On Feb 5, 2008 4:34 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wily D wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 2:56 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Wily D wrote:
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.
There is a fundamental fallacy in this argument. Just as consensus
in a
discussion represents only the consensus of the participants, so too
a
universal practice represents only those who actually follow that
practice.
I'm sure that many of our editors are addicted to having pretty
pictures
to decorate an article at all costs. It seems to break up the
monotony
of straight text. Where do you get the idea that "everyone" finds
them
useful beyond mere decoration. When we show a bust of Socrates is it verifiable that Socrates.looked like this? Perhaps all these
pictures
should be properly referenced.
The images in the Muhammad article that are under dispute are actually fairly well referenced, with three of the four giving authors, two of the four naming the source work and all four giving approximate dates
- beyond that, the common mantra of "verifiability, not truth" can
then be chanted adequately loudly.
As for whether the argument is a fallacy, it's not. I do not mean to imply that such images are useful in the edification of *every* editor, just that out editing process has universally held that such images are of significant educational value such that their usage is universe. Reject rationalism and embrace empiricism, eh?
The point that would need to be verified is not who created the picture or that these pictures exist, but that they truly represent what the subject looked like, and not merely fanciful caricatures.
This criterion, of course, would necessitate the removal of every scrap of information present in Wikipedia, and I suspect that any suggestion we start implementing something like this would be strongly rejected by the community - but feel free to suggest it. Realistically, it'd mean trashing WP:V, which is pretty popular, but you never know ...
"Universally" means "by everyone.".Whether there is "significant educational value" depends on what you are trying to teach. Your particular empirical observations do not imply universality even if all your observations reflect the same view. If only one person, whose views you have not observed, sees things differently your views cease to be universal. What is the educational value of a picture when you cannot establish that the picture is not a true one of what it purports to be?
Ec
Since I can't establish that *anything* is truly what it purports to be, this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. If we only educate people on what we know to be true, we can't tell them anything. But again, our relevant inclusion principle is now "verifiability, not truth", which is what we're doing now.
Right, we accept verifiability, not truth. But we work pretty damn hard not to educate people with things that we know *not* to be true.