User talk:Jason Quinn/NPOV is a problem for images
Portraits
editI have some problems with your article on portraits, to not use professional head shots. Of course, the shots are normally intended to represent them at their best, but if they are public figures, their formal public appearances will also be arranged and prepared for so they can appear at their best, and this is the way the ordinary public will see them. It is much more likely to be a candid shot which is unrecognizable. What I think the best option is a high quality photograph showing them doing something characteristic of their notability during real life, A photograph of a politician making a speech is an example--they will be carefully groomed for the purpose, but making a speech is what politicians characteristically do in their profession. An ideal photograph of an actor might be one taken during the production of a film: certainly it will be prepared for, and the studio will not be releasing ones that show them at a bad moment, but it shows them doing what they are notable for. Many of our shots of such celebrities are when they are on the red carpet during a ceremony of some sort--but that is what celebrities do. An athlete during a game is ideal also, and there is no reason not to use whatever one shows them looking at their best. (Another approach is using two photographs, one being a prepared professional photograph and one being a high quality candid.)
A particularly bad practice that should be mentioned is using mug shots of celebrities during their arrests for some violation. Even for serious criminals, I'd rather use a photograph during a court appearance than a mug shot at the police station. The principle here is NOT TABLOID DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I was wondering if anybody would comment on this essay. You're the first.
- I only said Wikipedia should "avoid overly professional photos", not that they shouldn't be used. I did however say that shots submitted by public relation agents, which would in practice always be professional, should be "unacceptable". In total, those are slightly weaker statements than professional head shots should not be used. But I agree completely that this topic alone deserves a large amount of discussion and maybe I should adjust my wording. My current opinion is not set in stone and too underdeveloped to be blanket statements rather than just anchor points.
- As for public figures, I wouldn't agree that their professions automatically qualify them to use the best photo possible. But I do agree that using a representative photo makes sense. For instance, as you suggest, those of a politician given a speech, an actor on set or during an event, or an athlete during a game are ideal. These are still far from the "publicity" shots which I am quite against. The key difference is that the these shots, although they may be professionally shot and touched up, will usually contain an element of candidness and context that justifies their use.
- As for mug shots of celebrities, these are the type that probably run into the type not bad faith that I discuss. It's an excellent example and I will add it to the essay. Clearly there are circumstances where it makes sense, for instance with people who's notability rests largely on the infamy of a crime they committed. Then you have those people like Linsey Lohan and Paris Hilton for whom its not clear if a mug shot would be appropriate or inappropriate in their article.
- Thanks for the excellent ideas and thought. The main goal of the essay is just to get people to think about pictures in a way that pays attention to ideas like neutrality. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
When I read the part about firms uploading favorable photos I couldn't help thinking "awesome, maybe we should be inviting them to give us free highly-professional images for our articles". Chuckle. But yeah, when we have multiple photos to chose from there is an almost endless range of factors that affect selection. I just sum it up as "the most Encyclopedic image". First ask what is the purpose of the image, then determine which image best fulfills that purpose. With the Beijing-smog example, generally the smog-free image gives the clearest view of the subject and should be used. However you did motivate me to check that the Beijing article did have a suitably illustrated smog section. Heh. When it comes to celebrities their primary public persona often *is* the glamor-shot, which definitely belongs in the lede. If the article has a section on an arrest incident then is is absolutely appropriate to illustrate that section with a police mugshot. If you can articulate the purpose for an particular image-slot then you have largely solved the selection question. Clearly articulating the purpose for an image-position is a powerful way to winning over other editors. When I participated in an Images of Muhammad(!) article conflict, we had an overabundance of images and an essentially fixed set of positions for them. Some sections of text implied a clear "purpose" for the image at that position, and we found the most informative or most representative image to serve that text. Among the remaining images we identified significant categories of images, and then selected the best example for each category. Those images were used to fill the remaining image slots. Clearly stating the purpose of each image was the key. Alsee (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Research
editI note that it seems you have not touched this draft since 2021, and a simple search did not reflect your draft being published, officially, yet.
May I revive your interest, and, also recommend supplemental materials:
- Barack Obama "Hope" poster, the good
- Barack Obama "Joker" poster, the bad
- List of photograph manipulation incidents (OJ Simpson comes to mind), and the, oh so, ugly