not need a secondary source to place this image on an article about protest posters.
A picture of a tree (primary source material) on an article about trees would usually be straight forward enough to remain undisputed and not require a secondary source.
The article discusses at length the debate over whether some (or all) anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism - indeed, to a degree, that is what the whole article is about.
And hopefully the claims in the article are sourced and are not original research.
Of course they are, with literally hundreds of high quality footnotes. Again, why would you comment about something that you had not actually looked into?
I had by that point, and I didn't claim there was a problem. My point was that we've cited the text to avoid it being orignal research. The image is no different.
But we *haven't* described the image as anti-Semitic, so how can it possibly be "Original research"? It is Netscott who keeps insisting it must be described as anti-Semitic, I'm arguing against that! What "claim" are you talking about? We make no claim that the picture is anti-Semitic.
Don't insult our intelligence Jay. We have put the image at the very top of an article titled [[New anti-Semitism]]. If we aren't describing the image as an example of anti-semitism then it should be removed.
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We have put the image at the very top of an article titled [[New anti-Semitism]]. If we aren't describing the image as an example of anti-semitism then it should be removed.
The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description of where and when taken. It is very clearly a photograph of something that is *arguably* anti-Semitic, but there are people who think it isn't. Similarly, we show anti-Semitic photographs taken by the Community Security Trust (part of the body that represents the Jewish community in England), and we show those without comment, saying only where and when taken. There is no need to labor the point, and sometimes it's important not to.
Sarah
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We have put the image at the very top of an article titled [[New anti-Semitism]]. If we aren't describing the image as an example of anti-semitism then it should be removed.
The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description of where and when taken. It is very clearly a photograph of something that is *arguably* anti-Semitic,
Generally our articles do not have lead images of things which are merely 'arguably' related to the subject of the article.
but there are people who think it isn't. Similarly, we show anti-Semitic photographs taken by the Community Security Trust (part of the body that represents the Jewish community in England), and we show those without comment, saying only where and when taken. There is no need to labor the point, and sometimes it's important not to.
NPOV does not tell us to simply express views as truths without commentary. We achieve neutrality by buffering disputed points with attribution. This action converts a debatable matter ("the image demonstrates anti-semitism") into a universally agreed fact ("this page argues that the image is anti-semitic").
Were the image completely self explanatory and not under dispute, you could argue that the comment need not say anything. But that clearly isn't the case here.
Frankly, I think it's unfortunate to use an image so open to interpretation and debate as a lead image no matter what the caption says, but I don't have something better to replace it with.
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: Then why on earth would you comment?
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without actually knowing what is going on. I haven't argued for any "weaker NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.
I dislike Greg's usage of the term "offensive" here as well, particlarly for a hypothetical. But then I also dislike Jay's apparent willingness to pick up the same exact weapon and reuse it. Verbal terrorism has no winners.
On the actual issue, I agree with SlimJay that the image is rather emblematic of that fine line between opposition to policy and bigotry. Its inclusion of "fake Jews" might put it over the line, but that
But on the other hand, I'm all in favour of concise, descriptive, and eloquent captions (like the one I wrote for the God article, which Slim moved to the Names of God article: title=Names_of_God&diff=70792902&oldid=70204022 )
But then I disagree with using the caption as a place to characterise how the image is characterised, other than by a general reference to "which some claim."
Hey! A perfect example of how writing supercedes sourcing!
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote: Then why on earth would you comment?
Although it may be true that in practice we may apply a weaker NPOV requirement to image, the idea that you must find some explicit requirement in policy is ludicrous, and it is offensive to hear that an arbcom member would make such a claim.
It is even more offensive for you to make such a claim without actually knowing what is going on. I haven't argued for any "weaker NPOV requirement" for the image; rather, the image is perfectly NPOV as it stands, as it make *no* claims as to its true meaning.
I dislike Greg's usage of the term "offensive" here as well, particlarly for a hypothetical. But then I also dislike Jay's apparent willingness to pick up the same exact weapon and reuse it. Verbal terrorism has no winners.
On the actual issue, I agree with SlimJay that the image is rather emblematic of that fine line between opposition to policy and bigotry. Its inclusion of "fake Jews" might put it over the line, but that
But on the other hand, I'm all in favour of concise, descriptive, and eloquent captions (like the one I wrote for the God article, which Slim moved to the Names of God article: title=Names_of_God&diff=70792902&oldid=70204022 )
But then I disagree with using the caption as a place to characterise how the image is characterised, other than by a general reference to "which some claim."
Hey! A perfect example of how writing supercedes sourcing!
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description of where and when taken.
No one is fretting about the cutlines on any of the other images on that page, which also don't say who's claiming they are or aren't examples of anti-Semitism. Dozens of other images are used on Wikipedia in the same way.
This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ColoredDrinking.jpg used in [[Racism]] doesn't have a cutline saying "this is regarded as an example of racism by X." This image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_and_skulls.png used as an example of scientific racism, doesn't say "according to X." This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1900sc_Postcard-Watermelon_04.jpg is called a "racist postcard"; we don't say "according to X." This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg is labeled anti-Semitic without saying who says so. Must this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg now have a cutline saying "anti-Semitic according to the Community Security Trust"? Does this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yankee_go_home_Liverpool.jpg used to illustrate anti-Americanism, have to say it's anti-American only according to X? This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bomb_iran_thong.jpg is used to illustrate anti-Iranianism without attribution. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tokio_Kid_Say.gif is used to show anti-Japanese sentiment, with no attribution, as is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poster_Japan_flag_stabbed.jpg
Some others, all making a stated or implied claim, with no attribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hands_of_victory.JPG alleged to show anti-Persianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golliwogg2.jpg for Afrophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_023.jpg Francophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antiruss.jpg Russophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Merridien_Web.png ditto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YellowTerror.jpg Sinophobia
And there are many more. So the question is, of all these images allegedly depicting prejudices of various kinds, why is this one image being singled out for different treatment?
Sarah
You can be sure I'll be getting to the other images soon. I've already noticed how many of them are violations of [[WP:FU]].
I always find it strange how folks will argue, "well it's wrong over there so it can be wrong over here". Wrongness elsewhere never lessens wrongness regarding the given item of discussion. Now there are quite a few editors agreeing with what I was saying about NPOV and the lead image as the article's edit history shows (even two editors going so far as to outright remove the image from the article).
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
The image cutline shouldn't say anything beyond the basic description of where and when taken.
No one is fretting about the cutlines on any of the other images on that page, which also don't say who's claiming they are or aren't examples of anti-Semitism. Dozens of other images are used on Wikipedia in the same way.
This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ColoredDrinking.jpg used in [[Racism]] doesn't have a cutline saying "this is regarded as an example of racism by X." This image, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Races_and_skulls.png used as an example of scientific racism, doesn't say "according to X." This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1900sc_Postcard-Watermelon_04.jpg is called a "racist postcard"; we don't say "according to X." This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg is labeled anti-Semitic without saying who says so. Must this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LeedsUniversityNAS.jpg now have a cutline saying "anti-Semitic according to the Community Security Trust"? Does this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yankee_go_home_Liverpool.jpg used to illustrate anti-Americanism, have to say it's anti-American only according to X? This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bomb_iran_thong.jpg is used to illustrate anti-Iranianism without attribution. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tokio_Kid_Say.gif is used to show anti-Japanese sentiment, with no attribution, as is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poster_Japan_flag_stabbed.jpg
Some others, all making a stated or implied claim, with no attribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hands_of_victory.JPG alleged to show anti-Persianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Golliwogg2.jpg for Afrophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_023.jpg Francophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antiruss.jpg Russophobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Merridien_Web.png ditto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YellowTerror.jpg Sinophobia
And there are many more. So the question is, of all these images allegedly depicting prejudices of various kinds, why is this one image being singled out for different treatment?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
You can be sure I'll be getting to the other images soon.
You'll be getting to which other images soon? All the images I listed on all the other pages? Or are you going to continue to concentrate on trying to have illustrations of anti-Semitism removed?
Sarah
No, not illustrations of anti-Semitism removed but the editing out of fair use violations so that they are left to the articles where they qualify. Fair use on Wikipedia has become a new area of editing interest for me. The [[Mel Gibson]] article would be a good example of this. The new anti-Semitism article has a number of images who's fair use rationale is not compliant. Like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_2005_Syri... example. It's fair use tagged as , "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question" which obviously the [[new anti-Semitism]] article is not doing.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
You can be sure I'll be getting to the other images soon.
You'll be getting to which other images soon? All the images I listed on all the other pages? Or are you going to continue to concentrate on trying to have illustrations of anti-Semitism removed?
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
No, not illustrations of anti-Semitism removed but the editing out of fair use violations so that they are left to the articles where they qualify. Fair use on Wikipedia has become a new area of editing interest for me.
In order to show your good faith, please begin exploring your new editing interest by challenging images other than those depicting anti-Semitism.
Sarah
Sarah, please show your good faith and don't describe my edits as vandalism and my efforts as "trolling". Also don't revert my good faith edits with an edit summaries like "rvv". My attention has been drawn to this article and so I will edit in good faith towards ensuring that it is in accord with Wikipedia policies. You should see my work over on [[Islamophobia]] by the way. The article has come a long way towards being in accord with Wikipedia policies since when I first started editing on it.
Sincerely,
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
No, not illustrations of anti-Semitism removed but the editing out of
fair
use violations so that they are left to the articles where they qualify. Fair use on Wikipedia has become a new area of editing interest for me.
In order to show your good faith, please begin exploring your new editing interest by challenging images other than those depicting anti-Semitism.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
You'll be getting to which other images soon? All the images I listed on all the other pages? Or are you going to continue to concentrate on trying to have illustrations of anti-Semitism removed?
(!)
In order to show your good faith, please begin exploring your new editing interest by challenging images other than those depicting anti-Semitism.
(!) Am I reading this right? Sarah insinuates that Scott may be editing in an anti-Semitic pattern? Then she states that he must "show [his] good faith"?
Im cautiously encouraging people to consider filing an RFC. The one I has apparently been subject to... administrative oversight.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 25/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Im cautiously encouraging people to consider filing an RFC. The one I has apparently been subject to... administrative oversight.
You mean, no-one certified it?
- d.
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
I always find it strange how folks will argue, "well it's wrong over there so it can be wrong over here". Wrongness elsewhere never lessens wrongness regarding the given item of discussion.
However, that was, of course, not the argument made. Rather the argument was the exact opposite.
Now there are quite a few editors agreeing with what I was saying about NPOV and the lead image as the article's edit history shows (even two editors going so far as to outright remove the image from the article).
Yes, many people find the picture disturbing, as you did, and will try to think of almost any imaginable rationale to make it disappear somehow (again, as you did). Of course, like you, the people actually removing it can't actually quote any policy that would require its removal. But it's a very powerful image, and people just *know* they have to get rid of it somehow.
Jay.
Always nice to see a demonstration of the assumption of good faith there Jayjg. What's an ambigous image doing as the lead image for [[new anti-Semitism]] anyways? Wikipedia's doing a disservice to it's readers when doing this, particularly when the caption of the image doesn't spell out what it's source is saying about it. As others have expressed with an image like that as the lead Wikipedia is expressing the POV that it is an example of "new anti-Semitism". If the image stays then editros should at least ensure that the image's caption is in accord with NPOV and cite the source as it being an example of anti-semitism (the source doesn't even say "new anti-Semitism... just anti-Semitism see: http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/ ). Sounding more and more like original research to include it on the new anti-Semitism article isn't it?
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
I always find it strange how folks will argue, "well it's wrong over
there
so it can be wrong over here". Wrongness elsewhere never lessens
wrongness
regarding the given item of discussion.
However, that was, of course, not the argument made. Rather the argument was the exact opposite.
Now there are quite a few editors agreeing with what I was saying about
NPOV
and the lead image as the article's edit history shows (even two editors going so far as to outright remove the image from the article).
Yes, many people find the picture disturbing, as you did, and will try to think of almost any imaginable rationale to make it disappear somehow (again, as you did). Of course, like you, the people actually removing it can't actually quote any policy that would require its removal. But it's a very powerful image, and people just *know* they have to get rid of it somehow.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Always nice to see a demonstration of the assumption of good faith there Jayjg. What's an ambigous image doing as the lead image for [[new anti-Semitism]] anyways?
Um, the whole article is about the disputed and possibly ambiguous nature of New anti-Semitism. It could hardly illustrate the concept better, as has been explained multiple times by multiple editors.
Wikipedia's doing a disservice to it's readers when doing this, particularly when the caption of the image doesn't spell out what it's source is saying about it.
No, the continual attempts to suppress or reframe this powerful and illustrative image, without any backing in policy, is what does a disservice to Wikipedia.
As others have expressed with an image like that as the lead Wikipedia is expressing the POV that it is an example of "new anti-Semitism".
What do you mean by "New anti-Semitism"? A new kind of Anti-Semitism? Modern anti-Semitism? Or an attempt to reframe criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism? Because arguments are made for all these definitions.
Oh, wait, the picture perfectly illustrates that.
If the image stays then editros should at least ensure that the image's caption is in accord with NPOV
Sorry, again, could you cite the specific words of NPOV that apply to this image?
Of course not. Because your objection has nothing to do with *actual* policy.
Jay.
I see so the article's title is "new anti-Semitism" and of course one would expect to glance over and see an image demonstrative of such a concept but no they see an image that a few Wikipedia editors are saying (without a citation that is) is demonstrative of "new anti-Semitism" when no source can be shown stating as such? Like I said even the photo's source labels it as mere "anti-Semitism". I haven't argued for the image's removal as other have (although I'm becoming convinced of their arguments) all that I've required is that the image's source "Zombie" from "Zombietime.com" be cited as saying that the image was demonstrative of anti-Semitism. That is normal when bias is ambiguous in articles. I've shown you how WP:NOR states that NPOV applies to images and I've shown you the section of what NPOV says about attribution of biased content. Now a good number of editors are agreeing with my concerns as the talk page and edit history show.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Always nice to see a demonstration of the assumption of good faith there Jayjg. What's an ambigous image doing as the lead image for [[new anti-Semitism]] anyways?
Um, the whole article is about the disputed and possibly ambiguous nature of New anti-Semitism. It could hardly illustrate the concept better, as has been explained multiple times by multiple editors.
Wikipedia's doing a disservice to it's readers when doing this, particularly when the caption of the image doesn't spell out what it's source is saying about it.
No, the continual attempts to suppress or reframe this powerful and illustrative image, without any backing in policy, is what does a disservice to Wikipedia.
As others have expressed with an image like that as the lead Wikipedia is expressing the POV that it is an
example
of "new anti-Semitism".
What do you mean by "New anti-Semitism"? A new kind of Anti-Semitism? Modern anti-Semitism? Or an attempt to reframe criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism? Because arguments are made for all these definitions.
Oh, wait, the picture perfectly illustrates that.
If the image stays then editros should at least ensure that the image's caption is in accord with NPOV
Sorry, again, could you cite the specific words of NPOV that apply to this image?
Of course not. Because your objection has nothing to do with *actual* policy.
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
I see so the article's title is "new anti-Semitism" and of course one would expect to glance over and see an image demonstrative of such a concept but no they see an image that a few Wikipedia editors are saying (without a citation that is) is...
I agree that the apparent selectiveness in the application of CITE policy is troubling, particularly when its those two.
all that I've required is that the image's source "Zombie" from "Zombietime.com" be cited as saying that the image was demonstrative of anti-Semitism.
Seems reasonable, on its surface...
Essentially you are claiming that the source Zombie..whatever is the relevant issue, rather than what the poster is spinning, and how that spin is spun.
But you are of course clever and understand that the picture's source is Qdubiously POV and therefore cant be NPOV to use! Particularly upfront. Hence you seem to be using CITE as a tool for exclusion, which is the essence of the citenazi argument!
You wont find me a friend to anything nazi-like, and in this case, (ironically enough) principle finds me in favor of SlimJay and their argument that the image is sufficiently iconic of the debate. I may change my mind if I see a better image, but I agree with them in this particular case. Otherwise the image has to be removed, because it comes from a POV source.
That is normal when bias is ambiguous in articles.
But according to NPOV, bias is supposed to be ambiguous - otherwise it would be obvious. (!)
- the hundreth monkey/sqrt
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/24/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
But you are of course clever and understand that the picture's source is Qdubiously POV and therefore cant be NPOV to use! Particularly upfront. Hence you seem to be using CITE as a tool for exclusion, which is the essence of the citenazi argument!
[snip]
Nah, the whole point of NPOV is that we can include POV content by making it neutral by putting it in the right context.
So we don't say "AIDS is gods punishment for gays" we say "Jerry Fallwell has stated that AIDS is gods punishment for gays [1]". We avoid making the judgement call, and we use text that people from many different perspectives can agree is true.
By putting the image on [[New anti-Semitism]] we are implicitly making the claim that the subject of the photo is an example of New anti-Semitism. To do so is original research and is rejected by several generally reasonable folks. Instead we can say "source X argues this is an example of.." and everyone sane can agree that it's true (although we might not agree that it's good editorial judgement to use that image at the top).
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So we don't say "AIDS is gods punishment for gays" we say "Jerry Fallwell has stated that AIDS is gods punishment for gays [1]". We avoid making the judgement call, and we use text that people from many different perspectives can agree is true.
OK. I agree with that.
By putting the image on [[New anti-Semitism]] we are implicitly making the claim that the subject of the photo is an example of New anti-Semitism.
Ah. I see. But have you got something better? This argument seems to be abstractable to the point that any image could be criticised for its POV.
To do so is original research and is rejected by several generally reasonable folks.
No, its representative of one particular aspect of the debate. I would be more in favor of using the cover of Chesler's book though, because that instead depicts a statement in the debate and hence represents the debate. I would still keep the image though as an example of the rhetoric and imagery about which X claims Y.
Who is X, though? Its certainly not just that web which claims that image is a representative example thereof... I agree that the image is problematic in that it depicts (according to the source) "anti-Semitism" and not "new anti-Semitism," because its usage represents a failure to distinguish between the two - according to its own distinctions! But that problem is indemic to the entire concept, and not with the usage of the image. (!)
Instead we can say "source X argues this is an example of.." and everyone sane can agree that it's true (although we might not agree that it's good editorial judgement to use that image at the top).
Alright. I can go along with that. At worst, a different image will be picked, or the caption would say 'several POV sites claim X is representative of Y...'
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Sounding more and more like original research to include it on the new anti-Semitism article isn't it?
There are multiple sources who say this image is an example of anti-Semitism. There's no need to rely on the photographer, and if you had done even two minutes of research (literally), you'd know that. But you haven't, because your interest is not NPOV and Wikipedia and encyclopedic standards. You object to the image for political reasons, pure and simple, and you're trying to wikilawyer your way to either getting it removed or adding a cutline that will lead to edit wars in the future and instability. You've spent the best part of the day on this, and now, not satisfied with involving AN/I and wikiEN-l, you're leaving notes on talk pages trying to involve others too (because you've already violated 3RR), leaving instructions as to what they should do. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AYArktos&diff=prev&a... I think this will be my last response to you.
Sarah
Sarah, I'm beginning to see that you really have no qualms about misrepresenting facts in attempts to benefit your cause. You've already said in effect that I was coming out of nowhere and disrupting the article when you were fully aware that I've edited in regards to this article previously. Now, when I'm primarily counseling a fellow editor to not edit war you're describing it nefariously as my "leaving instructions as to what they should do". Well of course it's not in the project's interest that editors edit war so it makes sense that I'm advising a fellow editor against it. If I've spent the best part of the day on this, what have you done?
Where's that assumption of good faith we're always talking about around here?
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Sounding more and more like original research to include it on the new anti-Semitism
article
isn't it?
There are multiple sources who say this image is an example of anti-Semitism. There's no need to rely on the photographer, and if you had done even two minutes of research (literally), you'd know that. But you haven't, because your interest is not NPOV and Wikipedia and encyclopedic standards. You object to the image for political reasons, pure and simple, and you're trying to wikilawyer your way to either getting it removed or adding a cutline that will lead to edit wars in the future and instability. You've spent the best part of the day on this, and now, not satisfied with involving AN/I and wikiEN-l, you're leaving notes on talk pages trying to involve others too (because you've already violated 3RR), leaving instructions as to what they should do. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AYArktos&diff=prev&a... I think this will be my last response to you.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 25/08/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Where's that assumption of good faith we're always talking about around here?
I believe the wording goes "It is absolutely required to Assume Good Faith in someone taking an argument all over the net and accusing you of deliberate POV-pushing, particularly when they demand you assume good faith in them." I might have some of the later bits of that quote wrong, but the early bits are spot-on.
- d.
Gregory,
As Jkelly has explained, we don't need a secondary source claiming that a picture of a tree is a picture of tree before we can insert it in an article.
Quoting Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
and we would likely not need a secondary source to place this image on an article about protest posters.
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
Jkelly
On 24/08/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to sneak in something on page 36 about how the Foundation takes control of their first born.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to
?!?
...and AfD is terribly broken. And userboxen suck.
Jkelly
On 25/08/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to
...and AfD is terribly broken.
Obviously it just needs more detailed process. That'll get it working right.
And userboxen suck.
It's marvellously useful to know that a user believes that the placement of bumper sticker-style slogans in a small box on one's user page is an effective and clearly simplified way of communicating the nuances of one's views on a variety of issues as reduced to a pithy slogan. They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.
- d.
David,
...They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.
It was a shame to trim your response and lose the humour of it, but this is just the "instruction creep/can't legislate clue/consensus doesn't scale" conversation again.
Jkelly
On 25/08/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
David,
...They can then be drafted to work on the consensus committee for voting on new procedural policy for AFD.
It was a shame to trim your response and lose the humour of it, but this is just the "instruction creep/can't legislate clue/consensus doesn't scale" conversation again.
The Zionist Conspiracy told me it would be a fantastic piece of wikijudo to keep them safely occupied out of harm's way.
- d.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The Zionist Conspiracy told me it would be a fantastic piece of wikijudo to keep them safely occupied out of harm's way.
- d.
Won't work. The userbox crowd are not really policy wonks its just that policy was the only thing protecting their userboxes from the nasty admins.
In any case most AFD procedure would be pretty trivial. Minium voter requirements would be the only real cause of debate.
On 8/25/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The very first thing to do is to write a detailed policy outlining every possible outcome ahead of time. If it's not in there, we can form a committee committee to elect a committee to vote on what level of straw poll indicates consensus on a given image. Don't forget to sneak in something on page 36 about how the Foundation takes control of their first born.
I was about to suggest that what we actually might need is "level 2 support" where people can ask tricky questions like this that go beyond "how do I create a table" or "where do I report a 3RR abuse?" Then I realised that this list is that :)
Steve
On 8/25/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult, use your own judgment.
Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were protesting about.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/25/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult, use your own judgment.
Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were protesting about.
I agree. However, if his "tree picture shows damage from acid rain" he should be advised to keep the picture out of the rain, or it may be self-evident from the faded and wrinkled quality of the picture. Your advice really applies if the tree in the picture shows damage from acid rain. :-)
Couldn't help it~ Ec
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/25/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make. If I state that my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that? What level of interpretation are we comfortable with?
If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult, use your own judgment.
Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were protesting about.
I like jkelly's extended example and your elucidation, even though it didn't mention snakes. With regard to the photo, I think it's espeically important to have a source given the artistic nature of the picture photographed and that their are no clear anti-semite indications included in it. And, of course, there's the small issue of photo-manipulation.
To me, the picture looks more like a cynical interpretation of the entire situration where everyone is making a deal with a devil, especially considering that the devil is wearing armbands of Nazis, the US, and the Israel flag and in writing you have "COUNTERFEIT JEWS". I could easily imagine Jews holding this at a peace rally, especially when you see it in context of an anti-capitalism sign held next to it and the anti-Iraq-war rally was in 2003, not this summer: http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_february_16_2003/
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.net/index.php?title=User:Pro-Lick
--spam may follow-- --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
Hi,
Quoting Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com:
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]... ... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this image usage. It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which images might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions. I'd go so far as to say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what can be communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion about that.
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing that the photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a Wikipedian takes a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be published in a reliable source.
Jkelly
That's not entirely correct Jkelly,
"Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore image do indeed need to abide by neutral point of view.
-Scott
On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com:
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]... ... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this image usage. It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which images might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions. I'd go so far as to say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what can be communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion about that.
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing that the photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a Wikipedian takes a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be published in a reliable source.
Jkelly
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the source for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable what the image shows.
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
That's not entirely correct Jkelly,
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Original_images "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader. All uploaded pictures are subject to Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines, notably Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore image do indeed need to abide by neutral point of view.
-Scott
On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi,
Quoting Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com:
Got a bit of a dispute going on over on [[New anti-Semitism]]... ... surrounding an image and neutral point of view.
I don't think that this is a very helpful way to think about this image usage. It is true that we've done very little thinking about the way in which images might give undue weight to minority or fringe positions. I'd go so far as to say that we seem to be comfortable taking a very naive position on what can be communicated through photography, and I think it would be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion about that.
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing that the photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a Wikipedian takes a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be published in a reliable source.
Jkelly
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the source for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable what the image shows.
"A writer at Zombietime argues[3] that this poster, seen at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, is an example of modern anti-Semitism."
I provided a link to the source, but I couldn't tell what the writers name was from the page. I would have said "an anonymous writer" but I'm unsure if the authors name is given at some other part of the site that I was deeplinked past.
Gregory Maxell,
Ah ok, well per his agreement with Wikipedia he must additionally be cited as the source of the image there.
Other than that... your edit makes the caption much better! Thanks!
-Scott [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/24/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell's last edit on this article goes some way to at least establishing the relevance of the image to the article but still the
source
for the claim should be included in the caption as it is indeed arguable what the image shows.
"A writer at Zombietime argues[3] that this poster, seen at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, is an example of modern anti-Semitism."
I provided a link to the source, but I couldn't tell what the writers name was from the page. I would have said "an anonymous writer" but I'm unsure if the authors name is given at some other part of the site that I was deeplinked past. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote: [snip]
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing that the photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we do make an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a Wikipedian takes a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree first be published in a reliable source.
This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)
For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a citation.
Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would initially is not a tree.
This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation. A citation can easily be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good argument.
I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image as a meta fact rather than a fact.
(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) )
Well [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] managed to get me blocked for a week surrouding this despite my good faith efforts towards ensuring that policy was met on this article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Use...
I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours ago and haven't since). The blocking admin's reasoning was that I'd been blocked "many times for 3RR". I've been justifiably blocked twice for 3RR and a third time despite my efforts at reverting vandalism surrounding the last block (User:William M. Connolley) expressed, "Its quite possible that I could have checked a bit more carefully" (meaning prior to blocking me for the last 3RR) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&a... hardly qualifies as "many times".
If someone could take a look at this case, that'd be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netscott#Unblock Thanks,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 8/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote: [snip]
But this doesn't seem to be your concern. Instead, you're arguing
that the
photograph being used is not an example of what it is supposed to be identifying. Jayjg is actually referring you to the correct page -- we
do make
an exemption in our No Original Research rule for images. If a
Wikipedian takes
a picture of tree, we don't ask that the assertion that it is a tree
first be
published in a reliable source.
This is incorrect by being incomplete. :)
For example, I could find a picture of something that looks small shrub which is technically a tree.. And place it on [[tree]]... But the image would be removed, and quite rightfully so, without a citation.
Even with a solid citation provided, it would be a poor editorial judgement to put an image of an atypical tree which many people would initially is not a tree.
This is pretty much what I see here... An image is being placed on an article about anti-semitism which some rational people believe is not a clear example of anti-semitism (but is rather a rather insensitive and tasteless jab at isral) without a citation. A citation can easily be provided because the source of the image made a pretty good argument.
I still think it's a bad editorial judgement to use that image as the lead, but it's not a violation of NPOV unless we fail to use the image as a meta fact rather than a fact.
(I could throw into the fire that we still have the copyright tagging wrong, but an angry letter from the copyright holder would actually be useful... we'd get to find out what he intended :) ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/24/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Well [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Jayjg]] managed to get me blocked for a week surrouding this despite my good faith efforts towards ensuring that policy was met on this article.
[[WP:3RR]] is policy, and you didn't make good faith efforts towards ensuring that policy was met on this article. You were given many opportunities to revert yourself; practically begged to do so, but you insisted you would not. *You* managed to get *yourself* blocked.
I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours ago and haven't since).
You stated you wouldn't edit the article so that you would not be forced to undo your violation. You were quite defiant about it. Blocks like this prevent people from violating 3RR in the future; otherwise they think they can continue to get away with "I've reverted 5 times now, and I refuse to revert myself, but I promise I won't edit again for 24 hours" nonsense.
If someone could take a look at this case, that'd be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netscott#Unblock
What, putting an unblock request on your Talk: page isn't good enough for you? It's back to this list again any time you find yourself in conflict? Anyway, Bastique, the admin who was so offended by the image in question that he twice deleted it from the page altogether, has now reduced your block to 24 hours. I'm sure the former has nothing to do with the latter.
Jay.
--- jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
[[WP:3RR]] is policy, and you didn't make good faith efforts towards ensuring that policy was met on this article. You were given many opportunities to revert yourself; practically begged to do so, but you insisted you would not. *You* managed to get *yourself* blocked.
Translation: We use 3RR in tandem, so as to cleverly avoid tripping 3RR and then we like to tattle on the opposition really quickly, so that they get blocked and then we win the (edit) war. Its not "harrassment" or "POV tag-teaming" if its a policy loophole - Its fair game.
Now that thats understood....
I've requested an {{unblock}} as this block was neither justified nor preventative (I clearly stated that I'd stopped editing on the article hours ago and haven't since).
This appears to be on the up and up. I know quite well the nature of two, no \ three aspects of this case... the topic, two core people opposing Netscott, and the subjective usage of 3RR as an edit warring too.
Some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&action=histo... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#New_anti-Semitism_and_WP:NPOV_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=7170310...
You stated you wouldn't edit the article so that you would not be forced to undo your violation. You were quite defiant about it.
Defiance is a notable property of you two as well, so its odd that you both use it and decry it. It then becomes a simple addition problem to figure out how much defiance there is on either "side," at a particular point 1/1+1...
Blocks like this prevent people from violating 3RR in the future; otherwise they think they can continue to get away with "I've reverted 5 times now, and I refuse to revert myself, but I promise I won't edit again for 24 hours" nonsense.
Entirely false representation of 3RR as a punitive.
3RR is simply a way to slow down reverts and force discussion. By not directly engaging in actual problem-solving, as you two have become habitually accustomed to, and then using policy lawyering to block people for 3RR, you are essentially using 3RR as an edit warring tool. Hence you are adhering to the letter of the policy, while entirely circumventing its spirit. And of course every little edit has to become an intense operation with you two.
What, putting an unblock request on your Talk: page isn't good enough for you? It's back to this list again any time you find yourself in conflict?
And there is something wrong with that? In addition to supporting the misreprestation of sources, you denounce the use of Wikien? And then you have the nerve to cry "defiance, defiance, defiance."
Anyway, Bastique, the admin who was so offended by the image in question that he twice deleted it from the page altogether, has now reduced your block to 24 hours. I'm sure the former has nothing to do with the latter.
Oh of course, 'We're the angels - *they are the POV trolls.' Its so simple. 'We never collude and mix our roles as the supreme guardians of NPOV with our roles as administrators.' No, of course not.
Its sad, too because this... confusion between roles is not limited, and probably a just as much a factor of wiki's growth entropy as it is an opportunistic attempt at POV-pushing policy-lawyering.
-SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 25/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Translation: We use 3RR in tandem, so as to cleverly avoid tripping 3RR and then we like to tattle on the opposition really quickly, so that they get blocked and then we win the (edit) war. Its not "harrassment" or "POV tag-teaming" if its a policy loophole - Its fair game.
Gee, or perhaps you could not revert war. It's possible!
- d.
--- David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/08/06, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Translation: We use 3RR in tandem, so as to cleverly avoid tripping 3RR and then we like to tattle on the opposition really quickly, so that they get blocked and then we win the (edit) war. Its not "harrassment" or "POV tag-teaming" if its a policy loophole - Its fair game.
Gee, or perhaps you could not revert war. It's possible!
I assume you mean "you" in the general sense, like if one said "one" instead. Otherwise I have to point out that that was a sarcastic translation that paraphrases the editing patterns of some else. And by someone else I mean "not me", not "someone else other than you." Whew. Got that cleared up... :)
But yes, that is the point, and I was noting to Greg offlist... the real issue is decreasing partisanship. Before there were these committees people would step in and sort things out. Partisans had to stop editing the article. Moderates would help out by translating, representing, and cooperating from the two general POVs.
Thats what was totally missing, and 3RR, as much as I hate it at least stops those 28 reverts in a row edit wars. But it shifts the emphasis from "lets cooperate" to a game of "dont go over the line or you'll get zapped." Hence its just as childish.
SV
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com