[WikiEN-l] WP:NPOV and images (possible policy update)

[Scott Stevenson]

This sensible proposal to update WP:NPOV is in response to Fastfission's
excellent comments (I recommend reading them in their entirety):

>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

-Scott