User talk:PatríciaR/NPOV

See Commons:Nudity for some more stuff (especially the talk page). // Liftarn

Reasons why when need a written policy

NPOV is a Foundation issue and applies to all Wikimedia projects, and many of them have their own adapted version. Commons is unique for obvious reasons and need for a formal policy isn't as strong, yet issues do arise occasionally. The files themselves do not have to be NPOV, but it should be exhibited in the following areas:

• Galleries
• Image descriptions
• Category pages (and how we categorize)

The details of how and to what extent are the parts we need to define. Rocket000 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All in all, it comes down to common sense, doesn't it? If certain images perceived as derogatory by some are to be put in gallery pages, then it should be stated that they are satirical/derogatory/etc, not for the sake of "oh we're so NPOV", but for the sake of good description. However, such pages should have some balance in their contents. An excess of derogatory pictures in a gallery may not be desirable if the main purpose of the gallery isn't the demonstration of the satire. Galleries are there to collect different types of pictures, not to substitute categories.

As for categorization... it seems reasonable to not have adjectival categories, for example. And if there is no consensus about the NPOV state of a category, then the category shouldn't exist.

In image descriptions... yes, I think it would be desirable to avoid a very partial description; I've seen descriptions such as "the most beautiful [insert image theme here] in the world!!!". I think it's ok to have an artistic interpretation, "a beautiful sunset", "a charming street"), but no radicalisms. Patrícia ^msg 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think not labeling images "satirical/derogatory/etc" is the NPOV approach. We don't need to comment on how the images are perceived. This can vary from one person to the next. That's why disclaimers are not used in Wikipedia articles. What's offensive to one person may not be to the next. We have Commons:General disclaimer on the bottom of every page, and that's enough. We should simply describe objective facts about the images (and not the subject in general). Things like "this image is offensive to Jews because..." Let Wikipedia and other wikis talk about how and why some images may be offensive. That's their job; our job is to host the images.

I agree completely with everything else you said. I'm cool with artistic interpretations like "beautiful sunset" too. These aren't controversial POVs, and although biased, won't be taken as fact. Humans are emotional creatures and descriptions like that are expected. If someone feels the need to remove adjectives like "beautiful", let them. No big deal. I personally wouldn't go out of my way to correct these even if it was made policy. I see this as one area where we differ from Wikipedia and their words to avoid. Our purpose is different. We deal with images and not articles, it's only natural to be a little more aesthetic-sensitive. - Rocket000 14:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes to self

• Add something about religious symbols (Muhammad depictions)
• QI and FP are a good part about aesthetics, so discussions don't have to be NPOV in that sense
• Discussions in general exist to present points of view -> you don't have to be NPOV but you should be fair