Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new, which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived work.)
We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in relation to past events. If there is some past conflict, where the (free) media is available only represents one side of the conflict, there is nothing we can do to "balance" that. So there is an external limit on how "neutral" we are able to be.
I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project in its own right". According to 1), the files in Commons are "context-free", waiting to be used somewhere and given context. And context is a major part of NPOV. As a service project, it would not be up to us to decide questions of "proportional representation", because that would all depend on how they are used in the projects. According to 2), the Commons community would have a role to play in deciding appropriate proportional representation, and we would assume the Wikimedia Commons itself is a context of use for the files.
This plays into the question of how much autonomy the Wikimedia Commons community has. If we have a curatorial role beyond being "license police" and enforcing our necessarily very broad project scope, then that must be negotiated between these two views. I definitely believe it is not Common's role to decide "for" projects, which free media they should use. So this is something of a constraint for (2).
It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone has a shared understanding of what that means.
Of interest: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
cheers, Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new, which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived work.)
We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in relation to past events.
Wikipedia is also bound by the creations of others (or the informations of others, if you will). This is expressed in principles like "no original research" and the expectation that assertions be backed by reliable sources. The commitment to a neutral point of view is not directed at what others have said, whether in text, visual presentation, or other media. Rather, it focuses on what we do with that material, how it is assembled, put in context, and presented to the audience.
For example, in Wikiquote, I think an expression of neutral point of view would be to focus on the question of what is actually "quotable". It should not be up to me to choose some passage Gandhi wrote, say in his autobiography, as a quote simply because it strikes my fancy. That's not a neutral approach to selecting what goes into Wikiquote. Properly, the passage should have been quoted already somewhere, and I can point to that to demonstrate its quotability. This extends also to tracking misquoted and misattributed material; we can cite usage of the purported quotation and present it alongside the real version where that is traceable.
I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project in its own right".
I would suggest that because of our educational mission, especially with the focus on freely licensed material, all of our projects should be seen as "service projects" in some sense. They exist not for their own sake, but for the value others can draw from them. That may be by simply "consuming" the material, but it may also involve recasting or modifying it, or integrating it with other material. This is also why we are looking at the license situation, and every project should allow for these relationships, not just within Wikimedia but in the free culture movement generally. By its nature the service project aspect is particularly obvious for Wikimedia Commons, but this doesn't mean it cannot be a project in its own right as well.
It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone has a shared understanding of what that means.
Of interest: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
As a relative youngster among our projects, I expect Wikimedia Commons will continue to work out its identity. This policy page is a decent basic start toward figuring out what neutral point of view means in the Commons setting.
In the context of biographies of living people, I did think it was important to tie the issue back to our shared values, especially maintaining a neutral point of view. And if that has sometimes been more in the background, I felt this was a good opportunity to have it stated clearly. It still remains for all of us to sort out its meaning and application.
--Michael Snow
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new, which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived work.)
We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in relation to past events.
Wikipedia is also bound by the creations of others (or the informations of others, if you will). This is expressed in principles like "no original research" and the expectation that assertions be backed by reliable sources. The commitment to a neutral point of view is not directed at what others have said, whether in text, visual presentation, or other media. Rather, it focuses on what we do with that material, how it is assembled, put in context, and presented to the audience.
For example, in Wikiquote, I think an expression of neutral point of view would be to focus on the question of what is actually "quotable". It should not be up to me to choose some passage Gandhi wrote, say in his autobiography, as a quote simply because it strikes my fancy. That's not a neutral approach to selecting what goes into Wikiquote. Properly, the passage should have been quoted already somewhere, and I can point to that to demonstrate its quotability. This extends also to tracking misquoted and misattributed material; we can cite usage of the purported quotation and present it alongside the real version where that is traceable.
I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project in its own right".
I would suggest that because of our educational mission, especially with the focus on freely licensed material, all of our projects should be seen as "service projects" in some sense. They exist not for their own sake, but for the value others can draw from them. That may be by simply "consuming" the material, but it may also involve recasting or modifying it, or integrating it with other material. This is also why we are looking at the license situation, and every project should allow for these relationships, not just within Wikimedia but in the free culture movement generally. By its nature the service project aspect is particularly obvious for Wikimedia Commons, but this doesn't mean it cannot be a project in its own right as well.
It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone has a shared understanding of what that means.
Of interest: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
As a relative youngster among our projects, I expect Wikimedia Commons will continue to work out its identity. This policy page is a decent basic start toward figuring out what neutral point of view means in the Commons setting.
In the context of biographies of living people, I did think it was important to tie the issue back to our shared values, especially maintaining a neutral point of view. And if that has sometimes been more in the background, I felt this was a good opportunity to have it stated clearly. It still remains for all of us to sort out its meaning and application.
Some of the NPOV-related problems may be solved by talking about context. If we say that a single piece of art (or propaganda or whatever) is not a context, then problems related to Commons are solved.
In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking there about notability, not about NPOV.
But, is it useful to move sense of NPOV at more and more higher levels? While it is hard, but (I think) possible to make NPOV educational books up to the secondary school level, it is not possible to make educational courses according to NPOV. Ideological demands to educational courses are totalitarian. It would be possible to make basic math course strictly according to NPOV, but not even about some fundamentals of natural sciences (I am not talking about non-scientific disagreements with scientific facts, but about disagreements between scientists; and, unlike an encyclopedic article, it may be impossible to make a course by mixing approaches).
NPOV is a very good starting point for writing an encyclopedia. But, it is not any kind of general knowledge which may be implemented everywhere. And, if it is treated as such, then it is an ideology.
If the Board is not able to make a general scientific framework for projects other than Wikipedia, I think that it should hire some scientists to do so.
Milos Rancic wrote:
In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking there about notability, not about NPOV.
To the extent that notability has any value for us at all as a concept, it is only because it draws on the principle of a neutral point of view. Applying quotability criteria to Wikiquote is an approach to ensuring that it's not my point of view about what is a quotation, but instead I'm neutrally documenting quotations used by other sources. That's a rather straightforward form of neutral point of view, in fact, whereas notability has proven much more challenging to define.
NPOV is a very good starting point for writing an encyclopedia. But, it is not any kind of general knowledge which may be implemented everywhere. And, if it is treated as such, then it is an ideology.
If the Board is not able to make a general scientific framework for projects other than Wikipedia, I think that it should hire some scientists to do so.
Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine ourselves to be doing. Science is part of the knowledge we are compiling, certainly. But neutral point of view is not a kind of knowledge itself. Rather, it is an approach to knowledge, one that has served us well and, as far as I can tell, runs through the culture of all our projects.
--Michael Snow
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine ourselves to be doing. Science is part of the knowledge we are compiling, certainly. But neutral point of view is not a kind of knowledge itself. Rather, it is an approach to knowledge, one that has served us well and, as far as I can tell, runs through the culture of all our projects.
There are many approaches to knowledge and one of them is scientific. Encyclopedic approach is a derivative of the scientific approach. NPOV is one (good) encyclopedic approach.
But, out of Wikipedia, we have other projects, which are not encyclopedias. Implementing encyclopedic approach to, let's say, dictionary, may fit up to some extent. Implementing encyclopedic approach to writing books is just wrong. But, implementing it on fields of knowledge which should deal with approaches to knowledge is totalitarian.
If our approach is not scientific, then it the approach is ideological (including religious). I hope that you don't think that NPOV has some fundamental differences from other encyclopedic approaches which are based on lexicographical methods.
Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine ourselves to be doing. Science is part of the knowledge we are compiling, certainly. But neutral point of view is not a kind of knowledge itself. Rather, it is an approach to knowledge, one that has served us well and, as far as I can tell, runs through the culture of all our projects.
There are many approaches to knowledge and one of them is scientific. Encyclopedic approach is a derivative of the scientific approach. NPOV is one (good) encyclopedic approach.
But, out of Wikipedia, we have other projects, which are not encyclopedias. Implementing encyclopedic approach to, let's say, dictionary, may fit up to some extent. Implementing encyclopedic approach to writing books is just wrong. But, implementing it on fields of knowledge which should deal with approaches to knowledge is totalitarian.
If our approach is not scientific, then it the approach is ideological (including religious). I hope that you don't think that NPOV has some fundamental differences from other encyclopedic approaches which are based on lexicographical methods.
The scientific approach can be just as ideological and totalitarian as the religious. A lexicographical approach strikes me as based on semantics divorced from reality. The bare claim that one's approach is scientific is often no more than a rhetorical device for supporting one's point of view. In reality the scientific approach is a subset of NPOV, where it is balanced with other approaches. An encyclopedic approach has more to do with comprehensiveness than neutrality; an ideological encyclopedia can be comprehensive within defined parameters without being neutral.
I begin from the premise that NPOV must apply to all WMF projects without exception. What that means to different sister projects is quite variable. The broad applicability to Wikipedias is much clearer and more established than in other projects. In the others it is much less obvious, and the disputes on Wikisource relating to NPOV are a much smaller proportion than on other projects. If NPOV is accepted as a broad principle it is the responsibility of each project to define how it applies to that project.
Ec
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Some of the NPOV-related problems may be solved by talking about context. If we say that a single piece of art (or propaganda or whatever) is not a context, then problems related to Commons are solved.
Yes. Context is relevant to any assessment of neutrality. An overall systemic bias among article topics, even if each article is neutrally written, is not itself neutral. This extends to whole projects as well as across/among projects.
In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking there about notability, not about NPOV.
Well, there is neutral balance in selection of sources from which quotes are drawn. You can have a thousand quotes from napoleon, each represented neutrally in English with notes about any disagreements in the translation, but if every one of them is about death and horses, it will be a biased view of the man and his sense of the world.
But, is it useful to move sense of NPOV at more and more higher levels?
I think so.
While it is hard, but (I think) possible to make NPOV educational books up to the secondary school level, it is not possible to make educational courses according to NPOV. Ideological demands to educational courses are totalitarian.
I don't agree with the first statement, and don't understand the tone of the second.
fundamentals of natural sciences (I am not talking about non-scientific disagreements with scientific facts, but about disagreements between scientists; and, unlike an encyclopedic article, it may be impossible to make a course by mixing approaches).
One wouldn't need to mix approaches, and no article includes in detail all sides of the issue. One would need to provide reflective annotation about parts of the course which were dictated by limitations in time and format, and about parts where major processes and sequences differ among the most prominent course-creating bodies or schols of thought.
NPOV is a very good starting point for writing an encyclopedia. But, it is not any kind of general knowledge which may be implemented everywhere. And, if it is treated as such, then it is an ideology.
Neutrality has nothing to do with 'encyclopedia'. It has something to do with leavine one's ego and personal expertise out of the picture when sharing knwoledge with others. It has a LOT to do with creating any universal resource to which uncoordinated people can contribute what they have to teach or share, with a minimum of destructive opposition and reversion.
If the Board is not able to make a general scientific framework for projects other than Wikipedia, I think that it should hire some scientists to do so.
Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV.
You are right to use Mathematics as an example of a neutral science, but it took millennia before this happened, even after it first became a measurable and respected science and not only an element of language and business and mysticism.
SJ
2009/4/22 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com:
Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV.
That's why NPOV and Scientific Point Of View are different things.
(speaking here as a sceptical atheist who considers Richard Dawkins entirely too moderate, I have had occasion to suggest to other sceptics that they tone it down for Wikipedia - anyone who disagrees won't listen, and anyone unconvinced will be put off by a didactic tone.)
It's where the apparently-odd en:wp phrase "verifiability not truth" comes in: we're mere humans, we don't have access to cosmic truth in all its glory; verifiable references are all we have to go on and show to others.
- d.
Michael Snow, 22/04/2009 06:52:
For example, in Wikiquote, I think an expression of neutral point of view would be to focus on the question of what is actually "quotable".
Read more here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view_on_Wikiquote Regrettably, en.wikiquote does not have a real NPOV policy (there's only an old import from Wikipedia): this NPOV policy has been really useful on it.wikiquote.
Nemo
Nemo_bis, 22/04/2009 23:49:
this NPOV policy has been really useful on it.wikiquote.
I forgot to mention that we have also policies on original research (http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:NRO) and notability (http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Wikiquote#Significativit.C3.A0): it was very useful to adapt such notions to Wikiquote (again, en.wikiquote does not have policies on that).
Nemo
Hallo Brianna,
NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It tells the reader and participants that the content has a point of view and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of this and accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and writing the content.
The question here is about projects like Commons or Wikisource. Mainly they collect free content and serve as a shared repository for other projects so that these other projects can use these content. The content themselves may have POV, that's for sure, and we don't make edits or comments in these sources to make them NPOV. But we do category them. And at least here we do make sort of comment in the source. Let me take an example that actually happend on Commons. It makes a diffrence if we categorize a caricature of an israeli bus in form of a coffin to the very neutral Category:Bus or to more commentary category Category:Political caricature or to the very strong commentary category Category:Anti-israeli caricature. It makes very big difference how Commons categorize such images. And I am in these cases more for the implementation of a similar policy like Wikiversity's Disclosure of Point of View: A source with a very strong bias of point of view should be accordingly categorized. With that we do nothing else as to hold our principle ideal of NPOV on projects like commons.
The example of the caricatures also show that although the majority of our Commons community are indeed interested in free content and NPOV, but there are seemingly also people who had discovered Commons as a medium to broadcast their political agenda. And for me this is a very strong abuse of our principles. IMHO the community should not close its eyes and does so as if this is not real.
Commons is a very unique project, you see this alone on its URL, it is not de or en or fr or ar.commons.org, but commons.wikimedia.org. I recognize what you said about the two possible natures of Commons, but I also think that Commons is both. It is a service project, but it is not a zombie or a gollem without its own insights and ideals.
Ting
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new, which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy. Like Wikiquote, our "unit" of interest is something that typically has a strong authorial voice rather than being a synthesis of multiple contributions. (Unlike WQ, it does in some circumstances make sense to edit a file, unlike a quote -- but usually if the edit radically changes the meaning, it should become a separate, derived work.)
We are also, like WQ, bound by the creations of others, especially in relation to past events. If there is some past conflict, where the (free) media is available only represents one side of the conflict, there is nothing we can do to "balance" that. So there is an external limit on how "neutral" we are able to be.
I also find there is some tension between the views of 1) "Wikimedia Commons as a service project" and 2) "Wikimedia Commons as a project in its own right". According to 1), the files in Commons are "context-free", waiting to be used somewhere and given context. And context is a major part of NPOV. As a service project, it would not be up to us to decide questions of "proportional representation", because that would all depend on how they are used in the projects. According to 2), the Commons community would have a role to play in deciding appropriate proportional representation, and we would assume the Wikimedia Commons itself is a context of use for the files.
This plays into the question of how much autonomy the Wikimedia Commons community has. If we have a curatorial role beyond being "license police" and enforcing our necessarily very broad project scope, then that must be negotiated between these two views. I definitely believe it is not Common's role to decide "for" projects, which free media they should use. So this is something of a constraint for (2).
It *may* make sense to talk to NPOV for Wikimedia Commons, but I don't think it is necessarily obvious, or that it should be assumed everyone has a shared understanding of what that means.
Of interest: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Neutral_point_of_view
cheers, Brianna
2009/4/22 Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de:
NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It tells the reader and participants that the content has a point of view and thus gives the reader and participants to be aware of this and accordingly to adjust their judgement in reading and writing the content.
I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc. The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are not for pushing views.
- d.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc. The key point would be (something like) that Wikimedia projects are not for pushing views.
NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach because it is a journalistic one.
*But*, even neutrality is not always possible. Wikiversity is the case because, for example, you are not able to teach/learn about impressionist critics of art by applying any kind of neutrality. While this is an extreme example, a lot of scientific fields are more or less there.
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces.
There should be a way how to protect projects' integrity, but it is not insisting on NPOV or neutrality if it is not possible.
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach because it is a journalistic one.
And even then, some of the most interesting original content is interviews, which are all about the subjective POV of the interviewee.
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces.
I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your first sentence?
- d.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces.>
I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your first sentence?
I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.)
Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get a book which is not useful:
If A, B, C and D are some logical structures, statement "A x B = C" is not a neutral statement. If there is some other approach which has statement that "A x B = D", the author of the book will have to mention and explain that as well. And this is a kind of a recursive process.
We may rationally say that we won't demand from contributors to do that. But, then, the approach is not according to NPOV or neutrality.
There are other important principles, too, like verifiability and NOR. Both of them may be applied fully to Wikibooks if we say that we really don't want OR in books. At Wikiversity, NOR may be applied for sources. It is not reasonable to apply those principles for didactic methods because didactics of teaching and learning on Internet is not well developed. And it is not possible to implement those principles for the process of teaching and learning: course in any applied science must have OR during the process (and OR is not verifiable).
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces.>
I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your first sentence?
I wanted to say that if neutrality is forced in a field which is not possible to present neutrally, you'll get bizarre explanations why some course or book is neutral. (As young revolutionary authorities demanded connection between any field of knowledge and Marxism.)
Yes, that makes sense :-)
Even further... Book in elementary algebra may be written well according to the NPOV (but, not by following neutrality!) because NPOV has clause which is related to the "common knowledge". But, if you try to make a book with a specific approach to a number of micro and macro dimensions in the Universe, by using NPOV or neutrality, you would get a book which is not useful:
en:wp has experienced this - the arbcom finally had to say "no, peer-reviewed journals are more reliable sources on global warming than Rush Limbaugh radio transcripts or Michael Crichton novels, and fifty faith-based science advocates don't get to vote the UK's top climate scientist off the island. Don't be bloody stupid." In a few more words than that.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic
And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek literature starts with 20-30 pages of Preface in which author explains relations between ancient Greek literature and Marxism. But, there were a lot of not so good books which had a lot of grotesque connections between Marxism and its content not just inside of their prefaces.
I'm not clear on the connection between neutrality and Marxism ... could you explain the logical steps between the two clauses of your first sentence?
Even if Marx's results are highly debatable, there can be little doubt that all his long hours in the British Museum library were spent in good faith trying to give economics a scientific point of view. Forced neutrality is rarely neutral, and the "scientific production" of some of these East European writers has more to do with sycophancy than science. That kind of writing is not unique to a Marxist context.
Ec
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
Hoi, There is a difference between the way photo journalists work and the way most of the illustrations come to Commons. The NPPA code of ethics are clearly written for active press journalists. They get paid for what they do. Also the NPPA is a USA national entity and consequently their rules do not take into account the people that provide us with illustrations and the fact that they are from all over the globe.
Another important difference is that the intent of our illustrations is to illustrate encyclopaedic and other educational works. This means that a slight exageration in an illustration may actually serves our purposes well. Many of the subjects that are covered are historical and consequently we have to make use of the materials available to us. There are best practices about historic and other material and they are not universally shared.
* Having access to the original material and providing information where this material can be found * Preferably including the meta data as available from the library, archive or musuem * When material is altered, the alterations have to be documented to enable people to assess the illustration * High reolution material is always preferable to low resolution images * Non compressed material is always preferable to compresssed material for original material * Compressing material can always be done before material is actually served from our Wikis Thanks, GerardM
2009/4/22 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to
the
standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would love to see these adopted for Commons photographers. The issue will become knowing when these principles are being violated. For example, if you're going to alter audio to serve your own POV, you're not going to make it obvious you've done so. Detection is one problem, but even if you've detected that the audio was edited, there's no telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we should strive for as a community.
-Mike
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
I'm not sure what the answer is, and I agree with you that it's not easily resolved, but it seems to me that some sort of neutrality policy ought to apply to Commons.
In my opinion the universal form of the NPOV policy is simple - be honest.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
I would love to see these adopted for Commons photographers. The issue will become knowing when these principles are being violated. For example, if you're going to alter audio to serve your own POV, you're not going to make it obvious you've done so. Detection is one problem, but even if you've detected that the audio was edited, there's no telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we should strive for as a community.
-Mike
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < brianna.laugher@gmail.com> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net:
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some
core
principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to
the
standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and
work to
avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of
crime or
tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has
an
overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any
way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might
seek
to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects. 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities. 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
I think most of these do not really apply for Commons. They are mostly based on the situation of journalists making pictures about some specific event. On Commons, even if you are at a specific event, many of the pictures may say little or nothing about the event, but still be useful pictures because of what they DO depict. Our 'subject' can easily shift this way or that, making rules 1 and 3 mostly vacuous. Going through the list:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Since for many pictures the subject is what happens to be represented on the photograph, this is mostly vacuous. As an example, a journalist going to a protest march of 1000 people among which 10 are typical punks, would be breaking this rule if he made half the photographs he made of the protesters of those 10. A Commons photographer would just have to call them photographs of punks rather than photographs of that typical protest, and all would be fine.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
Staged photo opportunities are little good for journalism, but they are good for getting portrait-like photographs. Journalists are not very interested in those, we are.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
The first half to me seems hard when we get to the level of single photographs, which is on Commons how the work usually goes. The second part could well be a good rule, though at the same time when going to single photographs it is too restrictive - should every picture of a drinking Irishman be forbidden? I don't think so.
- Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special
consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.
A good rule, but not related to neutrality. And one that Commons photographers are much less in a position to break than real journalists anyway.
- While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to,
alter, or seek to alter or influence events.
Again a rule that is good for photo journalism, but not for general photography. If I want a picture of a dog swimming, I throw a stick in the water when my brother's dog is near. But even in citizen journalism, this is not a good rule like it is in professional journalism - getting the 'inside view' is interesting. I would not want the rule "Do not contribute photographs you made during events in which you were involved yourself" - which is more or less the same rule.
- Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images'
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Now, this one I can agree with. Any editing beyond the trivial should be made clear to the viewers.
- Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for
information or participation.
I don't think any Commons photographers would do so, being volunteers themselves, but where they do, they might well have good reason.
- Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek
to influence coverage.
Not applicable.
- Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
Of course not, but has nothing to do with neutrality.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
Since for many pictures the subject is what happens to be represented on the photograph, this is mostly vacuous. As an example, a journalist going to a protest march of 1000 people among which 10 are typical punks, would be breaking this rule if he made half the photographs he made of the protesters of those 10. A Commons photographer would just have to call them photographs of punks rather than photographs of that typical protest, and all would be fine.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work
to
avoid presenting one's own biases in the work.
The first half to me seems hard when we get to the level of single photographs, which is on Commons how the work usually goes. The second part could well be a good rule, though at the same time when going to single photographs it is too restrictive - should every picture of a drinking Irishman be forbidden? I don't think so.
I think any image can be neutral given the right context, but that context matters. Images in commons don't exist by themselves - they would be fairly useless if they did. (I guess a biased image could be made useful by adding context to them afterward, but then, so can a biased encyclopedia article. So maybe the difference is one of immediatism vs. eventualism, but the end goal is the same.)
I think the points described above are all good ones for anyone taking photographs. The key in the first two sentences is the word "subjects". I think you're reading too much into the rules if you think that it excludes someone from taking a picture of something other than the event itself when attending an event. I don't think such a rule is even meant to apply to professional photojournalists.
Is commons meant to be a dump of anything and everything, or are the images in it meant to depict something? If the latter, then they can depict something accurately or inaccurately, and that's where neutrality comes in. Yes, it's an amateur site, so expectations are low. If you're just randomly pointing at a subject and shooting, then it's only your subconscious biases that you have to worry about, but if you're intentionally making images with the intent of depicting something, then there's a lot of room to introduce biases when doing so.
I would not
want the rule "Do not contribute photographs you made during events in which you were involved yourself" - which is more or less the same rule.
I would want want a rule of "Do not contribute photographs you made during events in which you were involved yourself without disclosing that fact" though.
- Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images'
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in
any
way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Now, this one I can agree with. Any editing beyond the trivial should be made clear to the viewers.
I find it incongruous that you would agree with this one with the caveat that a proper description excuses it, after going point by point on the others assuming that the rule excluded photos regardless of description.
If you want a picture to describe "punk", why not make a few edits here and there to make your image closer to the concept (assuming you have permission of the individual(s) in the picture, anyway)? If you want a picture of a dog swimming, why not airbrush out that stick that you used to coax the dog into swimming? Why is it okay to manipulate the scene before you take the picture, but not afterward?
---
But now we've moved from journalism, at least in the classic sense, to art. Does a neutrality policy make sense in art? Considering the ability of art to cast or dispel stereotypes, I think it can. On the other hand, does a "no original research" policy apply to art? I don't think it can. Art *is* original research.
Fortunately, there seems to be no reason to abandon original research in Commons, as it is banned in Wikipedia. Commons is a less collaborative site. It's more like Knol than it is like Wikipedia. And as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing.
But I think a neutrality policy does make sense. Maybe I'm confusing "neutrality policy" with "honesty policy" though, because I think the summation of a proper neutrality policy is simply "be honest".
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org