Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

[edit]

The content about NPOV is terrible and presents WP as though we are a newspaper that gives all sides equal WEIGHT. See especially the content about vaccines starting at about 1:15. This should be deleted and should not be used to educate anyone - it is exactly wrong about NPOV and the PSCI section of NPOV. See discussion at WT:MED here Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Was ok until quite near the end, when it advocated an approach that would create false balance about a topic that some lay people consider controversial, but about which essentially all reliable sources are in agreement. I commend the overall approach of explaining Wikipedia editing in a short, user-friendly video, but unfortunately this particular video could do more harm than good. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great. And what about making the new one since it is used as instruction about citing? Dominikmatus (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes the recommendation to given a fringe point of view equal weight is not good. Not good with views but either needs to be replaced or deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an embarrassment that this was created by the WMF with a kind of false equivalency given between public health and vaccine denial. Incredible! I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as a physician I can vouch for the importance of avoiding support for anti-vaccination (i.e. fringe) views, to which illness and death have been attributed (avoidance of vaccination is a real danger to public health). It would be great if WMF creates a replacement, but that should not be a predicate for deletion since the content is unacceptable. — soupvector (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *facepalm* The style of this video is a cute idea, but they really couldn't have chosen a worse example. If there's a re-do, it would be a good idea to first show the proposed text to editors who know the subject area of the new example to make sure it's presented in a reasonable way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per reasons given above, fringe POV --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no love for this video's choice of examples, but I'm not seeing any valid rationales in this vote. So: Welcome to Commons, people. Note that Commons' so-called "NPOV policy" looks nothing like what you're used to, and that an argument that an image doesn't meet policies at one of the hundreds of other WMF wikis – or even at all of them – is not actually considered a valid rationale for deletion. Commons does not normally delete images because someone says that they "wrong" or contain "fringe" material. This means that your potentially relevant options for deletion rationales on Commons are the following:
    • Missing or bad licensing information (always something that can be considered)
    • Out of scope – but note that the COM:INUSE section explicitly rejects the deletion of any file that's in use at any WMF wiki on grounds of "poor quality" (which is what you're all arguing for), so that's unlikely to be successful.
    • Not educationally useful (e.g., photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps, your own artwork, blurry photos, mediocre snapshots of things we already have good images for, etc.) – but you're going to run into the same problem with COM:INUSE here.
  • I could be wrong, but it's not clear to me that there is actually any valid rationale for deletion under Commons' policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there was ever a time to IAR it is here. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is incorrect it is not educationally useful and is in fact dis-useful if used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual policy here at Commons does not agree with your POV. The actual policy says "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose... Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." And COM:NPOV says "A file that is in good faith use on another Wikimedia project is, by that very fact, considered useful for an educational purpose and is not liable to deletion on the grounds that it is "wrong" in some way."
        So, sure, the simplistic explanation could be an educational problem, but it's officially an Educationally Useful™ file as those words are defined in Commons' policies on the subject. I don't believe that anyone has yet found a deletion rationale that's actually valid under Commons' policies (which, again, are not the English Wikipedia's policies). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have time at the moment to look in detail at the full (long) list of uses, but spot-checking the first few pages, I'm only seeing user-talkpage messages, possibly via a template for this context. If there is a template doing that on en.wp, someone on en.wp can make an editorial decision to remove it from that template. Are usertalk pages sufficient for COM:INUSE, which states "an image is in use on a 'non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." (emphasis mine)? I can't actually watch the video, so two brainstorms: First, is the whole content objectionable, or would it suffice to, say, rip out the last 0:30 (an editorial action in keeping with the license, etc.) in order to get something that can remain until someone creates something actually good? And second, could the content be construed to be offering any sort of medical advice, especially making some recommendation (by virtue of writing content on a site such as en.wp that does require en:WP:NPOV/etc)? If so, that might make it deletable under en:Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer if commons has such a thing or as embodying violation of that and similar policies. DMacks (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • A complete transcript is on the description page. The objections are to a single bit: And if there is an opposing view, it should also be included. For example, a quote from a reputable source like "Critics claim that vaccinations have never benefited public health" helps to balance the article and keep it neutral. This is a bit oversimplified – if there is a significant opposing view, then it should be included – but people are mostly objecting to the idea that anti-vax position should be used as an example of an "opposing view". (Don't bother looking; of course w:en:Vaccination contains a paragraph that says something similar, only with a longer list of objections. The article wouldn't comply with NPOV if it didn't acknowledge the existence of the anti-vaxxers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • DMacks, I looked through the global use, and it's beyond userspace and talk pages, although some, ah, reduction of use has been arranged at the English Wikipedia. However, there are still, e.g., 24 non-user and non-talk pages at Meta that include this video, four at the Portugese Wikipedia, and still a few at the English Wikipedia, such as w:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/New editors. It's also in the official NPOV policy itself at two Wikipedias (at least). I think this qualifies as "INUSE" as far as Commons is concerned.
            If the English Wikipedia doesn't want it, do you think it would work to provide a local file under the same name, more or less to break the links/salt the title for their wiki? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • WAID there are four levels of problems with it. 1) It completely misleads new editors about NPOV, one of the hardest concepts for new editors to wrap their heads around. 2) It not only teaches that we treat all views as equal, it 3) even violates PSCI and says we give FRINGE views equal WEIGHT. And 4) the specific FRINGE example it uses is vaccine fraud, which actually harms public health. It should never have existed. Jytdog 16:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think I completely agree with you. Here's my impression:
              1. It has the potential to mislead some new editors about NPOV, because they may not grasp the subtle differences between "Critics say that they're a pack of innumerate idiots" (I paraphrase liberally, but accurately, I believe  ;-) and "There really is no public health benefit from immunization (just like those innumerate idiots claim)".
              2. It does not directly address the question of whether all views should be treated equally, although the "balance" imagery implies that. It does a poor job of differentiating "you should only include significant minority POVs" from "you should include every possible minority POV". In this, it oversimplifies in a way that probably works well for, say, political elections but not so well for, say, vaccinations.
              3. It does not address the question of how to treat FRINGE views at all. IMO this makes it incomplete and oversimplified, not "wrong". NB that it is not a FRINGE view that vaccine critics say things like "there is no public health benefit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
all i can say to that is . I have no idea why are you defending this when the guy who uploaded it has been busy taking it down. It is completely misleading about what NPOV means. It leads an uninformed audience (which is obviously the intended audience) that NPOV = equal balance is which is absolutely wrong and what is worse, that is the assumption people already make when they come, and this only reinforces that. It is harmful because of that - it makes the job of teaching what NPOV actually means harder. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's flawed, and probably shouldn't be used introducing NPOV to newcomers, but it's something that was shown to a lot of newcomers in the past as part of training and onboarding flows. (Wiki Education Foundation used it until last year, and it was used for en.wiki Education Program trainings before that.) Even if only to preserve the history of how it was used, I think this should not be deleted.--ragesoss (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A video giving credence to one of the single biggest problems we encounter - en:WP:UNDUE - is particularly unhelpful. Its existence on this site is merely an invitation to any POV-pusher to make use of it to promote their fringe viewpoint. It needs to go. And just to be clear: my deletion rationale is based upon Commons:Project scope. This file is out of scope for Commons because it fails COM:EDUSE, as it cannot be said to serve an educational purpose. Its use on other projects is confined to talk pages and user pages (excluded from COM:INUSE), except on meta, where I've made an appeal for it to be removed from use. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per consensus. --INeverCry 22:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Verifiability_and_Neutral_point_of_view_(Common_Craft)-en.ogv&oldid=200203424"