[WikiEN-l] [[New anti-Semitism]] and violations of NPOV re: top image

[Fastfission]

As just one clarification... when I suggest we need to spell out our
neutrality explicitly, I don't mean it to sound like I am assuming a
dumb audience. That's not true at all. But if the "neutrality" comes
from someone having to have a meta-view of the image -- "Oh, what an
interesting image. When I look at it, I see it as anti-Semitism, but
others would say it is only anti-Zionism. How clever." -- I don't
think that's neutral. For one thing, the ambiguity of the image -- the
entire claim for it being a good illustration up there -- is exactly
one of the reasons that such ambiguity needs to be outlined explicitly
(if we know someone is likely to interpret only one POV in the image,
we need to point out that we don't mean for there to be only one POV
in the image).

A less-charged analogy would be using the picture of the famous
Duck-Rabbit illusion
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg) to
illustrate the article on "Rabbit", with a caption saying, "A famous
picture of a rabbit." Now, one could argue that the point of using the
image would be to show the reader that a picture of rabbit could also
look like a duck, but by not spelling that out explicitly, and using
it at the top of an article called "Rabbit," I think we are easily
sending the message that the illustration is of a Rabbit. Whether or
not we are worried about prejudicing the reader -- who cares, in this
case -- the real problem is that it looks like Wikipedia is taking a
stance on the issue. Now, if we changed to caption to, "In the famous
duck-rabbit illustration, one can see a duck or a rabbit," then it is
made perfectly clear. It isn't dumbing it down at all, it is just
making explicit the point of putting the image in the article, and
making it clear that Wikipedia itself is not taking a position on the
issue. It is also a better caption, if that is what the image is meant
to represent. "A picture of a rabbit," is actually NOT descriptive of
the image, if it is being used to illustrate conceptual ambiguity.

If it isn't obvious to numerous editors that something is neutral --
and I think it is clear from the dispute that it is not obvious in the
case of the new anti-Semitism image -- then it is probably safe to
assume that it is NOT neutral. In this case I think a slight tweaking
of the caption would fix it perfectly and bring it into line with our
stated goal of neutrality, without stepping on anyone's toes.

FF



On 8/25/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The photograph perfectly reflects the debate about new anti-Semitism.
> > Some people look at it and instantly see a highly anti-Semitic image.
> > Others see an anti-Zionist one. Others again see the latter but
> > believe there's sometimes not a big difference between the two. So it
> > is with new anti-Semitism, as the article describes. The cutline
> > doesn't need commentary from someone who has done no research into the
> > subject and who seems to be out to cause trouble only.
>
> The current caption of it is "A poster seen at a February 16, 2003
> anti-war rally in San Francisco. [3] Photograph by zombie of
> zombietime.com".
>
> If the picture is supposed to represent a debate, perhaps the caption
> should say so? I don't think it would be ridiculous to have a caption
> which says something to the effect of what you've written above, i.e.
> "Some would claim that this poster is anti-Semitic, while others would
> claim that it is only anti-Zionist; the distinction between the two is
> a key point of debate in discussions of any 'new anti-Semitism.'"
>
> Obviously one could write it better than that. But what bugs me about
> the current discussion is that you are assuming that the reader will
> do all of the intellectual work in piecing together the complicated
> statement you are trying to make with the picture. I don't think we
> should -- or need to -- assume that.
>
> If the caption was made a little more descriptive of what the picture
> was supposed to represent, I think it would be totally fine. As it is
> it looks like the picture is supposed to just represent "the new
> anti-Semitism" and I could see why that would be seen as endorsing
> only one of those two POVs.
>
> FF
>