Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as
>> a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the
>> scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine
>>
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
> > 1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
>
> Since for many pictures the subject is what happens to be represented
> on the photograph, this is mostly vacuous. As an example, a journalist
> going to a protest ma
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
>
> 1. Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
> 2. Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
> 3. Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
> sub
I'm not sure what the answer is, and I agree with you that it's not easily
resolved, but it seems to me that some sort of neutrality policy ought to
apply to Commons.
In my opinion the universal form of the NPOV policy is simple - be honest.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Mike.lifeguard
wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/22 Milos Rancic
>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
>> literature starts with 20-30 pages
2009/4/22 Samuel Klein :
> Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use
> as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or
> context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same
> self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Some of the NPOV-related problems may be solved by talking about
> context. If we say that a single piece of art (or propaganda or
> whatever) is not a context, then problems related to Commons are
> solved.
Yes. Context is relevant to any
Nemo_bis, 22/04/2009 23:49:
> this NPOV policy has been really useful on it.wikiquote.
I forgot to mention that we have also policies on original research
(http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:NRO) and notability
(http://it.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Wikiquote#Significativit.C3.A0):
it was very use
Michael Snow, 22/04/2009 06:52:
> For example, in Wikiquote, I think an expression of neutral point of
> view would be to focus on the question of what is actually "quotable".
Read more here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view_on_Wikiquote
Regrettably, en.wikiquote does not ha
I would love to see these adopted for Commons photographers. The issue
will become knowing when these principles are being violated. For
example, if you're going to alter audio to serve your own POV, you're
not going to make it obvious you've done so. Detection is one problem,
but even if you've de
Hoi,
There is a difference between the way photo journalists work and the way
most of the illustrations come to Commons. The NPPA code of ethics are
clearly written for active press journalists. They get paid for what they
do. Also the NPPA is a USA national entity and consequently their rules do
n
--- On Wed, 4/22/09, Ting Chen wrote:
> From: Ting Chen
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NPOV as common value? (was Re: Board statement
> regarding biographies of living people)
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2009, 6:11 AM
>
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic :
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
>>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
>>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Gre
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher <
> brianna.laug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow :
>> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
>> > principles related to our shared vision, missio
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow :
> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core
> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of
> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitm
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
>> countries during 50s and 60s: A (very good) book about ancient Greek
>> literature starts with 20
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> I think the point is to have whatever would be the locally relevant
> version of neutrality. On Wikipedia it's NPOV. On Commons or
> Wikisource, I expect it would be neutrality of subject matter. Etc.
> The key point would be (something like)
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic :
> NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the
> cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even
> called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach
> because it is a journalistic one.
And even then, some of
2009/4/22 Ting Chen :
> NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks
> and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which
> explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of
> Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal o
Hallo Brianna,
NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks
and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which
explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of
Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal of NPOV: It
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Scientific? Is there something scientific about neutral point of view as
> a framework for Wikipedia, even? It has some similarities to the
> scientific method, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's what we imagine
> ourselves to be doing. Scienc
Milos Rancic wrote:
> In relation to your Wikiquote example, I think that you were talking
> there about notability, not about NPOV.
>
To the extent that notability has any value for us at all as a concept,
it is only because it draws on the principle of a neutral point of view.
Applying quota
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable
>> (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new,
>> which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable
> (which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new,
> which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
>
> 2009/4/21 Michael Snow :
>
>> The Wikimedia Foundati
Hi,
I think the Board's statement is quite commendable if unremarkable
(which is I guess part of the reason for the silence - nothing new,
which is as it should be!). Only one comment actually surprised me.
2009/4/21 Michael Snow :
> The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate so
25 matches
Mail list logo
