I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B". Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 10/28/2005
On 31/10/05, rex rex@x234.com wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
You've proposed this... hmm, three times or so that I've seen so far this morning. Is there a particular image or article you're taking issue with?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Making a point is already disallowed. But it'd be hard to figure out exactly which images fall under that. I'd say IFD is the best place for such images.
--Mgm
On 10/31/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/10/05, rex rex@x234.com wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
You've proposed this... hmm, three times or so that I've seen so far this morning. Is there a particular image or article you're taking issue with?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/31/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Making a point is already disallowed. But it'd be hard to figure out exactly which images fall under that. I'd say IFD is the best place for such images.
--Mgm
I disagree - IFD would not be the place - an image may be POV in one context and perfectly acceptable somewhere else. This is not a NOR issue, it's a POV and article content issue - the example Rex really applies to the caption. A staged picture might be out of line if someone attempted to pass it off as a real image, but fine in an article about the political power of an image.
In almost all cases, an image is neutral until you add a caption to it. Then it may be POV.
Ian
On 10/31/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
In almost all cases, an image is neutral until you add a caption to it. Then it may be POV.
Ian
On the contrary, an image is likely to be POV until you add a caption that explains in which way it isn't neutral.
---- Fredrik Johansson
On 10/31/05, Fredrik Johansson fredrik.johansson@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/05, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
In almost all cases, an image is neutral until you add a caption to it. Then it may be POV.
Ian
On the contrary, an image is likely to be POV until you add a caption that explains in which way it isn't neutral.
A different way to say both these things is that many images are POV unless put in the proper context- whether that context is the article, or a section, or just a caption.
Fredrik Johansson _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Obviously photos by individuals used to make *novel* points or to unfairly underscore POV claims should not be allowed. But this is just a standard interpretation of WP:NPOV applied to this medium, yes? I'm not sure this is a source-based issue, it reads like a straightforward NPOV question to me.
Images can be highly deceptive, as any student of media knows. I'm not sure that fact changes our policy in any way, though -- it would seem implied in it that POV is POV, whether expressed in text, image, audio, etc. Images can have POV, with or without a caption -- if it can't be attributed to a notable source and discussed ("Famous Soviet photographer so-and-so set up this image to make it look as though the Soviets were just now conquering Berlin, though we now know etc. etc.") then it can't be allowed in, same as anything else.
FF
On 10/31/05, rex rex@x234.com wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B". Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 10/28/2005
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any* problems.
Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile, or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b) considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing the art.
Geoff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Geoff Burling wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any* problems.
Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile, or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
To do so is censorship, as is removing references just because the source is "direputable". All we need to is give an NPOV description of the source and let the reader decide for themselves.
And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b) considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
I remember a piece in the Signpost a few months back about how an article was written as part of a widespread hoax, duly deleted, and then recreated as an article about the hoax itself. Someone then tried to get the article on the author of the hoax deleted...
I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing the art.
Intent be damned. If it's under a free license and is illustrative we should use it. On Commons we don't even need a use for it, so long as it's under a free license.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Well, the thing is that your photos weren't "intended to make a specific point". If you took pictures of a piece of trash in Crater Lake, and posted it on the article page with a caption along the lines of "In recent years, Crater Lake has become full of trash", that would be an illustration of what he was talking about.
In the end, though, I don't see any necessary reaction to this except our normal enforcement of NPOV and maybe a little good judgment. It doesn't take an art historian to know that images can be inherently manipulative.
FF
On 11/2/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party. Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any* problems.
Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile, or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b) considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing the art.
Geoff
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Fastfission wrote:
Well, the thing is that your photos weren't "intended to make a specific point". If you took pictures of a piece of trash in Crater Lake, and posted it on the article page with a caption along the lines of "In recent years, Crater Lake has become full of trash", that would be an illustration of what he was talking about.
But his solution to remove those photos was to ban all images created by individuals. Had I been less passionate at the time I wrote, I would have said his proposal would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the end, though, I don't see any necessary reaction to this except our normal enforcement of NPOV and maybe a little good judgment. It doesn't take an art historian to know that images can be inherently manipulative.
Agreed.
Geoff
On 11/3/05, Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
But his solution to remove those photos was to ban all images created by individuals. Had I been less passionate at the time I wrote, I would have said his proposal would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, I think the "to make a point" was the part which would not ban *all* images, though the question of which images are "making a point" and which aren't is fairly unsolveable, in my opinion (any picture can be read as "making a point" -- some points are obvious, some are subtle; some are marked, some are unmarked). Which is just one of the reasons the proposal is not sound (it is also unnecessary, which is a separate point).
FF
"rex" rex@x234.com wrote in message news:000601c5dde3$439af2b0$6401a8c0@DAN...
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
Doesn't this kind of blow a huge great big hole in the "don't use copyrighted stuff, make your own and release it under GFDL" scheme?