[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44
Durova
nadezhda.durova at gmail.com
Wed Apr 22 17:58:31 UTC 2009
> > 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?
++++
There are few suggestions more destructive than good ideas misapplied.
Let's look at a few featured pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg
Blatantly racist and disrespectful of basic human dignity. Also historic
and very encyclopedic. It illustrates the en:wiki article 'Racism', also
the article on 'Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era (United States)'
and the individual biographies of two politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:J_accuse.jpg
Certainly not neutral: it accuses the president of France of gross
misconduct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trumpetcallsa.jpg
Again, not neutral. It's a war recruitment poster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleon's_exile_to_Elba3.jpg
Blatant trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_and_Nebraska_lands10.jpg
Try viewing this from the perspective of the indigenous peoples whose
ancestral lands were being sold.
Those aren't photographs, you might say? Apply the principle only to
photography? Okay, neutralize this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Woody_Guthrie_2.jpg
And although this last one is not hosted on Commons and may never be (due to
German law), think of the historic value here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vote_number_1b.jpg
(shakes head)
-Durova
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM,
<foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people
> (Gregory Kohs)
> 2. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
> 3. Re: Board statement regarding biographies of living people
> (Thomas Dalton)
> 4. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic)
> 5. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
> 6. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Milos Rancic)
> 7. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Anthony)
> 8. Re: Anarchopedia changed its license (Jussi-Ville Heiskanen)
> 9. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (Anthony)
> 10. Re: NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement regarding
> biographies of living people) (David Gerard)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:23:16 -0400
> From: Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of
> living people
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <14b1e7be0904220623k556519dai7e02fce4aaab41c1 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Says Michael Snow:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
> community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
> accurate information
>
> ++++++
>
> So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
> but the
> Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection
> of
> words
> that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
> high-quality, accurate information.
>
> How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the mean
> travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:32:00 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904220632x64ebbcd0v952ebf9e12a0559e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Ting Chen <wing.philopp at 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:34:26 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of
> living people
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <a4359dff0904220634k4eced895s746959d26b1c1f7a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com>:
> > Says Michael Snow:
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia
> > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality,
> > accurate information
> >
> > ++++++
> >
> > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board,
> > but the
> > Board itself is going to do virtually nothing (other than this collection
> of
> > words
> > that urges the community to work harder) to strengthen the commitment to
> > high-quality, accurate information.
>
> Basically, yes. Content has always been the responsibility of the
> community.
>
> > How many Board members were in attendance in Berlin, and what was the
> mean
> > travel distance of the Board attendees for this excursion?
>
> This was far from the only thing they did while in Berlin. Their
> schedule was even more crowded than that of the Chapters'
> representatives, and I found the chapters meeting the most exhausting
> thing I've ever done.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:04:25 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <846221520904220804q1efb6fadl3cb5fefcfb4e75ba at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:20:44 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904220820w47c05490t50145f4cd3bac21d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic <millosh at 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:37:04 +0200
> From: Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <846221520904220937wcb0380bn7fd369bd5354861a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at 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).
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:46:13 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90904220946n7d544ee9ld3417e0281c15a15 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <
> brianna.laugher at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > 2009/4/21 Michael Snow <wikipedia at 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?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:57:10 +0300
> From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Anarchopedia changed its license
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <49EF4C66.1060806 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Crazy Lover wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
> >
> >
>
> Just by the way, completely inconsequentially to anarchopedia;
> the foundational proponent of Agorism was a genuinely awesome
> dude, and whoever got to know him in real life, was blessed.
>
> I somehow think Konkin would have grokked wikipedia, if he'd
> lived to see it flourish.
>
> SEK3 was the kind of guy wikipedia articles talk pages could
> sorely need more of. Defending courteus disagreement in
> discourse, even when odious in the subject matter to many.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:57:53 -0400
> From: Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90904220957k5e6a5b5vc2bb12df8ce04f5b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <
> > brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow <wikipedia at 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?
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:18:35 +0100
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board
> statement regarding biographies of living people)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <fbad4e140904221018xb7dd0fan9e4a80a9f2c5886b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44
> ********************************************
>
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list