Hoi,
When Chaim Potok wrote about crucifixions in "My name is Asher Lev" he wrote
that they are part of the art of a painter. You will find suffering, love,
beauty, devotion, belief all expressed in paintings. The western tradition
is one where the proverb "a picture paints a thousand words" is accepted.
When you refuse the use of paintings or photoshopped pictures because of the
"veridicality", I understand it means truthiness, of pictues I expect you to
be the kind of person who does not appreciate how important pictures for
many people to have them understand a concept.
When you read the article about dyslexia, there is no picture and the text
is not written to explain, it is imho badly written and it can do with an
illustration or two. An encyclopaedia is to provide the basic information
and getting this information across is what Wikipedia should aim for.
Your requirement of truthiness does not consider what should be primary; do
we get the message across and will an illustration help.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 29 October 2010 16:14, Paul Houle <p...@ontology2.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 2:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I am writing a series of blog posts about Commons. My aim is to
> > identify the issues that I have with how it functions. There are
> > several and I do not bother to write about the ones that are being
> > tackled by the team around Guillaume (as far as it is clear to me what
> > they are doing).
> I have to admit that I strongly disagree with the blog post
>
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/10/stimulating-commons-stock-photo.html
>
> I think that photoshopped images like that one about Dyslexia have
> no place anywhere around wikipedia. An image like that just screams
> "lie", "false" and "designed to manipulate your emotions"; I see that
> and I think of a cheezy informerical for a phonics program that's going
> to cure your kid's dyslexia, or some foundation that takes donations to
> support the lifestyles of the people who run it. It's fundamentally
> dishonest.
>
> I'm not saying there's no art in that kind of thing, or that it
> doesn't have a place, but it's not in Wikipedia. If I saw this photo on
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
>
> I'd remove it. In my mind, images used on Wikipedia need to be
> veridical, which not all commercial illustration is (or needs to be.)
>
> As for the project of "better organizing images" that doesn't
> necessarily have to be done inside Commons, where a consensus-based
> culture might inhibit the ability to get things done. I'm taking a
> crack at it at
>
> http://ookaboo.com/
>
> That site is nowhere near where I plan it to be in a year, and in
> the long term it's going to take images in from other sources, but at
> the moment it's basically a collection of commons images organized a
> different way. I've got more navigational axes under development.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
