On 02/05/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see what's original research about this.
It's all a matter of definition. Under some definitions, Wikipedia thrives on original research and could not exist without it. We are all researchers the moment we decide to pick a topic, study the sources, evaluate them carefully, weigh expert against expert and make decisions about what to include and what to omit, how to arrange the text, which "NPOV" terms to use, and so on.
Can someone summarise the case for considering photos of Wikipedian-identified animals as OR, though? I sort of feel that, for a start, images are just decoration in any case. If an editor wanted to say "According to official sources, Green-horned Bats are only found in Transylvania, whereas this example was photographed in Gippsland" that might be one thing. But since we can't use copyrighted images, it seems absolutely necessary that we allow images taken by amateur photographers. We, or the reader, can then compare the photo to photos in published sources to confirm that they are close enough to be considered an accurate representation of the subject.
Which leads me to think: It actually doesn't matter if our photo is genuinely of a Green-horned Bat, or whether it's actually a Yellow-horned Bat with a bit of photoshop work. It is simply a representation after all.
Steve