[WikiEN-l] Images and original research

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>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.
>
I agree.  However, if his "tree picture shows damage from acid rain" he 
should be advised to keep the picture out of the rain, or it may be 
self-evident from the faded and wrinkled quality of the picture.  Your 
advice really applies if the tree in the picture shows damage from acid 
rain.  :-)

Couldn't help it~  Ec