User:Crotalus horridus/Problems with Zombietime image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.
Shortcut:
WP:CH/PWZI

There has been a great deal of controversy, particularly on Talk:New antisemitism, regarding the inclusion of a photograph allegedly taken at a San Francisco anti-war rally in 2003.

Contents

[edit] Background

The image was taken by "zombie," the pseudonymous author of a Web site called Zombietime. There has been some controversy as to the exact nature of this material. According to the author, "Zombietime is not a blog. It is simply a Web site."[1] Nonetheless, it has been described in reliable sources as a blog.[2][3][4]

According to its description page, the image in question was uploaded to Wikipedia on August 30, 2006. It is currently used in three articles: New antisemitism, Anti-globalization and antisemitism, and Zombietime. In all three articles, it has been prominently placed in the lead.

The image is deployed under a claim of fair use. Although "zombie" has given authorization for his photograph to be used under a CC-BY license, the photograph is a derivative work of the poster which comprises the majority of the frame. The artist who drew the poster has not provided a valid free license for the image contained therein. Although the artist's name is not specified on the image description page, a statement says that it is "available upon request."

The inclusion of this image has been controversial, with some users opposing its inclusion while others just as adamantly defend it. The opposition case was summed up pithily by G-Dett, who described the photograph as "a crazy image of Jewish devils torching the globe — an image whose economy of distribution (before Wikipedia got its hands on it) consisted of having been designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third."[5]

[edit] Problems with the image

The inclusion of the Zombietime image, especially on the New antisemitism article, is highly problematic. Our three core content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The current use of the Zombietime photograph doesn't just violate one of these principles; it violates all three.

[edit] Neutral point of view

The Wikimedia Foundation mandates "neutral point of view as the guiding editorial principle."[6] According to the policy page, "We are supposed to "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." We are also required to avoid giving undue weight to fringe and minority views. Moreover, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints."

Placing the Zombietime photograph in the lead of New antisemitism, in particular, violates the neutrality policy. As discussed in that article, the very existence of "new antisemitism" as a real phenomenon is disputed by several reliable sources. Norman Finkelstein, in particular, has written that the concept is simply a shield to "immunize Israel against criticism."[7] Brian Klug argues that "new antisemitism" is actually a conflation of several different phenomena, that the use of the term is unhelpful, and that, as a result of this discourse, "legitimate moral and political views about Israel and Zionism" have been "branded anti-Semitic."[8] Of course, other prominent commentators, such as Abraham Foxman and Alan Dershowitz, disagree with this analysis. Nonetheless, our encyclopedic responsibility is to present all such views in a neutral manner, in accordance with their prominence and weight in the reliable sources.

Placing the Zombietime photograph in the lead of New antisemitism fails Wikipedia's neutrality obligations. It essentially says, in the encyclopedic voice, that new antisemitism does exist and that this poster is an example of it. The caption says, without qualification, that "this placard mixes anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-globalization imagery with classic antisemitic motifs." Several sources are cited for these assertions, but most of them are blogs or other unverifiable Web sites.

Perhaps more importantly, the use of this image clearly violates the policy on undue weight. It is currently featured prominently in the lead of three different articles. Moreover, depending on the revision, the caption often contains a link to either the Zombietime article or to the website itself. Currently, if an average user goes to Google and types in "new antisemitism" (with or without quotes), they will be directed to the Wikipedia article as the first hit. This article then prominently displays a disgusting fringe placard which has virtually no notability outside of Wikipedia itself. In contrast, a controversial New Statesman cover image, which has been specifically discussed in multiple reliable sources as a possible example of new antisemitism, is much smaller and much further down in the article. This placement of the image prioritizes a fringe website above an editorial by a prominent commentator in a major U.S. news magazine[9] and a book by a scholarly publishing house,[10] which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutrality rules.

A few editors have advocated the inclusion of the image specifically because of its shock value and emotive content. One argued that "[g]ood images invoke an emotional response; that's one of the main things that makes them good," and described the Zombietime image as an "[o]bviously relevant and striking image – thus the multiple attempts to get rid of it. It strikes a bit close to home, as a good image should."[11] Another has stated "this image communicates its viewpoint effectively in a way that words simply cannot.'[12] Using an image in this manner to achieve an emotional effect may (or may not) be appropriate in some forms of journalism, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that strives to adhere to the neutral point of view.

[edit] Verifiability

Zombietime is clearly not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. The Wikipedia policy on verifiability states that "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Such sources may only be used in a few carefully delimited circumstances, none of which apply to this image. Whether or not it is a blog, Zombietime is unquestionably self-published.

The policy section on questionable sources is particularly of interest here: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." An editor for The Australian who attempted to use Zombietime as a source was severely criticized by other newspapermen for having done so, and the information in question was later found to be untrue.[2] Wikipedia standards should be no lower than those expected of mainstream newspapers; indeed, as an encyclopedia, we should strive to set the bar higher.

The verifiability policy dovetails with neutrality, and the wording of the page reiterates the importance of not giving undue weight to fringe sources. Zombietime's actions indicate that it is a deeply biased and sensationalist source; for instance, the author keeps an extensive gallery of "Unflattering Hillary Clinton Photos."[13]

[edit] No original research

Wikipedia's policy forbids the inclusion of original research in articles. This is defined as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." (Emphasis added.) There is a partial exemption to this policy for photographs and other images. However, the wording of this exemption indicates that it does not apply in this case. According to the exemption, "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles." However, this picture is not under a free license; it is included under a claim of fair use. The following sentence reiterates this: "Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role." This image was not taken by a Wikipedia editor and is not under a free license, so the exemption does not apply. Furthermore, "A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. [...] Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed."

The use of this image on New antisemitism constitutes original research in a manner forbidden by Wikipedia policy and not covered by the narrow exemption for free images. There has been extensive dispute on the article Talk page over whether the image constitutes new antisemitism, classical antisemitism, or something else. This would not be an issue if we had sources discussing the image, as we do with the New Statesman cover; in that case, we could simply summarize what was said in reliable sources, and the personal opinions of editors would be irrelevant. With the Zombietime photograph, however, there are no reliable sources discussing the image in the context of new antisemitism. Classifying the image as new antisemitism without a source therefore constitutes forbidden original research. This photograph is a primary source, and, as such, we can "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." In this case, reasonable and educated people disagree whether the image is an example of new antisemitism, and we have no reliable secondary source to clear up the issue.

[edit] Conclusion

Ideally, this image should be deleted entirely. Should that not prove feasible, it should at least be removed from the New antisemitism article, where its presence is especially inappropriate and in flagrant violation of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Zombietime, a fringe self-published website, is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference for anything on Wikipedia except its own article. This includes both text and images.

Verifiability applies to "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged." There is no exclusion for photographs. No original research has a narrow exception for noncontroversial, free-content images produced by Wikipedia editors, but this does not apply here.

[edit] References

  1. ^ zombie (2006-08-23). The Red Cross Ambulance Incident. Zombietime. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  2. ^ a b Dodd, Mark (2006-08-31). Downer blogged down on hoax. The Australian. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. “He based his charge on an account in the anonymous blog zombietime.com.”
  3. ^ Lucchino, Jennifer (2005-09-15). Design Unveiled for Shanksville, PA's Flight 93 Memorial. Architectural Record. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. “As noted on the conservative blog Zombietime...”
  4. ^ Chandler, Jo (2006-09-02). Right-wing 'Zombie' taunts foes on the web. The Age. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. “He (zombie) claims to be a 'photoblogger' who lives in San Francisco.”
  5. ^ G-Dett (2008-01-06). Suggestion for moving forward. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  6. ^ Various authors. Meta: Foundation issues. Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  7. ^ Finkelstein, Norman (2005). Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. University of California Press, 21-22. ISBN 0520245989. 
  8. ^ Klug, Brian (2006-03-17). In search of clarity: Brian Klug defines anti-Semitism. Catalyst Forum. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.
  9. ^ Zuckerman, Mortimer B. (2003-03-11). Graffiti on History's Walls. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved on 2008-01-12.
  10. ^ Harrison, Bernard (2006). The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742552276. 
  11. ^ Jayjg (2008-01-04). Keep in lede. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. “Obviously relevant and striking image [...] It strikes a bit close to home”
  12. ^ Custodiet ipsos custodes (2007-12-17). Keep. Retrieved on 2008-01-13. “I would add that just looking at the image makes me squirm - that tells me that this image communicates its viewpoint effectively in a way that words simply cannot.”
  13. ^ zombie. The Really Truly Hillary Gallery. Zombietime. Retrieved on 2008-01-13.