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

[Ray Saintonge]

Scott Stevenson wrote:

>Greetings fellow Wikipedians,
>
>Has anyone else noticed the lack of clarity on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point
>of view]] relative to images?
>I realize it may seem like common sense but certain editors don't seem to
>understand the NPOV equally applies to images.
>Due to this fact I've begun work on an addition to NPOV policy and I was
>wondering what others thought of it.
>
>Please have a look here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott/NPOV_image_policy
>  
>
There is no dispute about the fact that NPOV also applies to images; 
it's more a question of how it applies.  Unless you can edit an image, 
the image speaks for itself; if it is a photograph of people carrying a 
placard then the placard says what it says.  That much of it is neutral 
because we would not be acting neutrally if we chose to doctor the 
photograph, whether we agree with its contents or not.  We can, however, 
exercise NPOV in our choice of photographs, or in the way that we 
describe them.

It is unfortunate that this issue should come up in the charged 
atmosphere of anti-semitism/zionism where so many people want to draw 
contrary conclusions from the picture or to impute motives that may not 
have been consistent with the view of the placard holders.  Scott's 
fictional duckgull example serves only to muddle the issue, and adds 
nothing to clarity.

The problem with great principles is that they defy elaboration and 
clarification.  In the case of NPOV such elaboration and clarification 
is paradoxical.because it can induce a lack of neutrality to the whole 
notion.

Currently, the "Policy in a nutshell" says, "All Wikipedia articles must 
be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and 
without bias. This also includes maps, reader-facing templates, 
categories, and portals."  The first sentence is fine.  The second 
presents an inclusion list.  It would be possible to add "images" to 
that list, but next week, or next month, or next year someone will have 
a good reason to add something else to the list.  Why not just change 
that second sentence to, "This applies to all aspects of an article."  
would people find some part of the word "all" that they don't understand?

Ec