No edit summary |
|||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
:Wikipedia is not the place for "'''PROOF'''". We are an encyclopedia, and as such can only report what other sources contain. Our inclusion criteria is [[WP:V|verifiability]], not truth. Any attempt to prove things ourselves is [[WP:OR|original research]] and not allowed. Our only proof is citations to other [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Any editor who comes across statements lacking proof is entitled to remove it immediately, the use of tags is a courtesy to the authors or others, who may be able to fix the problems. The alternative is to provide citations to well-informed technical sources to verify the article content. |
:Wikipedia is not the place for "'''PROOF'''". We are an encyclopedia, and as such can only report what other sources contain. Our inclusion criteria is [[WP:V|verifiability]], not truth. Any attempt to prove things ourselves is [[WP:OR|original research]] and not allowed. Our only proof is citations to other [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Any editor who comes across statements lacking proof is entitled to remove it immediately, the use of tags is a courtesy to the authors or others, who may be able to fix the problems. The alternative is to provide citations to well-informed technical sources to verify the article content. |
||
:Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler should not come to an encylopedia for it, they should go to a teaching-based project, perhaps [[v:|Wikiversity]] as suggested. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] |
:Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler should not come to an encylopedia for it, they should go to a teaching-based project, perhaps [[v:|Wikiversity]] as suggested. [[User:OrangeDog|OrangeDog]] <small>([[User talk:OrangeDog|τ]] • [[Special:Contributions/OrangeDog|ε]])</small> 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
OrangeDog, |
|||
Your response indicates that you do not know enough about the subject to comment on it and you are confusing '''ONTOLOGY''' (truth) with '''EPISTEMOLOGY''', (how you know somewthing). Proof (inductive) is based on information and in this context the information is contained directly in the citations for the manuals published by the Intel corporation. Again, if you knew enough about the subject you would know that the examples to demonstrate the '''CAPACITY''' of the assembler is not tutorial material but PROOF based on reliable and objective published manuals by the processor manufacturer. |
|||
Specifics of Microsoft ML.EXE notation are referenced directly from the Microsoft Corporation website(s) and the original technical data supplied with earlier versions of their product. |
|||
In this context you need to re-read the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and not make the same mistake again, confusing some abstract and unverifiable notion of "truth" with objective published information that provides '''PROOF'''. |
|||
The [[original research]] on Intel mnemonics was done by the Intel Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia. The [[original research]] on ML.EXE (MASM) was done by the Microsoft Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia. |
|||
[[User:Hutch48|Hutch48]] ([[User talk:Hutch48|talk]]) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:57, 20 January 2010
Thanks for your revision!!
Thanks for helping us consolidate our sources!!! This page is a project for a class and my partner was wondering how to do it so thanks so much!!! Lmcgee4096 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Your references could still do with some formatting work. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for help. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
AWB
Hi. Do you still use AWB 4.9.0.1? Please update to 4.9.0.3. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Originally posted to commons:User talk:Jan Arkesteijn
What was the basis of your colour correction to this image? Unless you have seen the physical object yourself or have data on the camera and lighting conditions used when the photograph of it was taken then your modifications are misleading. Kindly drop a note at w:User Talk:OrangeDog. when you reply. Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, the colors of the images from this serie are misleading from the start. From 1890 till 1905 the Detroit Photographic Company published handpainted b/w pictures from all around the world. They were used for picture postcards. The people that did the handpainting never saw the actual place where the photo was taken and had to make an educated guess for the colors. By removing the yellow colorcast caused by aging, the typical blues for the sky and the sea reappear. The color of the rock is probably not lifelike, but that is an artist impression. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- My point being is that the image should show what the photochrom actually looks like, not what you personally think it used to look like. File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg is a picture of a picture, not of a coastal location. The Commons image should be reverted to use the colours in the Library of Congress's copy. Your re-coloured version should go in a separate file if it is needed. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that. Wikimedia is not a vault for originals that are not te be changed or modified anymore (the Library of Congress is in this case). Wikimedia should set a read only bit on files, if your explanation was the Wikimedia policy. In fact, the motto of Wikimedia or Wikipedia is to feel free and work on the material. That is why they facilitate the uploading of new versions. People who want to download the initially uploaded image can always go back in the history of the file. But if you feel that the Wikimedia policy should be changed, you will have a discussion with thousands of contributors. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is in the usage of the file. In Photochrom it is used to show what a photocrom looks like. However, it does not currently show this, but insead what a photocrom would look like if you changed the colours to more closely match the subject of the photochom. If changing an image makes what articles claim about it incorrect, then a new File should be uploaded instead. Commons' primary purpose is to support other Wikimedia sites. Modification of Commons images should not be harmful to other projects as it is in this case. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, but than the best thing to do is upload an image with a title and a description saying that it is an image that shows what a photochrom should look like. But I do not understand why a photochrom should look yellow. It did not look yellow when it was created. And that is the only thing I did, remove the yellowing of aging. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- That would be fine, if you could be sure that the colour shifts you performed were exactly the opposite of what aging has done, which you can't know without information about its creation (what the inks were, the composition of the paper, where it was stored, etc.). The description does say it is a photochrom print, and there are plenty of modern photos showing what that bit of coast looks like, so I would say it is the responsibility of the uploader to check whether they are changing the meaning of the image based on the context in which it is used. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I do know from some examples in the database that managed to pass the time rather well that the photographs did not look yellow, so I don't understand why you would like to illustrate an article about photochrom, giving the impression that they did. Furthermore, the photo is used only on 2 photochrom pages and on 33 pages illustrating Staffa or subjects relating to that. So, I don't see why it should be reverted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you mind if I list this at WP:3O to resolve this disagreement? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- No I don't mind, but I don't understand why you would like to revert a picture that is mainly used for purposes other than photochrom. By the way, I was looking for an example of a photochrom image that withstood the the ravages of time. It took a while but this is one of these images: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.00241 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's your opinion, but I already suggested that you upload a photochrom image with a specific name and description for that purpose. By the way, shouldn't it be discussed on Commons? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Third Opinion Request in progress: |
I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
Response to Third Opinion Request: |
Opinion: (a) The WP:OI section of No original research says, "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research." It is not, therefore, acceptable to recolor a Photochrom image to make the colors more realistic, in the sense of correctly reflecting the real-world colors of the place shown. (b) It can be acceptable to recolor a Photochrom image to restore it to its original colors and remove the effects of age or damage. Such a restoration is acceptable only if (b)(1) the restoration can be done with a high degree of certainty that the image is being restored to its actual original state and if (b)(2) there is no page already linked to the image which relies on the image remaining in an unrestored state. To fail to comply with (b)(1), such as by estimating or guessing at the proper color correction, also violates WP:OR in my opinion, since it takes the chance of changing the image into something that it never was before. It appears to me that this case falls under standard (b), but fails condition (b)(1) as something of a guess as to the proper color correction. Even if it is correct that the image has yellowed, it is a guess as how yellow the image might have been originally and even more a guess as to the effect that correction may have on the other colors in the image. (It also fails condition (b)(2), but in this case that's mainly because it fails (b)(1).) What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for your contribution, TransporterMan. Your approach from Original Research is interesting, but there are some objections to make. First, checking several OR pages in different languages I came to the conclusion that the image clause is only present in the English OR page, and therefore is only relevant for images uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Since Commons is there for the entire community it should service the languages that do not have the image clause as well. (By the way, I suppose that is the reason why Commons does not have an OR-page.) Secondly, I can not derive the "standards" (as you call them) b1 an b2 from the English OR-page. The clause speaks about "try to distort the facts or position being illustrated" which I think, is something quite different. Thirdly, you say that there is no way to tell how yellow the image might have been. I already pointed to a picture of Oberammergau in the database of the Library of Congress that does show what a photochrom looks like without the yellow by aging. In the discussion I already proposed to upload a different version of the Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave image with a title and a description telling that this is a photo that shows what a 100 years old photochrom could look like, to make it clear not to color correct it. But since there is already an image File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg that better shows what photochroms did look like, I propose to replace File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg on the Photochrom page with the Oberammergau picture. It prevents a lot of fuss, because if we are going to annul all those images at Commons that were restored in whatever way, it will affect a lot of images, even featured ones. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Any image used on a Wikimedia project should follow that project's image policy.
- The distinguishing features of photochrom are the colours. If the colours are changed then the facts are distorted.
- That one particular image used to have exactly the same colours as another is your own original research. Can you find a reliable source that says File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg used to have the same colours as File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg? Besides this, you yourself changed the colours on File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg as well.
- In the general case I think more discussion is needed, so I have started WP:VPP#Commons/enwiki policy interaction. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the Oberammergau picture, the comment hi-res version, removed yellow tone was a standard one when I was uploading hi-res versions. Comparing the image with the source at the Library of Congress, I doubt whether I made a color correction in this case, but I will re-upload it for you, just to be sure. As for this whole discussion, it seems to me that you are pursuing any solution except the sensible one. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification of 3O Opinion:
- The English Wikipedia OR page already applies to Commons: Go to Commons:Editor's_index_to_Commons#O and see "Original research" which refers you to the Commons:Editor's_index_to_Commons#Source section on Sources, which in turn refers you to WP:EIW#Source in which in turn refers you to WP:NOR which has the WP:OI section.
- The standards (b)(1) and (b)(2) are, indeed, merely my opinion and were not derived from WP:OR, but more from the general purpose and integrity standards of Wikipedia. My opinion is what was requested in the Third Opinion request. While I bring in policy and guidelines and prior consensus when I think that they apply - as in standard (a) - when I can find no clear guidance from those sources, I give my opinion. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."
- My reference to the "yellowness" of the original image: I did not mean by that to refer to any yellowing due to age, but the amount of yellow tint (if any) originally applied to the image by the original craftsman. If the Oberammergau picture is, indeed, an example of an Photochrom as it originally appeared (about which I express no opinion one way or another), it shows how much yellow tint was applied to that image, but it provides little evidence for how much was applied to File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg without making unwarranted assumptions about the degree to which that particular manufacturer enforced uniformity upon the employees doing the hand-tinting.
- Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the yellowness, I re-uploaded the Oberammergau picture, so if the Photochrom-article needs a reference picture it is there (as are many other pictures, but apparently the Staffa picture seems to be vital for some reason). As for the standards, it is good to see that they are a opinion. As for the goto, goto, goto, goto, goto OR page, you did not end it with a smiley... Most language OR pages do not have a clause for images, and we can not exclude them from using Commons. And I still think distort the facts or position being illustrated does not apply for modifications in the hue or luminosity of a photograph. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- But ignoring enwiki's stricter rules excludes enwiki (coincidentally the largest) from using Commons.
- It does apply if it is the hues and luminosities that are being illustrated, as in this case. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, let's see how the discussion unfolds. In the worst case it will lead to many files to be deleted, unfortunately. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please, invite Trialsanderrors, Sarfa, Durova and Scewing into the discussion. Their photo's are used on the Photochrom page to. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the yellowness, I re-uploaded the Oberammergau picture, so if the Photochrom-article needs a reference picture it is there (as are many other pictures, but apparently the Staffa picture seems to be vital for some reason). As for the standards, it is good to see that they are a opinion. As for the goto, goto, goto, goto, goto OR page, you did not end it with a smiley... Most language OR pages do not have a clause for images, and we can not exclude them from using Commons. And I still think distort the facts or position being illustrated does not apply for modifications in the hue or luminosity of a photograph. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification of 3O Opinion:
{{howto}} I understand that you are well intended with your insertion of the above graffiti but it is factually incorrect. Assembler programming is a complicated area and the method in explaining usage is to deliver PROOF, not second hand ill informed opinion. The alternative is to leave the proof out and have other Wikipedia non-technical editors put "lack of citation" graffiti on the page instead.
Issues of notation between different assemblers is highly relevant to an article of this type and the Usage section addresses these differences, same for the pre-processor, ditto object module specifications etc etc etc .....
Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler can BUY IT directly from Microsoft but Wikipedia is NOT AN ADVERTISING MEDIUM for commercial software education and should not be referenced in that manner.
Regards,
Hutch48 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place for "PROOF". We are an encyclopedia, and as such can only report what other sources contain. Our inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. Any attempt to prove things ourselves is original research and not allowed. Our only proof is citations to other reliable sources. Any editor who comes across statements lacking proof is entitled to remove it immediately, the use of tags is a courtesy to the authors or others, who may be able to fix the problems. The alternative is to provide citations to well-informed technical sources to verify the article content.
- Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler should not come to an encylopedia for it, they should go to a teaching-based project, perhaps Wikiversity as suggested. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
OrangeDog,
Your response indicates that you do not know enough about the subject to comment on it and you are confusing ONTOLOGY (truth) with EPISTEMOLOGY, (how you know somewthing). Proof (inductive) is based on information and in this context the information is contained directly in the citations for the manuals published by the Intel corporation. Again, if you knew enough about the subject you would know that the examples to demonstrate the CAPACITY of the assembler is not tutorial material but PROOF based on reliable and objective published manuals by the processor manufacturer.
Specifics of Microsoft ML.EXE notation are referenced directly from the Microsoft Corporation website(s) and the original technical data supplied with earlier versions of their product.
In this context you need to re-read the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and not make the same mistake again, confusing some abstract and unverifiable notion of "truth" with objective published information that provides PROOF.
The original research on Intel mnemonics was done by the Intel Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia. The original research on ML.EXE (MASM) was done by the Microsoft Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia.