[WikiEN-l] Images and original research (was: [[New anti-Semitism]] and...)

[Steve Bennett]

On 8/25/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>  I think that there is something smart about making this distinction, which I
> failed to do, but I'm not sure that it is one we usually make.  If I state that
> my tree picture shows damage from acid rain, do I need a source for that?  What
> level of interpretation are we comfortable with?

If anyone is disputing the fact that it's acid rain damage, you should
find a source. If anyone is asking for a source just to be difficult,
use your own judgment.

Seriously though, on FPC you'd be amazed by the number of
misidentifications. Photographers who are not bird/lizard/animal
experts frequently misidentify the subject of their shot. And for
photos that are all about context, a source is even more important: a
photo of a few hundred protestors tells you *nothing* unless you know
roughly who they are, where they were, when it was, and what they were
protesting about.

Steve