On 21 September 2011 18:20, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Truthfully, i see not different approach to
include images and text
passages. Both are added, discussed, removed, re-added the same way as
text is. Now i heard some say that text is written by multiple authors
and images are only created by one. Then i must wonder that we are able
to decide to include one source and it's arguments written by one
author, while it seams to be a problem to include the image of one
photographer/artist. There really is no difference in overall progress.
If
we've a choice of several different images, we can pick the one
which is most neutral - so if we're writing about a war, we can choose
not to use a photograph of the Glorious Forces of Our Side Marching In
Victory, and instead pick a less loaded one of some soldiers in a
field, or a map with arrows.
But there's a problem when the issue is whether it's appropriate to
*include an image at all*. If one position says we should include an
image and the other position says we shouldn't, then whichever way we
decide, we've taken sides. We can't really be neutral in a yes-or-no
situation.
Thats the same situation as to include a fact or a quote from a source
or not, if the source itself is disputed. Thats not a real difference.
The problem with images has another origin. Images aren't left out
because they might not be illustrative or not. They are left out because
of sensibilities. Something we should not do.