As just one clarification... when I suggest we need to spell out our neutrality explicitly, I don't mean it to sound like I am assuming a dumb audience. That's not true at all. But if the "neutrality" comes from someone having to have a meta-view of the image -- "Oh, what an interesting image. When I look at it, I see it as anti-Semitism, but others would say it is only anti-Zionism. How clever." -- I don't think that's neutral. For one thing, the ambiguity of the image -- the entire claim for it being a good illustration up there -- is exactly one of the reasons that such ambiguity needs to be outlined explicitly (if we know someone is likely to interpret only one POV in the image, we need to point out that we don't mean for there to be only one POV in the image). A less-charged analogy would be using the picture of the famous Duck-Rabbit illusion (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg) to illustrate the article on "Rabbit", with a caption saying, "A famous picture of a rabbit." Now, one could argue that the point of using the image would be to show the reader that a picture of rabbit could also look like a duck, but by not spelling that out explicitly, and using it at the top of an article called "Rabbit," I think we are easily sending the message that the illustration is of a Rabbit. Whether or not we are worried about prejudicing the reader -- who cares, in this case -- the real problem is that it looks like Wikipedia is taking a stance on the issue. Now, if we changed to caption to, "In the famous duck-rabbit illustration, one can see a duck or a rabbit," then it is made perfectly clear. It isn't dumbing it down at all, it is just making explicit the point of putting the image in the article, and making it clear that Wikipedia itself is not taking a position on the issue. It is also a better caption, if that is what the image is meant to represent. "A picture of a rabbit," is actually NOT descriptive of the image, if it is being used to illustrate conceptual ambiguity. If it isn't obvious to numerous editors that something is neutral -- and I think it is clear from the dispute that it is not obvious in the case of the new anti-Semitism image -- then it is probably safe to assume that it is NOT neutral. In this case I think a slight tweaking of the caption would fix it perfectly and bring it into line with our stated goal of neutrality, without stepping on anyone's toes. FF

On 8/27/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't make me attempt to understand anything of the bizarre last 100 messages or so. You're all crazy. Steve

Scott Stevenson <wikinetscott(a)gmail.com> wrote: A separate policy page is probably not needed. It would make an excellent addition as an example page. NPOV already is supposed to apply to all content, that seems fairly obvious in the nutshell portion, though it may be helpful to add "images" to the "includes" list. The only other place "images" are explicitly mentioned is in the Undue Weight section. Mentioning it in a more visible space seems like minimal instruction creep and, I agree, apparently is needed. Removing the examples from the nutshell portion and replacing them with "ALL content" would fix that, unless NPOV is supposed to be applied selectively to content. I had thought that "All Wikipedia articles" covered all content, but apparently "written" is taken in the most restrictive lawyer- loop-hole sense.

On 27/08/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: And it'll need regular pruning per [[m:instruction creep]] - it's a very bad place to blur the distinction between the policy and the guidelines on implementing that policy. The policy is simple and hard to argue, but some people unfortunately appear to consider they can weasel past it if they add enough rubbish to the guidelines. Not that I've seen it repeatedly. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I don't know. Sometimes expanding upon a policy or making clear how it applies in certain cases can be clarifying. I find the current NPOV FAQ section to be very helpful in discussing NPOV with people new to it. An alternative approach is to consider policy somewhat analogous to case law. Without stating that all decisions are prescriptive towards future decisions (I doubt anyone wants to pretend that Wikipedia decision-making is anywhere near as pretentious about its universality as the US court system pretends to be, though isn't), having a list of "here's one issue that was relatively important, and here's how it was satisfied to most people's satisfaction" might serve as a way of defusing future conflicts.