The Signpost has a nice write up with arguments used to argue why leaked documents should or should not be used. What I am missing is perspective; it is not even necessary to quote WikiLeaks as it is renowned publishers like the New York Times who are co-publishers and who put their reputation on the line by publishing this material. When this is not accepted as source material, it becomes even more problematic to accept material from Fox. They are KNOWN to intentionally misrepresent the facts.
Disallowing WikiLeaks material will also damage the basic principle of the neutral point of view. Commons featured picture candidate process again proves to be misnomer; it should be the Commons featured pretty photo candidate process. The quality of the arguments used is the best indicator for its bias.
Thanks,
GerardM
I would have voted against the picture, not for any political reasons (I support Wikileaks), but because it is a cheap knock-off of another famous picture, and doesn't really havy any merit of its own. I mean, there are generators on the web that lets *anyone* create a picture like that, so it is nothing special at all. If you want a featured picture of Assange that bad, you should spend some time trying to get a good freely licensed portrait of him on Commons instead of bickering about this particular image. Sure, some of the delete reasons are irrelevant as to the assessing of the quality of the image, but that doesn't change that the quality of the image isn't that good.
ReplyDeleteYeah, american honour doesn't have the u in it :P
ReplyDeleteWhat I care about is not so much this picture but the absurd arguments used.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this, multiple categories of pictures are not getting the life of day.
Thanks,
GerardM