Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images? I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images. Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
Thanks.
-Scott
On 8/27/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images?
Wait a minute - is this the policy you *insisted* clearly dealt with your claims about images, though you refused to quote the relevant sections?
I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images.
Is there any way you can be convinced to stop using this list for making false and pejorative statements about other editors?
Jay.
jayjg wrote: <snip>
Is there any way you can be convinced to stop using this list for making false and pejorative statements about other editors?
1800-LISTMOD?
This sensible proposal to update WP:NPOV is in response to Fastfission's excellent comments (I recommend reading them in their entirety):
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
-Scott
On 8/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
<snip> > Is there any way you can be convinced to stop using this list for > making false and pejorative statements about other editors? >
1800-LISTMOD?
Don't make me attempt to understand anything of the bizarre last 100 messages or so. You're all crazy.
Steve
On 8/27/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
<snip> > Is there any way you can be convinced to stop using this list for > making false and pejorative statements about other editors? >
1800-LISTMOD?
Don't make me attempt to understand anything of the bizarre last 100 messages or so. You're all crazy.
Steve
Amen to that.
Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images? I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images. Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
A separate policy page is probably not needed. It would make an excellent addition as an example page. NPOV already is supposed to apply to all content, that seems fairly obvious in the nutshell portion, though it may be helpful to add "images" to the "includes" list. The only other place "images" are explicitly mentioned is in the Undue Weight section. Mentioning it in a more visible space seems like minimal instruction creep and, I agree, apparently is needed. Removing the examples from the nutshell portion and replacing them with "ALL content" would fix that, unless NPOV is supposed to be applied selectively to content.
I had thought that "All Wikipedia articles" covered all content, but apparently "written" is taken in the most restrictive lawyer-loop-hole sense.
~~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 27 Aug 2006, at 18:23, Cheney Shill wrote:
Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images? I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images. Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
A separate policy page is probably not needed. It would make an excellent addition as an example page. NPOV already is supposed to apply to all content, that seems fairly obvious in the nutshell portion, though it may be helpful to add "images" to the "includes" list. The only other place "images" are explicitly mentioned is in the Undue Weight section. Mentioning it in a more visible space seems like minimal instruction creep and, I agree, apparently is needed. Removing the examples from the nutshell portion and replacing them with "ALL content" would fix that, unless NPOV is supposed to be applied selectively to content.
I had thought that "All Wikipedia articles" covered all content, but apparently "written" is taken in the most restrictive lawyer- loop-hole sense.
I agree the main NPOV article is the best place to start (though I couldn't resist the temptation to fix a couple of things anyway). Otherwise we'll need separate sections for NPOV in animations, diagrams, photographs, videos, B/W film, ...
On 27/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I agree the main NPOV article is the best place to start (though I couldn't resist the temptation to fix a couple of things anyway). Otherwise we'll need separate sections for NPOV in animations, diagrams, photographs, videos, B/W film, ...
And it'll need regular pruning per [[m:instruction creep]] - it's a very bad place to blur the distinction between the policy and the guidelines on implementing that policy. The policy is simple and hard to argue, but some people unfortunately appear to consider they can weasel past it if they add enough rubbish to the guidelines. Not that I've seen it repeatedly.
- d.
I don't know. Sometimes expanding upon a policy or making clear how it applies in certain cases can be clarifying. I find the current NPOV FAQ section to be very helpful in discussing NPOV with people new to it.
An alternative approach is to consider policy somewhat analogous to case law. Without stating that all decisions are prescriptive towards future decisions (I doubt anyone wants to pretend that Wikipedia decision-making is anywhere near as pretentious about its universality as the US court system pretends to be, though isn't), having a list of "here's one issue that was relatively important, and here's how it was satisfied to most people's satisfaction" might serve as a way of defusing future conflicts.
There's an obvious appeal to having simple policies, but in many cases that leads to a reinvention of the wheel many times over and some very bitter disputes. Somewhere on a level near "guideline" could potentially exist something like "here's how we thought about this previously, this may or may not be applicable in the future" which doesn't exist for the sheer purpose of shutting down discussion. (But maybe in the end that's what policy is about anyhow, on some level.)
FF
On 8/27/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
I agree the main NPOV article is the best place to start (though I couldn't resist the temptation to fix a couple of things anyway). Otherwise we'll need separate sections for NPOV in animations, diagrams, photographs, videos, B/W film, ...
And it'll need regular pruning per [[m:instruction creep]] - it's a very bad place to blur the distinction between the policy and the guidelines on implementing that policy. The policy is simple and hard to argue, but some people unfortunately appear to consider they can weasel past it if they add enough rubbish to the guidelines. Not that I've seen it repeatedly.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/30/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
There's an obvious appeal to having simple policies, but in many cases that leads to a reinvention of the wheel many times over and some very bitter disputes. Somewhere on a level near "guideline" could potentially exist something like "here's how we thought about this previously, this may or may not be applicable in the future" which doesn't exist for the sheer purpose of shutting down discussion. (But maybe in the end that's what policy is about anyhow, on some level.)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NBD - you may want to add something about at least recording non-binding precedent.
Steve
On 8/30/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know. Sometimes expanding upon a policy or making clear how it applies in certain cases can be clarifying. I find the current NPOV FAQ section to be very helpful in discussing NPOV with people new to it.
An alternative approach is to consider policy somewhat analogous to case law. Without stating that all decisions are prescriptive towards future decisions (I doubt anyone wants to pretend that Wikipedia decision-making is anywhere near as pretentious about its universality as the US court system pretends to be, though isn't), having a list of "here's one issue that was relatively important, and here's how it was satisfied to most people's satisfaction" might serve as a way of defusing future conflicts.
The problem is that once people think that a decision is going to result in a president they tend to bring up a load of annoying side issues.
On 8/27/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 27 Aug 2006, at 18:23, Cheney Shill wrote:
I had thought that "All Wikipedia articles" covered all content, but apparently "written" is taken in the most restrictive lawyer- loop-hole sense.
I agree the main NPOV article is the best place to start (though I couldn't resist the temptation to fix a couple of things anyway). Otherwise we'll need separate sections for NPOV in animations, diagrams, photographs, videos, B/W film, ...
Perhaps the nutshell needs to be:
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a *neutral point of view*, representing views fairly and without bias. This also includes all media and their captions, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.
This generalizes it from maps or maps and images to all forms of media, in addition to the captions used for those media.
-Carl
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] relative to images? I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to understand the NPOV equally applies to images. Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was wondering what others thought of it.
Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
There is no dispute about the fact that NPOV also applies to images; it's more a question of how it applies. Unless you can edit an image, the image speaks for itself; if it is a photograph of people carrying a placard then the placard says what it says. That much of it is neutral because we would not be acting neutrally if we chose to doctor the photograph, whether we agree with its contents or not. We can, however, exercise NPOV in our choice of photographs, or in the way that we describe them.
It is unfortunate that this issue should come up in the charged atmosphere of anti-semitism/zionism where so many people want to draw contrary conclusions from the picture or to impute motives that may not have been consistent with the view of the placard holders. Scott's fictional duckgull example serves only to muddle the issue, and adds nothing to clarity.
The problem with great principles is that they defy elaboration and clarification. In the case of NPOV such elaboration and clarification is paradoxical.because it can induce a lack of neutrality to the whole notion.
Currently, the "Policy in a nutshell" says, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This also includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." The first sentence is fine. The second presents an inclusion list. It would be possible to add "images" to that list, but next week, or next month, or next year someone will have a good reason to add something else to the list. Why not just change that second sentence to, "This applies to all aspects of an article." would people find some part of the word "all" that they don't understand?
Ec
On 27/08/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
You know, this is a beginner's move in WikiNomic. What you should be aiming at to win conclusively is influencing the process of constitutional change. It's much more rewarding and more likely to grant you an IAR card.
- d.