Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Well, you need to be clear that you're using the word "neutral" here with a > different meaning than the one ascribed to it in NPOV policy. > > Neutrality is not abstractly defined: like notability or verifiability, it > has a very specific meaning within Wikipedia policy. That meaning is > irrevocably tied to reliable sources. > > Neutrality consists in our reflecting fairly, proportionately, and without > bias, > how reliable sources treat a subject.
Again, reflecting views != adopting views as our own. We're going around in circles, so I don't care to elaborate again. > Your assumption that reliably published sources do not publish the images you > have in mind here because they do not wish to upset people is unexamined, and > disregards other considerations – of aesthetics, didactics, psychology, > professionalism, educational value, quality of execution, and others. I referred to a scenario in which an illustration is omitted because of a belief that its inclusion would upset people, but I do *not* assume that this is the only possible rationale. I also don't advocate that every relevant image be shoehorned into an article. (Many are of relatively low quality and/or redundant to others.) My point is merely that "it upsets people" isn't a valid reason for us to omit an image. As our image availability differs from that of most publications (i.e. we can't simply duplicate the pictures that they run), we *always* must evaluate — using the most objective criteria possible — how well an image illustrates its subject. It's impossible to eliminate all subjectivity, but we do our best. > It also disregards the possibility that Wikipedians may wish to include > images for other reasons than simply to educate the reader – because they > like the images, find them attractive, wish to shock, and so forth. No, I don't disregard that possibility. Such problems arise with text too. > Basically, you are positing that whatever you like, or the community likes, > is neutral. :) If you were familiar with my on-wiki rants, you wouldn't have written that. > > 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"? Please answer the above question. > You said in an earlier mail that in writing our texts, our job is to > neutrally reflect the real-world balance, *including* any presumed biases. I > agree with that. Yes, our content reflects the biases' existence. It does *not* affirm their correctness. David Levy _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
