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 detected that the audio was edited, there's no telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we should strive for as a community.
-Mike
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < [email protected]> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow [email protected]:
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 commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
I would certainly like this very much in many circumstances, but I would not love that unconditionnally.
EXAMPLE 1 Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing because the original crop was too tight. I think that it makes for a better photograph for an encyclopedic purpose, but the nature of the manipulation was exactly that of the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy ) Am I being dishonnest when I publish this photograph, or is it OK because it is for encyclopedic purposes? But then, where is the limit? The US Army has been involved in several incidents where such manipulations on innocent images created minor scandals ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738342.stm and http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/photo_database/image/us_army_releases_doc... ), so this can clearly become a problem more quickly than anticipated.
EXAMPLE 2 Speaking of the US Military, what should be think, for instance, of images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_W_Bush_on_the_deck_of_the_USS_... ? How does this image fare with respect to rules 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 ? There are gazillions of such examples. This should suggest that either these rules are not taken seriously by photojournalists, or they are lax to the point of near irrelevance. I have seen Wikipedia singled out for shortcomings shared by traditional encyclopedias often enough, I do not want this to begin with Commons too.
In conclusion, I think that because we are not only photojournalists but also encyclopedists, these rules are not always well suited to us; and when they are, it would be good to remind that we will shall not be more bound to these than photojournalists of the mainstream media are. And then, yes, they are most admirable ideals towards which photographers should strive.
-- Rama
On 22/04/2009, Mike.lifeguard [email protected] wrote:
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 detected that the audio was edited, there's no telling what the audio should have been, and whether the editing was deceptive. So, as a practical matter, I don't see that this is easily resolved. As a matter of principle, I think these represent an ideal we should strive for as a community.
-Mike
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 12:57 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Brianna Laugher < [email protected]> wrote:
2009/4/21 Michael Snow [email protected]:
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 commitment to maintaining a neutral point of view.
I find it a bit strange to talk of Wikimedia Commons as having a NPOV policy.
Should commons allow images which are biased?
More concretely, in terms of photography, should photographs adhere to the standards of ethics adopted by photojournalists?
Here's the NPPA Code of ethics:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Resist being manipulated by staged photo opportunities.
- Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording
subjects. Avoid stereotyping individuals and groups. Recognize and work to avoid presenting one's own biases in the work. 4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see. 5. While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events. 6. Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects. 7. Do not pay sources or subjects or reward them materially for information or participation. 8. Do not accept gifts, favors, or compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage. 9. Do not intentionally sabotage the efforts of other journalists.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with neutrality. Should they apply to photos made for commons?
2009/4/22 Rama Neko [email protected]:
EXAMPLE 1 Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing because the original crop was too tight. I think that it makes for a better photograph for an encyclopedic purpose, but the nature of the manipulation was exactly that of the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy ) Am I being dishonnest when I publish this photograph, or is it OK because it is for encyclopedic purposes? But then, where is the limit?
If actually editing an image (not merely adjusting levels, but actually changing the content of the picture), I would expect that people would detail all doctoring on the image page, and also upload the undoctored version and link it from the edited image as "original version".
- d.
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing
If actually editing an image (not merely adjusting levels, but actually changing the content of the picture), I would expect that people would detail all doctoring on the image page, and also upload the undoctored version and link it from the edited image as "original version".
Exactly. Which is what we have {{RetouchedPicture}} for!
David Gerard a écrit :
2009/4/22 Rama Neko [email protected]:
EXAMPLE 1 Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing because the original crop was too tight. I think that it makes for a better photograph for an encyclopedic purpose, but the nature of the manipulation was exactly that of the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy ) Am I being dishonnest when I publish this photograph, or is it OK because it is for encyclopedic purposes? But then, where is the limit?
If actually editing an image (not merely adjusting levels, but actually changing the content of the picture), I would expect that people would detail all doctoring on the image page, and also upload the undoctored version and link it from the edited image as "original version".
Actually I'd expect exactly the contrary: leave the original as it is and upload the retouched version as a new file.
Eusebius
Sorry but I am afraid that the point got missed a little bit. The core of my remark is that we do not always act as amateur photojournalists. I am concerned that we start applying standards (or ideals, rather...) of photojournalism to documents which are not. What I have seen of criticisms of Wikipedia gives me concerns that there could be massive and unfair criticism of Commons for hosting both photojournalism images and encyclopedic documents, if we encouraged people to consider us to be journalists. For the best and the worst, we are not journalists. Using the "digitally altered images" template on all and every image seems to me as an intrusion of photojournalism precautions into the realm of encyclopedic documents. It is a good thing to use it, but many will not bother, and legitimately so. -- Rama
On 22/04/2009, Eusebius [email protected] wrote:
David Gerard a écrit :
2009/4/22 Rama Neko [email protected]:
EXAMPLE 1 Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dnepr_motorcycle_IMG_1586.JPG I have edited this image to remove a pavement which I found distracting, and recreate a part of the front wheel which was missing because the original crop was too tight. I think that it makes for a better photograph for an encyclopedic purpose, but the nature of the manipulation was exactly that of the "Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy ) Am I being dishonnest when I publish this photograph, or is it OK because it is for encyclopedic purposes? But then, where is the limit?
If actually editing an image (not merely adjusting levels, but actually changing the content of the picture), I would expect that people would detail all doctoring on the image page, and also upload the undoctored version and link it from the edited image as "original version".
Actually I'd expect exactly the contrary: leave the original as it is and upload the retouched version as a new file.
Eusebius