[WikiEN-l] "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."
dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 14:16:26 UTC 2008
Perhaps because it has long been traditional to use such images in
print encyclopedias, and , though I think we never actually have said
so, we think of ourselves as a superset, including all their features,
and going on from there.
On Feb 5, 2008 7:59 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 7:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
> > > image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
> > > person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
> > >
> > > Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
> > > universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
> > > historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
> > >
> > > Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
> > > encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
> > > of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
> > > historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
> > > encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
> > > "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
> > >
> > It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
> > give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
> > include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
> > about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
> > a damn.
> > Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
> > about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
> > one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
> > ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
> > have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
> > Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
> > the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...
> > Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
> > his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
> > a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
> > what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?
> > Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
> > cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
> > make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
> > at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> Well *explicit discussion* is not needed to determine consensus where
> a universal or near universal practice exists. Every article where an
> image is available to represent someone it ends up getting used, even
> if there's no particular reason to believe it's accurate. Pick any
> Old Testament figure, really ancient Greek philosopher, whatever, and
> there's a portrait if we can get our grubby little mitts on one.
> That everyone seems to feel they're useful indicates to me they're
> useful, even if it's tough to explain exactly why.
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
More information about the WikiEN-l