[Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

[Andreas Kolbe]

David, 

I just noticed that I left a "bla" at the top of my reply to you. That wasn't a comment on your post: my e-mail editor often doesn't allow me to break the indent of the post I'm replying to. My work-around is to type some random unindented text at the top of my editor window, and then copy that down to the place where I want to insert a reply, so I can start an unindented line. That's what I did here; I just forgot to delete it before I posted.

Cheers,
Andreas 



>________________________________
>From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 5:45
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>
>bla
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>>From: David Levy <lifeisunfair at gmail.com>
>>To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 3:52
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
>>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>> > In an earlier reply, I cited ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspapers and magazines
>>> > that refuse to publish photographs of women.  If this were a mainstream
>>> > policy, would that make it "neutral"?
>>
>>Andreas Kolbe replied:
>>
>>> NPOV policy as written would require us to do the same, yes.
>>
>>The community obviously doesn't share your interpretation of said policy.
>>
>
>It's not a question of interpretation; it is the very letter of the policy. Due weight and neutrality are established by reliable sources.
>
>Now, let's look at your example: if you and I lived in a society that did not produce reliable sources about women, and refused to publish pictures of them, then I guess we would be unlikely to work on a wiki that 
>
>- defines neutrality as fairly representing reliable sources without bias, 
>- derives its definition of due weight from the weight any topic (incl. women) is given in reliable sources,
>- requires verifiability in reliable sources for every statement made in our wiki, 
>- and disallows original research. 
>
>Instead, we would start a revolutionary wiki with a political agenda that 
>
>- denounces the status quo, 
>- criticises the inhuman and pervasive bias against women, 
>- refuses to be bound by it,
>- sets out to start a new tradition of writing about, and depicting, women, 
>- and vows to subvert the established system in order to create a new world.
>
>We would set out to be *different* from the existing sources.
>
>However, in our world, that is not how Wikipedia views reliable sources. Wikipedia is not set up to be in antagonism to its sources; it is set up to be in agreement with them.
>
>
>Andreas
>
>
>
>> In the same way, if no reliable sources were written about women, we would not
>>
>>> be able to have articles on them.
>>
>>The images in question depict subjects documented by reliable sources
>>(through which the images' accuracy and relevance are verifiable).
>>
>>Essentially, you're arguing that we're required to present information
>>only in the *form* published by reliable sources.
>>
>>> By following sources, and describing points of view with which you personally do
>>> not agree, you are not affirming the correctness of these views. You are simply
>>> writing neutrally.
>>
>>Agreed.  And that's what we do.  We describe views.  We don't adopt
>>them as their own.
>>
>>If reliable sources deem a word objectionable and routinely censor it
>>(e.g. when referring to the Twitter feed "Shit My Dad Says"), we don't
>>follow suit.
>>
>>The same principle applies to imagery deemed objectionable.  We might
>>cover the controversy in our articles (depending on the context), but
>>we won't suppress such content on the basis that others do.
>>
>>As previously discussed, this is one of many reasons why reliable
>>sources might decline to include images.  Fortunately, we needn't read
>>their minds.  As I noted, we *always* must evaluate our available
>>images (the pool of which differs substantially from those of most
>>publications) to gauge their illustrative value.  We simply apply the
>>same criteria (intended to be as objective as possible) across the
>>board.
>>
>>> Images are content too, just like text.
>>
>>Precisely.  And unless an image introduces information that isn't
>>verifiable via our reliable sources' text, there's no material
>>distinction.
>>
>>David Levy
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>