On 31/10/05, rex <rex(a)x234.com> wrote: 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(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

In almost all cases, an image is neutral until you add a caption to it. Then it may be POV. Ian

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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote: 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.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote: 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.