Am 22.09.2011 00:07, schrieb Andrew Gray:
On 21 September 2011 18:04, Tobias Oelgarte
<tobias.oelgarte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
One of
the problems with the discussions about the image filter is
that many of them argue - I paraphrase - that "Wikipedia must not be
censored because it would stop being neutral". But is the existing
"Wikipedian POV" *really* the same as "neutral", or are we letting
our
aspirations to inclusive global neutrality win out over the real state
of affairs? It's the great big unexamined assumption in our
discussions...
You describe us as geeks and that we can't write in a way that
would
please the readers. Since we are geeks, we are strongly biased and write
down POV all day. If that is true, why is Wikipedia such a success? Why
people read it? Do they like geeky stuff?
...no, that's really not what I
said.
We've known for ten years that Wikipedia editors have systemic biases,
and we've tried to avoid them by insisting on NPOV. This is one of the
reasons we've been successful - it's not the only one, but it's
helped.
But being neutral in text is simple. You give both sides of the
argument, and you do it carefully, and that's it. The method of
writing is the same whichever side you're on, and so most topics get a
fair treatment regardless of our bias.
We can't do that for images. A potentially offensive image is either
there, or it is not. We can't be neutral by half including it, or by
including it as well as another image to balance it out - these don't
make sense. So we go for reasonable, acceptable, appropriate, not
shocking, etc. Our editors say "this is acceptable" or "this is not
acceptable", and almost all the time that's based on *our personal
opinions* of what is and isn't acceptable.
Given that this would be true. Do
you expect us to categorize images for
the filter in a right way, so that we are able to define what is
offensive or not? Do we have now the option to hide an image or not,
while being able to be neutral in judgment? Isn't it just the same? Did
anything change, despite the fact that we are now making global, image
based (not article based) decisions to show or hide an image?
The end result is that our text is very neutral, but
our images
reflect the biases of our users - you and me. That doesn't seem to be
a problem to *us*, because everything looks fine to us - the
acceptable images are in articles, the unacceptable ones aren't.
If a statement
is included in the article is based upon the decision of
the authors. If some authors disagree they will have to discuss. If one
author inserts an image in the article that he does find usable and
another disagrees, don't we also discuss about it? What is the
difference between the decision to include a fact or an image inside an
article?
People are saying we can't have the image filter
because it would stop
us being neutral. If we aren't neutral to begin with, this is a bad
argument. It doesn't mean we *should* have the image filter, but it
does mean we need to think some more about the reasons for or against
it.
I personally choose images only based on the fact if they illustrate the
topic. That means that an offensive image will without doubt get
precedence over an not offensive alternative image if it depicts the
subject better. Thats a very simple way. Just leave out moral aspects
and use the images to describe the topic. If two images have the same
educational value then we could start to discuss if other aspects
(quality, moral, etc.) might apply. But I'm not willed to exchange a
correct depiction of a subject against and imperfect depiction on moral
grounds. That means to represent the truth, pleasing or not, and not to
represent pink easter bunnies on soft green with a charming sunset in
the background.