← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

So can we restore the article deleted by the WMF yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Ultimately that's a question for WMF legal, but my best guess is no. The "ruling" as I remember it is that in the next Supreme Court hearing in early April ANI's lawyers have to address the issue of whether the High Court's decision was out of line because it puts a high burden on free speech and freedom of the press. I'll add that IANAL, and have no expertise about Indian law. I do see the ruling as great progress on the case and that it is a victory for the WMF's go-slow, one-step-at-a-time legal approach. Just a quick example, I was thinking that some of The Signpost's earlier coverage of this matter might set off another bad reaction from the court (but IMO we were right to take that small chance). I had no such doubts when writing this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 09:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit disapointed that in the The New Yorker talks to Heritage Foundation, they never mentions who they plan to dox. Surprise, surprise: it is editors who are not "pro-Israeli" enough. Strange that this fact "disappears" from the story. Huldra (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly bad photos

• Regarding self-appointed arbiters of which photos are "bad" or "not bad"? As for the McEntire photo example that was given: other than the presence of a smiling bystander who could trivially easily be cropped out if anyone actually cares enough to be arsed to do so — a bystander who cannot plausibly be accused of photobombing, because all he was guilty of was the (allegedly) grave sin of merely standing next to her — what is allegedly bad about that photo? Is it (allegedly) the fact that it is an action shot, an unposed shot, in which she is speaking, rather than a posed shot? If so, what's so (allegedly) "bad" about that? I think many humans are quite weird about alleging "badness" of photos. The whole notion feels much like a Rorschach exercise that reveals latent biases and hangups that are very much not flattering for the people in which they are revealed; but yet many people pride themselves on the result! When someone alleges that that photo is "bad" (even though it is not blurry, not distorted, not discolored, and so on), what are they saying? Is it that being posed is the only way to look good? Is it that real-life photos without cropping and photoshopping or airbrushing are inherently "ugly" until they have been ideologically "corrected"? Is it that the alleger lacks the capacity to look at a photo and not be helplessly distracted by the least imperfections short of portrait-studio still-photo composition? I don't see why so many people seem so proud of that. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• That photo is bad because Reba McEntire looks like Reba McEntire? I find it appealing. Smallchief (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're all self-appointed, aren't we? We see a badly worded sentence, a tangled subheader structure, a broken or irrelevant ref link, an underexposed or misleading picture, and we fix it, replace it, or beg for someone else to take care of it. And if some fairly prominent outsider social media site has a section for making and publishing such judgments, we insiders may want to draw inspiration from them or not. I have replaced photos with later ones that appeared, including one of Gantry Plaza State Park here in New York. Other editors might agree with my choice or not, in which case I can reply in whatever way I think will help the work best. It's no more alarming, or no less, than disagreements on word choice. A few days ago I inserted my photo of three editors at our local gardening edit-a-thon and spent a minute pondering whether to crop out one of the three, and finally decided it's only an internal page that my fellow insiders will see, so it's not worth another minute. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]