Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
> image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
> person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
>
> Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
> universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
> historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
>
> Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
> encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
> of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
> historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
> encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
> "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
>

It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
a damn.

Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...

Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?

Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.


Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Andrew Gray
On 05/02/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
> cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
> make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
> at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.

Here's one we face regularly for... well, for anyone still alive whose
prominence was in the 1960s or so.

Do we have a contemporary photograph of them, or one from their
heyday? How do we characterise them - the grand (or decayed!) old
figure, or the bright young thing?

Licensing issues, inevitably, point us towards a freely-created image,
which almost always means a new creation... but is that the best way
to present the article?

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Wily D
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Feb 4, 2008 7:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
> > image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
> > person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
> >
> > Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
> > universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
> > historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
> >
> > Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
> > encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
> > of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
> > historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
> > encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
> > "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
> >
>
> It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
> give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
> include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
> about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
> a damn.
>
> Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
> about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
> one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
> ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
> have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
> Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
> the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...
>
> Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
> his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
> a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
> what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?
>
> Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
> cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
> make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
> at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.
>
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
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.

WilyD

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

David Goodman
Perhaps because it has long been traditional to use such images in
print encyclopedias, and , though I think we never actually have said
so, we think of ourselves as a superset, including all their features,
and going on from there.

On Feb 5, 2008 7:59 AM, Wily D <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2008 7:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
> > > image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
> > > person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
> > >
> > > Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
> > > universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
> > > historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
> > >
> > > Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
> > > encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
> > > of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
> > > historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
> > > encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
> > > "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
> > >
> >
> > It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
> > give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
> > include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
> > about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
> > a damn.
> >
> > Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
> > about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
> > one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
> > ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
> > have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
> > Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
> > the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...
> >
> > Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
> > his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
> > a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
> > what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?
> >
> > Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
> > cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
> > make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
> > at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.
> >
> >
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> 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.
>
> WilyD
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Wily D
Wily D wrote:

> On Feb 4, 2008 7:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>    
>>> All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
>>> image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
>>> person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
>>>
>>> Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
>>> universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
>>> historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
>>>
>>> Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
>>> encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
>>> of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
>>> historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
>>> encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
>>> "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
>>>
>>>      
>> It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
>> give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
>> include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
>> about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
>> a damn.
>>
>> Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
>> about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
>> one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
>> ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
>> have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
>> Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
>> the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...
>>
>> Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
>> his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
>> a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
>> what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?
>>
>> Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
>> cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
>> make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
>> at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.
>>    
> 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.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Wily D
On Feb 5, 2008 2:56 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Wily D wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2008 7:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/5/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> All question of censorship aside, does it really make sense to have any
> >>> image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
> >>> person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
> >>> universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
> >>> historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
> >>>
> >>> Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
> >>> encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
> >>> of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
> >>> historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
> >>> encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
> >>> "historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's worse than that. We still have no overarching policy that would
> >> give us even *slight* guidance on what kind of imagery we should
> >> include on wikipedia beyond the licensing issues and vague talk
> >> about quality. There is no equivalent of NPOV for pictures worth
> >> a damn.
> >>
> >> Let's say we would like to have an image illustrating an article
> >> about Andy Warhols depictions of Marilyn Monroe, to pick a silly
> >> one with as few attached strings as possible. Which one of the
> >> ones he printed would be appropriate? Any of them? Should we
> >> have at least two, to give an idea of the variation between them.
> >> Should we depict fakes? Does it matter what the resolution of
> >> the images is? Assuming there would be no licensing issues...
> >>
> >> Should we be guided by what Andy Warhol himself considered
> >> his best copy of the Marilyn Image? Or by the auction price for
> >> a particular copy? Or the preponderance of critical opinion on
> >> what the most Ur-Marilyn-Copy is?
> >>
> >> Really it would help to approach images by starting with the
> >> cases that aren't so loaded with controversy. If you want to
> >> make progress unraveling difficult issues, start unraveling
> >> at a point where you can unravel at least a few loops.
> >>
> > 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.
>
> Ec
>
>
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?

Cheers
WilyD

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Ray Saintonge
Wily D wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2008 2:56 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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.

"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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Wily D
On Feb 5, 2008 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Wily D wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 2008 2:56 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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.

Cheers
WilyD

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Rich Holton
On Feb 5, 2008 4:34 PM, Wily D <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2008 4:47 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Wily D wrote:
> > > On Feb 5, 2008 2:56 PM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> 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.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
 
In a message dated 2/5/2008 7:34:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

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.>>


------------------------
Refactor to remove the word true.
 
We make sure that things which lack any evidence, are not presented as if  
they had evidence.
 
Is that what you mean?



**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.    
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
On 2/6/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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.

Actually, we attempt to cover most significant errors made by humanity.


Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Rich Holton
On Feb 5, 2008 10:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/6/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Actually, we attempt to cover most significant errors made by humanity.
>
> I was trying to be snappy and clever. Obviously I failed.

My point is that we don't intentionally include erroneous information. We do
include information about errors. We do include controversial claims with
references.

But we also include depictions of historical figures that we *know* are
false, that we *know* cannot possibly be true. But we include them on the
article about the person they erroneously depict, as though they accurately
depict them. And at least some people find this "useful".
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Mark
Rich Holton wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2008 10:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
> My point is that we don't intentionally include erroneous information. We do
> include information about errors. We do include controversial claims with
> references.
>
> But we also include depictions of historical figures that we *know* are
> false, that we *know* cannot possibly be true. But we include them on the
> article about the person they erroneously depict, as though they accurately
> depict them. And at least some people find this "useful".
>  
We don't use them "as though they accurately depict them", though. The
first image caption on [[Jesus]] explicitly points out that "though
depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record of
Jesus' appearance exists." Though repeating that verbiage over and over
would get tiresome, it might still be possible to improve the other
captions if that's your issue, such as by making sure to use something
phrases like "traditional depiction" and "Renaissance depiction" and so on.

This is hardly limited to religious figures in any case, but covers most
famous historical figures prior to sitting portraits becoming
commonplace. We have several depictions of [[Nebuchadrezzar II]], for
example, only one of which is even possibly accurate, but we point this
out as well. I don't see how the article would be improved by removing,
say, the William Blake drawing.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "I want to at least simplify the problem a bit."

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Rich Holton
Rich Holton wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2008 10:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> On 2/6/08, Rich Holton <[hidden email]> wrote
>>> 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.
>>>      
>> Actually, we attempt to cover most significant errors made by humanity.
>>
>> I was trying to be snappy and clever. Obviously I failed.
>>    
> My point is that we don't intentionally include erroneous information. We do
> include information about errors. We do include controversial claims with
> references.
>
> But we also include depictions of historical figures that we *know* are
> false, that we *know* cannot possibly be true. But we include them on the
> article about the person they erroneously depict, as though they accurately
> depict them. And at least some people find this "useful".
If some people find them "useful" what is the nature of that
usefulness?  If we know that a depiction is erroneous, we need to
express our doubts.  Those doubts are as important to NPOV as the
depiction itself.

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l