English subtitles for clip: File:WikiCon 2023 - Wikipedia. Macht. Bilder. Ein Streitgespräch über (Gender) Bias und Bilder in der Wikipedia.webm
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,000 [Subtitles with Whisper Medium/revised] So, welcome. I hope that Eva and Ziko are both online now. 2 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:12,000 Okay, he nods, so that's it. 3 00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:18,000 Yes, Eva was my colleague at the University of Mannheim for a long time, and Ziko was also our guest in Mannheim. 4 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:22,000 That's why I'm all the more pleased to be able to briefly introduce the two of them today 5 00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:27,000 and then moderate the discussion. 6 00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:31,000 Eva Gredel is a junior professor in Duisburg-Essen. 7 00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:35,000 She is a junior professor of German linguistics 8 00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:40,000 and her focus is on digital discourse and education in the digital world. 9 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:44,000 In both areas she also deals with Wikipedia, 10 00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:49,000 with Wikipedia didactics, the use of Wikipedia in teaching and 11 00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:53,000 Wikipedia, the scientific research of Wikipedia. 12 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:57,000 And in particular she deals with digital multimodal discourses 13 00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:00,000 and also the gender bias in Wikipedia. 14 00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:05,000 In 2017 she was co-organizer of the Wiki-Dach in Mannheim 15 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:10,000 and also gave a lecture at this year's Femnetz meeting. 16 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:18,000 Ziko van Dijk has been active in Wikipedia at Wikimedia Germany and the Netherlands since 2003, and 17 00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:25,000 was also on the board and arbitration tribunal of the Netherlands and the German Wikipedia. 18 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:30,000 He is a co-founder of Klexikon, an online encyclopedia for children, 19 00:01:30,000 --> 00:01:36,000 holds a doctorate in history and has a particular interest in images in Wikipedia, 20 00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:39,000 including AI-generated images. 21 00:01:39,000 --> 00:01:45,000 He has already published two books on Wikipedia, in 2010 and 2021, 22 00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:48,000 such as “Understanding Wikis and Wikipedia”. 23 00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:52,000 Both speakers share an interest in images on Wikipedia, 24 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:57,000 and they will now explain to us their different views on the topic. 25 00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:01,000 And at the end, as I said, there is time for discussion, 26 00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:04,000 both here in the room and via the chat. 27 00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:08,000 And I will then pass on the questions. 28 00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:10,000 Welcome, Eva and Ziko. 29 00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:11,000 Hello. 30 00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:12,000 Hello. 31 00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:13,000 Yes. 32 00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:21,000 Yes, according to the structure that we have planned for our discussion, 33 00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:27,000 that is how we named the format, I would now first 34 00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:32,000 present my linguistic, partly semiotic, image-scientific view, 35 00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:37,000 with a focus on women in Wikipedia. 36 00:02:37,000 --> 00:02:39,000 But it also goes something beyond that. 37 00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:43,000 And that's right, Ziko's point of view will continue later. 38 00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:46,000 I can say for myself that I'm a bit excited 39 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,000 because the technical connection is also a bit more complex. 40 00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:53,000 In any case, I'm looking forward to the discussion afterwards 41 00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:55,000 and hope that with our discussion, 42 00:02:55,000 --> 00:03:01,000 which may not be so contentious in the end or not that controversial, 43 00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:07,000 but that we can bring good food for thought to the Wikipedia community. 44 00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:14,000 Maybe go back to the overarching title that Ziko and I had thought about, 45 00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:17,000 Wikipedia. Might. Pictures. 46 00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:22,000 This is a title that can be read in different ways. 47 00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:28,000 On the one hand, you can see that of course many Internet users 48 00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:32,000 access Wikipedia and use it as a central source of information. 49 00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:36,000 And you can then express the assumption or the assumption 50 00:03:36,000 --> 00:03:44,000 that Wikipedia, as a central source of information, influences people's view of the world, 51 00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:49,000 so to speak, conveys images of the world. 52 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:53,000 And on the other hand, you can also read it in such a way that the question is 53 00:03:53,000 --> 00:04:00,000 who actually has the power in Wikipedia to impose certain images on discussion pages, 54 00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:06,000 i.e. to then enforce the question of how certain facts 55 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:10,000 in the analogue world should be illustrated and illustrated. 56 00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:14,000 And my title, today it's about wiki world views, 57 00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:17,000 I signed the title with underrated images, 58 00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:20,000 captions and digital image practices. 59 00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:24,000 So my concern now is how 60 00:04:24,000 --> 00:04:28,000 worldviews are constructed and created using images in Wikipedia. 61 00:04:28,000 --> 00:04:35,000 And that this is an aspect, a topic that is really, very strongly worthy of discussion. 62 00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:40,000 Exactly, before we get into the actual presentations, 63 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:45,000 we wanted to have two blocks in which Ziko and I would present our statements. 64 00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:51,000 And you could show my second slide at this point for my statements. 65 00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:54,000 Ziko and I each thought about three theses. 66 00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:57,000 I have added a small preview of the topic 67 00:04:57,000 --> 00:05:01,000 that we can only touch on today, but which will probably also 68 00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:06,000 be of relatively great importance for the Wikipedia community in the future. 69 00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:10,000 So my theses are that images don't just lighten up Wikipedia articles. 70 00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:14,000 They not only illustrate these, but they suggest many more world views 71 00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:19,000 and can also lead to thematic distortions and bias. 72 00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:24,000 Secondly, captions concretize the meaning, 73 00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,000 the relatively open meaning of images in the respective context. 74 00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:31,000 And they should therefore not be underestimated in Wikipedia. 75 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:35,000 These are relatively small texts, the captions, but in my opinion they have 76 00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:39,000 a great importance for the overall meaning of an article. 77 00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:44,000 And finally, the handling of images and text-image constellations in the culture 78 00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:49,000 of digitality is a topic worth discussing, also for the Wikipedia community. 79 00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:53,000 We have digital platforms that are of course very image-heavy, such as 80 00:05:53,000 --> 00:05:58,000 Instagram, but in Wikipedia, images and their captions 81 00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:02,000 and the texts surrounding images are also very important. 82 00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:06,000 And I think that there is still room for improvement 83 00:06:06,000 --> 00:06:10,000 when it comes to the rules on how to use images in Wikipedia, and that one or two aspects 84 00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:13,000 could perhaps be included in the Wikipedia rules. 85 00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:19,000 And the outlook concerns the distribution of images generated with AI tools. 86 00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:25,000 And from my point of view, there are completely new challenges associated with these 87 00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:30,000 AI-generated images, especially for the design of Wikimedia projects. 88 00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:34,000 Exactly, those are my theses. Now, just before I start the lecture, I would 89 00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:39,000 hand it over to Ziko so that he can briefly present his theses. 90 00:06:40,000 --> 00:06:45,000 Yes, thank you Eva. Well, I'll make it short and painless or we'll see. 91 00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:52,000 Thesis 1. The Wikimedia movement needs to do a better job with images and I'll have examples of that in a moment. 92 00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:58,000 Thesis 2. What can have an influence does not automatically always have it. 93 00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:06,000 And thesis 3. Emancipatory impetus can slide into problematic collectivism. 94 00:07:06,000 --> 00:07:12,000 Bamm, well, we'll see about that in a moment. Now I'm looking forward to Eva's lecture. 95 00:07:12,000 --> 00:07:17,000 Yes, thank you very much Ziko, then I would continue. On the next slide I would like to briefly 96 00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:22,000 go over the key points that Maja mentioned. Well, I have a junior professorship 97 00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,000 with tenure check for German linguistics, but linguistics has 98 00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:32,000 also been greatly expanded in recent years to include symbiotic visual science aspects. 99 00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:38,000 Multimodality, i.e. the use of images, videos and audio documents, 100 00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:43,000 also plays a major role in linguistics. And it is precisely this multimodality, 101 00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:48,000 i.e. the use of images, video and audio material in Wikipedia, for example, that was also the subject of my 102 00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:55,000 habilitation thesis, which I defended in a habilitation colloquium in 2022. 103 00:07:55,000 --> 00:08:02,000 And I was also interested in what effects certain image inventories 104 00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:07,000 have on meaning in articles. Yes, in the last few years 105 00:08:07,000 --> 00:08:13,000 some of my publications on Wikipedia and Wikipedactics have appeared in the context of this habilitation project. 106 00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:20,000 So I'm interested in how one can introduce Internet users, especially young ones, to the reflective use of Wikipedia 107 00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:24,000 in teaching contexts, be it at school or university . I experience again 108 00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:29,000 and again that the so-called digital natives in particular access Wikipedia very heavily, 109 00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:33,000 but, for example, do not know the discussion pages and the version histories at all, 110 00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:38,000 so they have never taken a look behind the scenes of Wikipedia and that they are missing very 111 00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:44,000 central aspects, to understand wikis in general, but also Wikipedia in particular. 112 00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:48,000 And that's why I take the approach, for example in my university seminars here with students, 113 00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:54,000 to look closely at where, for example, you can find arguments for using certain images on the 114 00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:58,000 discussion pages. So that's briefly about me. And it is precisely against this background 115 00:08:58,000 --> 00:09:04,000 that I would now like 116 00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:10,000 to place my presentation today in a larger context on the next slide. Why do I integrate Wikipedia into my university seminars? We have now had 117 00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:17,000 new educational standards in place since 2022 and the theoretical framework for these educational standards, 118 00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:22,000 These are the skills that today's students should acquire in German language lessons. 119 00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:31,000 There is a lot about the topic of digitality and digitality as a culture-shaping 120 00:09:31,000 --> 00:09:37,000 framework of our time. And very specifically, these educational standards, which 121 00:09:38,159 --> 00:09:44,159 are to be implemented in schools nationwide, or at the state level, 122 00:09:44,159 --> 00:09:48,000 are intended to influence the educational plans and school curricula. 123 00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:55,000 Stalder is explicitly mentioned in his book “Culture of Digitality” and he says that there are three central forms of culture 124 00:09:55,000 --> 00:10:00,000 of digitality. On the one hand, there is communality, referentiality and 125 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:07,000 algorithmicity. When it comes to community, a number of 126 00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:13,000 projects have emerged in the last 20 or 30 years in which Commons have been built. This also includes Wikipedia 127 00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:20,000 with its freely accessible texts. And Stalder explains that new 128 00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:26,000 commoner institutions have emerged in this context and he describes Wikipedia, for example, as a 129 00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:31,000 so-called ad hoc meritocracy, meaning that those who have been there for a long time also 130 00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:39,000 have the power to edit certain texts and to bring images into the negotiation of encyclopedically relevant 131 00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:44,000 issues. Referentiality, he points out, for example in relation to 132 00:10:44,000 --> 00:10:51,000 digital photography, that with the possibility of taking digital images using smartphones, 133 00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:59,000 for example, the artifacts, i.e. photos, have multiplied and are easily available and that 134 00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:05,000 many people rely on them can access digital artifacts over the Internet, share them, 135 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:11,000 link them and use them for their own purposes. And finally he describes 136 00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:17,000 algorithmicity. I think everyone knows that. And the aspect that is particularly important is that 137 00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:23,000 artificial intelligence can now be used to generate images, for example. This means that 138 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:29,000 the number of images available is actually increased and a 139 00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:35,000 tendency to depict certain people or facts can also be determined here. Then I'll move 140 00:11:35,000 --> 00:11:40,000 on to the next slide and would like to share some thoughts from linguistics here. So in 141 00:11:40,000 --> 00:11:45,000 linguistics it is assumed that many resources, sign resources such as language, images, typography, 142 00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:51,000 contribute to the creation of meaning in texts. And that it is their interaction that is important in 143 00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:57,000 creating meaning in texts. And these resources fulfill very different tasks. 144 00:11:57,000 --> 00:12:02,000 I'll show you what that means in detail in a moment. Maybe another important quote. As early as 2009, Warnke wrote 145 00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:08,000 with regard to the knowledge society that the naive view that knowledge societies are 146 00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:12,000 secured against the influence of opinions through rationally based knowledge is, on the other hand, based on 147 00:12:12,000 --> 00:12:17,000 the assumption, intersubjectively secured, that knowledge is opinion and ultimately power neutral. 148 00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:22,000 The opposite is the case. Because knowledge is fundamentally contested, especially in 149 00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:30,000 knowledgeable societies that operate through mass media. What does that mean? The assumption that knowledge can be neutral 150 00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:36,000 makes neutral, which means that constellation does not play a role. He rejects that here, the thesis, 151 00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:42,000 but knowledge is fundamentally contested and is intensively shared. I think this is a 152 00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:48,000 point that also applies very, very strongly to Wikipedia. On the next slide I would like 153 00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:56,000 to show what functions and properties are attributed to images in linguistics and also what 154 00:12:56,000 --> 00:13:02,000 function language fulfills. When it comes to images, it means that they are 155 00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:07,000 perceived simultaneously and holistically, that they can be perceived quickly, that they have a strong memory and impact, 156 00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:13,000 and that they are linked to emotions. And when it comes to meaning potential, one can say that images 157 00:13:13,000 --> 00:13:18,000 are accompanied by an excess of meaning because they can show objects rich in features. But at the same time they are vague and 158 00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:24,000 underdetermined. This means that they bring with them a wide range of potential meanings. In addition, 159 00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:29,000 images can also be accompanied by emotional appeals and instructions for action. With 160 00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:34,000 language, perception is more subcessive, linear and significantly slower than with 161 00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:40,000 images. Their meaning is firmly established and the meaning is precise and definite 162 00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:45,000 compared to the image meaning. When we think about scientific texts, I think it is very 163 00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:51,000 catchy and insightful. And texts can represent action in time, create logical connections 164 00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:56,000 and a variety of references are possible. For example, you can use language to 165 00:13:56,000 --> 00:14:01,000 talk about language, which is not the case with images; you 166 00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:07,000 can essentially think about images with images. On the next slide I would like to clarify this a little more. I 167 00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:12,000 took a closer look at the sustainability discourse in Wikipedia, i.e. the question of how sustainability 168 00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:18,000 is specifically negotiated and presented in the article Sustainability in Wikipedia. And here it is 169 00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:24,000 that one or more images can be found on the Wikipedia article or in the Wikipedia 170 00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:30,000 article. And one of them shows some kind of building, probably a stable with lots and lots of 171 00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:38,000 pigs. And now the question is, what is it and what it is supposed to show us is 172 00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:43,000 made concrete by the caption. But now it is the case that this is being negotiated very heavily and 173 00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:48,000 the version history can be used to reconstruct that the caption 174 00:14:48,000 --> 00:14:55,000 is also changed very often. Namely a user on November 17th, 2017 and 16:28 describes what can be 175 00:14:55,000 --> 00:15:01,000 seen here in the picture as modern factory farming. And this is defined in the Duden dictionary relatively clearly and with negative 176 00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:07,000 connotations as follows. This is mechanized animal husbandry on large farms to 177 00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:13,000 produce as many animal products as possible, so it has a rather negative connotation. And in the case of livestock farming, 178 00:15:13,000 --> 00:15:17,000 as under the second picture, modern livestock farming can be sustainable if an efficient 179 00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:23,000 approach to resources, use, environmental requirements, animal husbandry conditions and so on 180 00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:29,000 are taken into account. So you can see here that one and the same picture 181 00:15:29,000 --> 00:15:35,000 is given very different captions and that the potential meaning that goes along with the picture 182 00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:41,000 is intended to be made more precise through the writing, through the text that accompanies the picture. And we also see that the 183 00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:47,000 image here is relatively patient, so that it only serves to illustrate the potential for image meaning 184 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:52,000 and the properties that go along with images, in contrast to what writing and text 185 00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:58,000 can achieve. Then I would come to the next slide and would like to briefly 186 00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:04,000 mention the information in Wikipedia about illustrating articles. This means that 187 00:16:04,000 --> 00:16:09,000 illustrating the article can significantly contribute to understanding the article text and also 188 00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:13,000 loosen up the body. From my point of view, this is a point where images are actually underestimated. 189 00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:18,000 So pictures and illustrations of articles are not just about loosening things up, but actually, 190 00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:23,000 as I said, world views are presented. He wants the carefully selected media files 191 00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:28,000 to be integrated in the appropriate place in relation to the text in such a way that neither the text is dominated 192 00:16:28,000 --> 00:16:33,000 nor its readability is impaired. So this is specifically about text-image constellations. 193 00:16:33,000 --> 00:16:38,000 There should be a reference to the content, a significance, i.e. relevance of the image and, to a certain 194 00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:43,000 extent, representativeness. Now I would like to look at individual examples on the next 195 00:16:43,000 --> 00:16:51,000 slide and would like to show that what is relatively little discussed here 196 00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:57,000 can be problematic in certain articles or should at least stimulate discussion. Exactly, 197 00:16:57,000 --> 00:17:05,000 next slide please. Exactly, here we have the image inventory, i.e. the images that 198 00:17:05,000 --> 00:17:12,000 are included in the article about Marie Curie are integrated and I would like to 199 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:18,000 add a quote from the Diversathon 2021, an event within the Wikipedia community 200 00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:24,000 that is Dealing with images has been discussed, especially in relation to women, and it says that 201 00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:29,000 in articles about women, avoid using images of her husband's father or her family 202 00:17:29,000 --> 00:17:34,000 unless it is absolutely necessary and gives the article quality. These images 203 00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:39,000 tend to ignore women's individuality without adding important information to the article. 204 00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:45,000 We now have a person here who 205 00:17:45,000 --> 00:17:50,000 developed his important scientific findings at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and that is why we also have 206 00:17:50,000 --> 00:17:56,000 historical image inventories here and as you can see, what is described in the Diversathon is here, 207 00:17:56,000 --> 00:18:01,000 but yes actually implemented, namely that Marie Curie 208 00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:07,000 is shown in context, in constellation, constellation of images that represent, for example, the father, the husband and Marie Curie 209 00:18:07,000 --> 00:18:13,000 Here, in many places, it is not centrally placed, even though there is a Wikipedia article 210 00:18:13,000 --> 00:18:20,000 that discusses it. Here, for example, we have Wladyslaw Sklodowski with his three daughters and 211 00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:27,000 one of them is Marie Curie, who was later called Marie Curie. Exactly, 212 00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:33,000 you can see a historical constellation of people here that we probably 213 00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:38,000 often find in pictures in the 19th century, but the question that arises here is whether such a 214 00:18:38,000 --> 00:18:43,000 picture will meet the requirements of an online encyclopedia of the 21st century. Century is fair if the person 215 00:18:43,000 --> 00:18:50,000 being discussed is not placed centrally here at all, but rather family images are reproduced 216 00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:57,000 that are no longer tenable today, that the father is placed so centrally and perhaps in 217 00:18:57,000 --> 00:19:02,000 particular do not fit with an article that actually is intended to represent a woman with her scientific 218 00:19:02,000 --> 00:19:07,000 achievements. We then see her again with her daughter and her husband, 219 00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:13,000 Pierre Curie, and quite excitingly from an earlier version is the picture that is then signed with 220 00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:18,000 the widow with her young daughters Eve and Irène and here it is actually Marie Curie 221 00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:24,000 sits in the middle, but in the caption there is the relational 222 00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:30,000 personal name widow, so she is 223 00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:36,000 put in relation to her already deceased husband and the question is why the word widow is written here and not, for example, scientist, 224 00:19:36,000 --> 00:19:42,000 so why on that It should be noted that there is no man in the picture here. The question is, 225 00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:47,000 is this a relevant aspect, does the image actually have to be made so concrete by the caption? 226 00:19:47,000 --> 00:19:53,000 It has actually already been fixed, so it can no longer be found in the current version, 227 00:19:53,000 --> 00:19:59,000 but of course it is a nice point to illustrate image inventories and captions, text image constellations. 228 00:19:59,000 --> 00:20:05,000 At the top is the framed picture, Pierre and Marie Curie in their laboratory on Rue Curie. 229 00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:10,000 A very exciting discussion has developed on the corresponding discussion page and I have 230 00:20:10,000 --> 00:20:15,000 another excerpt on the next slide, Simon, if you could click on further, please. 231 00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:22,000 Exactly, thank you very much. The question is which image should actually be used to 232 00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:28,000 show Marie Curie in her work context. There on the talk page it says, 233 00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:33,000 hello Suku, why did you prefer your photo on the left over my photo and reversed my change? 234 00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:39,000 This is about Marie, and the main character should look at the viewer, greetings from OS and then the answer, 235 00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:44,000 you are putting the cart before the horse, it is up to you to explain why you 236 00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:49,000 consider your change in this form to be an article improvement. Attributes such as impressive or the idea that 237 00:20:49,000 --> 00:20:54,000 the main character should look at the viewer are rather subjective here. So what this excerpt from the 238 00:20:54,000 --> 00:21:00,000 discussion page shows is that there are actually discussions about images and that over the course of 239 00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:06,000 Wikipedia's history over the last 22 years, a lot has improved in terms of the topic, 240 00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:13,000 reflections on images, image discussions and the question how women or other groups 241 00:21:13,000 --> 00:21:19,000 should be portrayed is an example of this, so to speak. 242 00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:26,000 On the next slide I would like to come to another example, which is now about 243 00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:32,000 an architect couple, one is Elisabeth Böhm and the other is Gottfried Böhm, both of whom 244 00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:37,000 have a Wikipedia article. And here too I have brought a quote 245 00:21:37,000 --> 00:21:43,000 that can be found in Wikipedia, but in the context of the English version of Wikipedia, it says, 246 00:21:43,000 --> 00:21:48,000 What you see here in these small excerpts of the image material is that Elisabeth Böhm has 247 00:21:48,000 --> 00:21:53,000 a lot going on There is less picture material and we see here above all the family grave and she is 248 00:21:53,000 --> 00:21:58,000 also shown again together with her husband and below in the associative references 249 00:21:58,000 --> 00:22:03,000 that are shown here on the side of the pictures is the picture material that is here in the 250 00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:08,000 library, who is here in the library, in the library, in the library, in the library, 251 00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:14,000 is also shown again with her husband and below in the associative references the 252 00:22:14,000 --> 00:22:19,000 men of this family of architects are shown, but she is not shown there at all. 253 00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:26,000 What about her husband then? The thing is, we have a lot of pictures there 254 00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:31,000 You can find buildings that he designed, whereas with Elisabeth Böhm, not a single one of the 255 00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:36,000 buildings she designed was integrated into the article at a certain time, and that was the case for quite a long time 256 00:22:36,000 --> 00:22:41,000 . On the next slide I showed it again so that you 257 00:22:41,000 --> 00:22:46,000 can see it a little bit bigger. So the question here is, why is she 258 00:22:46,000 --> 00:22:51,000 included in Wikipedia as an architect? So it met the relevance criteria. But why are 259 00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:57,000 n't her buildings also integrated into the Wikipedia article? Why are there images here 260 00:22:57,000 --> 00:23:04,000 that do not really portray her in her science or in her professional role as an architect 261 00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:12,000 ? On the next slide I would like 262 00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:17,000 to go into a text-image constellation and depict something like multimodal blank spaces. But first I would like 263 00:23:17,000 --> 00:23:23,000 to go back to the text that accompanies the pictures. It is said that after her marriage in 1948, then as a 264 00:23:23,000 --> 00:23:29,000 wife, but not officially as an employee, she worked in the architectural office and after the 265 00:23:29,000 --> 00:23:35,000 authorization to sell writings, which she received in the library, from four sons, she showed more presence in the 266 00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:40,000 Böhm office . Now these are excerpts that I have highlighted here. So from my point of view, 267 00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:46,000 this is an example of an article that very, very strongly 268 00:23:46,000 --> 00:23:52,000 emphasizes the family roles of this architect, over-emphasised in my opinion and also described in a disrespectful manner in parts 269 00:23:52,000 --> 00:24:00,000 . I can certainly ask myself the question, are these formulations that emphasize that she 270 00:24:00,000 --> 00:24:07,000 has combined or united both, i.e. family roles and professional roles, or is it 271 00:24:07,000 --> 00:24:13,000 the case that her status as an architect, her professional role, that that was not taken seriously 272 00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:18,000 and was discussed here too disrespectfully. As I said, you can see it again here in the frame without 273 00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:24,000 a picture. A photo of buildings that she designed was not integrated into her article for a long time. 274 00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:32,000 On the next slide, however, I will show another excerpt from Gottfried 275 00:24:32,000 --> 00:24:40,000 Böhm's article. And there it is that the WDR arcades, which 276 00:24:40,000 --> 00:24:45,000 were largely designed by Elisabeth Böhm, are actually integrated with an image. In principle, a suitable image would 277 00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:51,000 have been available via Wikimedia [Commons], but this was only integrated into Gottfried Böhm's, whereas 278 00:24:51,000 --> 00:25:00,000 no photo of this building can be found at Elisabeth Böhm's. And on the next slide I would like 279 00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:04,000 to talk about digital image practices, also a small aspect that 280 00:25:04,000 --> 00:25:09,000 can perhaps be used to improve one or two articles without much effort. I mentioned earlier that the 281 00:25:09,000 --> 00:25:18,000 Diversathon determined that it would be appropriate to see women centrally in pictures and not 282 00:25:18,000 --> 00:25:25,000 in family constellations with husbands, sons, whatever. In fact, Elisabeth Böhm had 283 00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:31,000 a picture with her husband integrated into the article for a long time. With Gottfried Böhm, on the other hand, 284 00:25:31,000 --> 00:25:37,000 an image was cropped, a digital image was cropped and adjusted so 285 00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:42,000 that Gottfried Böhm could be seen centrally. And as we can see, this was a picture 286 00:25:42,000 --> 00:25:49,000 in which other people can also be seen. Now the question is, why do you arrange the picture of the man 287 00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:55,000 so that he is placed centrally? For the woman, however, it is actually the family constellation again. 288 00:25:55,000 --> 00:26:05,000 The man is placed centrally in the picture. And then I come to my last substantive slide. 289 00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:11,000 What I can only touch on here, but what I find really interesting and 290 00:26:11,000 --> 00:26:17,000 would like to bring into the discussion here, is the topic of AI-generated images. I titled it a blessing or a curse. 291 00:26:17,000 --> 00:26:22,000 So I definitely see advantages of AI-generated images. Certain historical constellations could perhaps 292 00:26:22,000 --> 00:26:28,000 be presented better or in a more contemporary way using AI-generated images. 293 00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:33,000 But that is a bold thesis. But what I'm noticing at the moment, particularly at Wikimedia, is 294 00:26:33,000 --> 00:26:38,000 that there are an incredibly large number of images that are posted daily on Wikimedia 295 00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:46,000 that are very, very strongly gender-stereotypical images of women or can be seen as such. 296 00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:52,000 And the question now is, what is it doing with Wikimedia and what is it doing with the illustrations on Wikipedia 297 00:26:52,000 --> 00:27:00,000 when we see such a flood of AI-generated images that are far from meeting the criteria? 298 00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:06,000 which images in Wikipedia are usually supposed to fulfill. Maybe this is also a nice starting point 299 00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:13,000 for discussing rules in Wikipedia about images. And then I only have the last slide, 300 00:27:13,000 --> 00:27:20,000 which says thank you very much again for your attention. And with that I would hand it over to Ziko for the replica. 301 00:27:20,000 --> 00:27:32,000 Yes thank you. Do you hear me? Yes, you hear me? OK. Yes, dear Eva, thank you very much for the very interesting lecture. 302 00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:40,000 I'm afraid that the debate won't be a very spectacular fight, not because of the friendly space policy anyway. 303 00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:48,000 But I mostly agree with your diagnosis, “although.” And then at the end I will say something about the third thesis. 304 00:27:48,000 --> 00:27:53,000 There is still a lot that can be improved in Wikipedia. This means that I often think directly about the therapy, 305 00:27:53,000 --> 00:27:59,000 but I also have to stop at the diagnosis. Let us then consider the article Elisabeth Böhm. 306 00:27:59,000 --> 00:28:06,000 So overall, some things actually seem strange, the woman as an appendage of the husband. 307 00:28:06,000 --> 00:28:12,000 But when I look closer, there is a navigation bar with a photo and Ms. Böhm is missing from it. 308 00:28:13,000 --> 00:28:20,000 That's true, but others are missing too. And the Wikipedia author, you can always see who did it so transparently, 309 00:28:20,000 --> 00:28:26,000 i.e. the one I also know, the Wikipedia author then had the choice between a picture of Mrs. and Mr. Böhm 310 00:28:26,000 --> 00:28:32,000 or the one she chose Picture with Mr. Böhm and three male relatives. And then the author probably just thought, 311 00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:37,000 I'll take the picture with the most faces. So that's not misogyny, unless of 312 00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:45,000 course you could argue that Ms. Böhm is individually much more relevant than the three gentlemen, you could. 313 00:28:45,000 --> 00:28:52,000 And when it comes to therapy, I think that with navigation bars it's best to take a photo that represents all the elements anyway. 314 00:28:52,000 --> 00:29:00,000 And if you don't have one, you do without it. That should have been done here. So that's actually a point. 315 00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:07,000 Yes, and in the article text there is actually a strong reference to Elisabeth Böhm's husband. 316 00:29:07,000 --> 00:29:13,000 Therapy, you could rewrite the text. But then I would ask myself, would I dare to do that? 317 00:29:13,000 --> 00:29:23,000 Because my feeling tells me that I first need to know the facts better. So what did it look like at the Böhms' home and in the architect's office? 318 00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:28,000 And if I rephrase it just a little bit, then a statement can become incorrect. 319 00:29:28,000 --> 00:29:37,000 Then I would have to look it up again in the literature. But I suspect that the Wikipedia author wrote the article very conscientiously based on the literature. 320 00:29:37,000 --> 00:29:46,000 So that the incriminated style already comes from the works used. And yes, Wikipedia is dependent on literature. 321 00:29:46,000 --> 00:29:50,000 None of us know Böhm personally. So what should you do there? 322 00:29:51,000 --> 00:29:58,000 Another topic, the photo of Marie Curie. Should the main character of a picture look at the viewer? 323 00:29:58,000 --> 00:30:04,000 Or let's put it another way, should the lemma person look at the viewer? And that is a question in itself. 324 00:30:04,000 --> 00:30:13,000 I don't know that exactly. I don't even know the rule. In any case, I admit that the answer in the quoted discussion might seem a bit mushy. 325 00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:16,000 And that's not good for the discussion. I understand that. 326 00:30:16,000 --> 00:30:21,000 Allow me to use another example. This summer I have, I don't know "heurig", is that what you say? 327 00:30:21,000 --> 00:30:28,000 I always have my Austria hat from the Austrians here. Thank you again, Manfred. 328 00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:35,000 So I worked on this summer's article about the Titanic and this ship with the iceberg. 329 00:30:35,000 --> 00:30:40,000 And in the article there was a long list of the prominent passengers and then also the rich gentlemen. 330 00:30:40,000 --> 00:30:52,000 These were the millionaires and the rich ladies were the millionaires' wives or the owner of the New York department store Macy's, Isidor Straus and his wife Ida Straus. 331 00:30:52,000 --> 00:30:58,000 This relational thing that Eva has worked out. And then I heard a voice inside me. 332 00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:04,000 Well, what's that supposed to mean? Ida Straus lived like a millionaire. What's the point of the bad life? 333 00:31:04,000 --> 00:31:12,000 I can also simply write here: Ida Straus, millionaire. Maybe that was even Eva's voice in the back of my head that I heard there. 334 00:31:12,000 --> 00:31:19,000 But then I had another voice inside me. Yes, what was it like legally and financially back in 1912? 335 00:31:19,000 --> 00:31:26,000 I'm not an expert on social law at the time, but I'm guessing that Ida Straus didn't have any millions of her own. 336 00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:31,000 At that time, the man alone determined the assets in the marriage. 337 00:31:31,000 --> 00:31:38,000 If I were to simply call Ms. Straus a millionaire, then I would ignore inequality. 338 00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:46,000 And so I also have to think about Marie Curie, who is not always prominently portrayed as a widow in the article. 339 00:31:46,000 --> 00:31:54,000 I agree. But yes, back then it was very important for a woman whether she was a wife or a widow. 340 00:31:54,000 --> 00:32:01,000 This must be dealt with appropriately in the article. And how? You have to talk about it and it will then be negotiated. 341 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:09,000 By the way, I wouldn't say that the article's purpose is to show the person's academic achievements, but rather their entire life. 342 00:32:09,000 --> 00:32:17,000 But yes, of course you have the question in your head: would you have written it that way if it were a man? The widower, the widower, the widower. 343 00:32:17,000 --> 00:32:25,000 I have to say that your third thesis, Eva, could have been formulated more sharply. 344 00:32:25,000 --> 00:32:31,000 I think the Wikimedia movement urgently needs to take image culture to a whole new level. 345 00:32:31,000 --> 00:32:37,000 And your post showed us wonderfully what else we need to pay attention to. Thank you very much for that. 346 00:32:37,000 --> 00:32:45,000 Yes, thank you very much, Ziko. Maybe as a reply to the replica. 347 00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:54,000 So of course I would think the last point you mentioned would be great if there were more discussions about images and image cultures within Wikipedia. 348 00:32:54,000 --> 00:33:03,000 I think this is exactly the direction it has to go. As I said, illustrating the rule page article, I would choose a completely different title. 349 00:33:03,000 --> 00:33:14,000 So it should really be clear that images are used to construct meanings in articles and that certain views of the world are suggested. 350 00:33:14,000 --> 00:33:26,000 So, I think you could really formulate the rules much more sharply and clearly, based on the findings of visual science, and not have such a naive conception of images. 351 00:33:27,000 --> 00:33:36,000 Images break up the text, but they don't have any more function. I'm really overdoing it now, bringing in the sharpness that some people might expect in an argument. 352 00:33:36,000 --> 00:33:43,000 But I think there is definitely still a need for improvement in order to make the rules more specific. 353 00:33:44,000 --> 00:33:54,000 Maybe go to Elisabeth Böhm again. Yes, there are certainly historical facts that suggest certain statements in the article. 354 00:33:54,000 --> 00:34:05,000 But I don't think it's appropriate for an architect to structure her articles solely according to family turning points. 355 00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:17,000 That means dealing with marriage, the birth of sons and the accompanying, I'll call it parental leave, even though that didn't exist back then. 356 00:34:17,000 --> 00:34:22,000 And then using such formulations showed Böhm to be more present in the office. 357 00:34:22,000 --> 00:34:37,000 So from my point of view, this is a formulation that is rather disrespectful and overall does not adequately honor both her family responsibilities and her achievements and merits as an architect. 358 00:34:37,000 --> 00:34:42,000 Exactly, and then of course the question is why this one image isn't integrated into her. 359 00:34:42,000 --> 00:34:50,000 In the meantime, I have to say, the article has been wonderfully revised; in my opinion, a lot has already been achieved with very few edits. 360 00:34:50,000 --> 00:35:08,000 Therefore, to conclude the reply to the replica, I would just like to point out that sometimes small changes can have a very, very big impact and that captions and, above all, of course, images in the construction, in the production of meanings should not be underestimated. 361 00:35:08,000 --> 00:35:13,000 Exactly, with that I'll hand it over to you, Ziko, and look forward to your presentation. 362 00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:15,000 Yes thank you. 363 00:35:15,000 --> 00:35:24,000 So from a stranger's perspective, yes, dear friends of knowledge, we have heard that the pictures in Wikipedia enhance an article. 364 00:35:24,000 --> 00:35:27,000 And now picture 2, please. 365 00:35:27,000 --> 00:35:32,000 But yes, we don't always use images in a meaningful and appropriate way. 366 00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:42,000 You have long articles, but hardly any pictures, or not a sufficient caption, or a use of an image where someone really didn't think carefully, as we'll see. 367 00:35:42,000 --> 00:35:52,000 So my topic is images are important, but not always harmless and unfortunately the discussions about them are sometimes overshadowed by an attitude that goes too far. 368 00:35:52,000 --> 00:35:59,000 An image on Wikimedia Commons, a Congolese village in a so-called people's show. 369 00:35:59,000 --> 00:36:04,000 In Europe, people from other parts of the world were sometimes exhibited like animals. 370 00:36:05,000 --> 00:36:08,000 Yes, the picture probably seems harmless to many people. 371 00:36:08,000 --> 00:36:12,000 No nudity, no violence, no bloodshed. 372 00:36:12,000 --> 00:36:18,000 But when people are reduced to their ethnic show value, is that really harmless? 373 00:36:18,000 --> 00:36:22,000 And should I use the image at all, and if so, how? 374 00:36:22,000 --> 00:36:29,000 Briefly about me. Among other things, I studied history and worked in image archives and I insert images into Wikipedia articles. 375 00:36:29,000 --> 00:36:33,000 And I do the same with the Wikipedia encyclopedia for children. 376 00:36:33,000 --> 00:36:41,000 And thinking about a good choice of images led me to literature, such as a contribution by Mr. Ian Ramjohn. 377 00:36:45,000 --> 00:36:49,000 Ian Ramjohn is concerned about how poor countries are portrayed on Wikipedia. 378 00:36:49,000 --> 00:36:51,000 And he writes: 379 00:37:03,000 --> 00:37:09,000 If the competitions are judged through the eyes of the global north, the effect is magnified. 380 00:37:09,000 --> 00:37:14,000 No one wants to give out prizes for things they can regularly see in their own backyard. 381 00:37:14,000 --> 00:37:23,000 But as long as developing countries are portrayed through this lens on Wikipedia, they remain exotic. 382 00:37:23,000 --> 00:37:26,000 Yes, Florence Devouard answered. 383 00:37:26,000 --> 00:37:35,000 She belongs to the Wiki loves Africa organization and explained indignantly that this competition, on the contrary, welcomes the everyday. 384 00:37:35,000 --> 00:37:39,000 And three to four people from the global north take part in the organization. 385 00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:45,000 The rest are all from the south. And most of the jury members also come from Africa. 386 00:37:45,000 --> 00:37:50,000 Did Ian Ramjohn mean a different competition? 387 00:37:50,000 --> 00:37:54,000 Yes, that's probably it, replied Ian Ramjohn sheepishly. 388 00:37:54,000 --> 00:37:59,000 He wrote the post two years ago and can no longer remember. 389 00:37:59,000 --> 00:38:08,000 Well, it also applies to Wiki loves Earth, says Florence Devouard, that most of the national winners in African countries come from there. 390 00:38:08,000 --> 00:38:16,000 And why should we call the winning photos exotic? You try to show the most beautiful places in a country everywhere. 391 00:38:16,000 --> 00:38:20,000 Ohh! What went wrong? 392 00:38:20,000 --> 00:38:25,000 Firstly, I find it morally questionable to assume anything about the competitions. 393 00:38:25,000 --> 00:38:31,000 And just like that, automatically, without having looked at the matter closely. 394 00:38:31,000 --> 00:38:38,000 Secondly, it is counterproductive because those who are attacked in this way can then think: No matter what I do, everyone will just complain. 395 00:38:38,000 --> 00:38:42,000 Why should I advocate for a more global Wikipedia? 396 00:38:42,000 --> 00:38:47,000 Thirdly, the attitude is problematic for the discourse and another example. 397 00:38:47,000 --> 00:38:51,000 Ian Ramjohn also complains about a Wikipedia discussion. 398 00:38:51,000 --> 00:38:56,000 So when you search for the word Java, what should you see? 399 00:38:56,000 --> 00:39:01,000 The article about the Indonesian island or Java, the programming language? 400 00:39:01,000 --> 00:39:08,000 And then he comments that the sensible people have prevailed, so that the lemma Java is still the island, 401 00:39:08,000 --> 00:39:13,000 but the fact that it was even discussed shows a fundamental weakness. 402 00:39:13,000 --> 00:39:21,000 It is absurd: white people from the global north marginalize 150 million inhabitants of Java 403 00:39:21,000 --> 00:39:25,000 by weighing their merits against a programming language. 404 00:39:25,000 --> 00:39:31,000 And at first I just thought, like yes, but the discussion was 15 years ago. 405 00:39:31,000 --> 00:39:35,000 And about ten people joined in the discussion and the island prevailed. 406 00:39:36,000 --> 00:39:43,000 And then I saw that Wikipedia, in English, had discussed the Java question several times. 407 00:39:43,000 --> 00:39:50,000 With sensible arguments on both sides, for example the article about the programming language 408 00:39:50,000 --> 00:39:55,000 is viewed significantly more often than the one about the island. 409 00:39:55,000 --> 00:40:02,000 Apparently some people don't even want to discuss things because they already have a fixed opinion. 410 00:40:02,000 --> 00:40:07,000 And anyone who has another, yes, represents a fundamental weakness. 411 00:40:07,000 --> 00:40:10,000 And he is no longer perceived as an individual with his own opinion, 412 00:40:10,000 --> 00:40:14,000 but only as a representative of his skin color or his origins. 413 00:40:14,000 --> 00:40:19,000 This novelist is also not conducive to discourse. 414 00:40:19,000 --> 00:40:25,000 She complained on Twitter that “a man” had deleted the article about her. 415 00:40:25,000 --> 00:40:30,000 Yes, and you can see how the Twitter crowd supported her 416 00:40:32,000 --> 00:40:38,000 here. And what does the organization “Whose Knowledge?” think? 417 00:40:38,000 --> 00:40:44,000 It wants to make underrepresented groups and minorities more visible. Fine. 418 00:40:44,000 --> 00:40:47,000 Quote from Adele Vrana's video. 419 00:40:47,000 --> 00:40:51,000 Most of the people who write Wikipedia are still white men. 420 00:40:51,000 --> 00:40:58,000 Siko Bouterse: And since who you are affects what you create, 421 00:40:58,000 --> 00:41:02,000 these gaps are also reflected in the content of Wikipedia. 422 00:41:02,000 --> 00:41:06,000 For example, there is a Wikipedia article for every episode of The Simpsons. 423 00:41:06,000 --> 00:41:08,000 Military history pretty good too. 424 00:41:08,000 --> 00:41:12,000 The coverage of female porn stars is also fine. 425 00:41:12,000 --> 00:41:19,000 Vrana: Yes, but there are still tons of biographies of Brazilian women scientists missing 426 00:41:19,000 --> 00:41:24,000 or activists. - Yes, I ask myself, what is the point of such a polemic 427 00:41:24,000 --> 00:41:29,000 that is presented in a giggly mood? Do you want to defame a population group 428 00:41:29,000 --> 00:41:35,000 by saying that they constantly think about sex? We know historical examples of this. 429 00:41:35,000 --> 00:41:42,000 Sure, the statement should be: us against them. But does this do justice to the individual Wikipedia author? 430 00:41:42,000 --> 00:41:47,000 Someone who has never written an article about porn stars? 431 00:41:47,000 --> 00:41:52,000 And by the way, I once looked at Wikipedia categories and the result is that there are 432 00:41:52,000 --> 00:41:59,000 23,000 articles for scientists and 512 for porn actresses. 433 00:41:59,000 --> 00:42:07,000 So is Ian Ramjohn's article pure polemic for the trash? 434 00:42:07,000 --> 00:42:11,000 No, the question of exoticism is legitimate. 435 00:42:11,000 --> 00:42:17,000 So whether pictures intentionally show the different, the strange. 436 00:42:17,000 --> 00:42:20,000 Because taking a photo is always an effort. 437 00:42:20,000 --> 00:42:23,000 Of course, this is much easier today than it was 100 years ago. 438 00:42:23,000 --> 00:42:27,000 But of course I tend to pull out my cell phone for the unusual. 439 00:42:27,000 --> 00:42:33,000 For example, when fresh snow has fallen in the garden and not when the snow is melting again. 440 00:42:33,000 --> 00:42:42,000 And in Wikipedia, in an article about a village, I show a special building, not an ordinary one. 441 00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:47,000 An image from the article about Ghana. 442 00:42:47,000 --> 00:42:50,000 The man works a traditional loom. 443 00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:52,000 Now is that bad? 444 00:42:52,000 --> 00:42:56,000 Would you rather show someone working on a modern machine? 445 00:42:56,000 --> 00:43:01,000 What is a typical meal in the Netherlands? The famous herring? 446 00:43:01,000 --> 00:43:05,000 Perhaps. McDonald's, on the other hand, may not be typical of the country, 447 00:43:05,000 --> 00:43:10,000 but it is much more representative of what is really eaten. 448 00:43:11,000 --> 00:43:18,000 It is by no means unimportant who looks at a picture and what prior knowledge they have in order to classify a picture. 449 00:43:18,000 --> 00:43:21,000 For example, traditional culture. 450 00:43:21,000 --> 00:43:27,000 Many of us here have been to Austria before, so those present [at WikiCon] have definitely. 451 00:43:27,000 --> 00:43:32,000 And you know that Austrians don't all walk around like that all the time. 452 00:43:32,000 --> 00:43:36,000 But what about the picture from Kenya? What do I see there? 453 00:43:36,000 --> 00:43:40,000 Everyday life, tradition, re-enactment? 454 00:43:40,000 --> 00:43:44,000 So reenactment is a tradition that has been interrupted. 455 00:43:44,000 --> 00:43:48,000 Well, I don't know much about Kenya and maybe my readers don't either. 456 00:43:48,000 --> 00:43:53,000 And that's why it's so important that we have good image explanations on Commons. 457 00:43:53,000 --> 00:43:57,000 Yes, and unfortunately the description of the image on Commons was very brief. 458 00:43:57,000 --> 00:44:02,000 Maybe because it was obvious to the photographer what was there. 459 00:44:02,000 --> 00:44:07,000 Strictly speaking, you would have to say to yourself: If I don't understand exactly what I'm seeing, 460 00:44:07,000 --> 00:44:11,000 then I shouldn't actually use the image. A pity. 461 00:44:11,000 --> 00:44:17,000 Well, now that's a single image. But what I think is even more important is the overall impression that is created. 462 00:44:17,000 --> 00:44:21,000 In an article about a country you often see images like this. 463 00:44:21,000 --> 00:44:23,000 And especially when it comes to poor countries. 464 00:44:23,000 --> 00:44:29,000 Coffee is planted, raw materials are mined and you can see beautiful sandy beaches. 465 00:44:29,000 --> 00:44:35,000 Okay, that's there. And exports and tourism are really important sectors of the economy. 466 00:44:35,000 --> 00:44:38,000 Why shouldn't you show that? 467 00:44:38,000 --> 00:44:42,000 Well, I'm afraid that might give off a certain impression. 468 00:44:42,000 --> 00:44:48,000 The entire country seems to exist only for us people in rich countries. 469 00:44:48,000 --> 00:44:54,000 That's where we go on vacation and that's where the beautiful products come from for us. 470 00:44:55,000 --> 00:44:58,000 So with the lexicon I tried to avoid such an impression. 471 00:44:58,000 --> 00:45:03,000 Here is the article about Barbados. Beautiful beaches, great. 472 00:45:03,000 --> 00:45:09,000 But then I also added an Independence Day celebration or the Parliament building. 473 00:45:12,000 --> 00:45:16,000 Where do the images that we find on Wikimedia Commons actually come from? 474 00:45:16,000 --> 00:45:21,000 It doesn't matter whether the photos show a rich country or a poor country. 475 00:45:21,000 --> 00:45:26,000 The photographer is usually a man from the rich north. Conversely, this is much rarer. 476 00:45:26,000 --> 00:45:31,000 I regret that and I think it would be good if people from poor countries were encouraged 477 00:45:31,000 --> 00:45:35,000 so that they could take photos in rich countries. 478 00:45:35,000 --> 00:45:39,000 But please let us be very clear on two points. 479 00:45:39,000 --> 00:45:44,000 Firstly, what concerns the photographer and secondly, what concerns the subject. 480 00:45:45,000 --> 00:45:49,000 This is Diego Delso from Spain. 481 00:45:49,000 --> 00:45:54,000 He has taken and uploaded numerous high-quality photos in many countries. 482 00:45:54,000 --> 00:46:00,000 Ha, a rich, white, privileged man from the global north. 483 00:46:00,000 --> 00:46:08,000 His camera gaze reproduces colonial stereotypes and thus he manipulates the stupid Wikipedia readers. 484 00:46:08,000 --> 00:46:10,000 Is that so? 485 00:46:11,000 --> 00:46:15,000 No, Diego Delso is not the problem. 486 00:46:15,000 --> 00:46:19,000 He does everything on a voluntary basis and could save himself the trouble with Commons. 487 00:46:19,000 --> 00:46:25,000 His pictures are not a problem, they are part of the solution. They make illustration easier. 488 00:46:25,000 --> 00:46:28,000 What would be the alternative? 489 00:46:28,000 --> 00:46:32,000 On Commons these are often images of the national government, 490 00:46:32,000 --> 00:46:36,000 the American Navy or the Russian embassy. 491 00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:40,000 I don't want to claim that such photos are automatically unacceptable, 492 00:46:40,000 --> 00:46:45,000 but they were created with a specific intention. 493 00:46:45,000 --> 00:46:50,000 That's exactly why I'm such a big fan of Wiki loves Africa. 494 00:46:50,000 --> 00:46:54,000 With the many images from the past few years, we have 495 00:46:54,000 --> 00:46:57,000 really taken a giant step forward as a global movement. 496 00:46:57,000 --> 00:47:02,000 And most of the photos come from people from the countries in question. 497 00:47:02,000 --> 00:47:07,000 As for the content, let's be clear about the following. 498 00:47:07,000 --> 00:47:12,000 As a historian, I am aware that one should question 499 00:47:12,000 --> 00:47:17,000 who took a photo, why, what is the cultural and social context, etc. 500 00:47:17,000 --> 00:47:19,000 Yes. 501 00:47:19,000 --> 00:47:28,000 But you also have to say very clearly that this is simply a picture of a mill. 502 00:47:28,000 --> 00:47:32,000 Does it really matter who took the photo? 503 00:47:32,000 --> 00:47:36,000 Is he a native of the town or just passing through? 504 00:47:36,000 --> 00:47:39,000 Whether the photo was taken by a woman or a man? 505 00:47:39,000 --> 00:47:43,000 Would it really look completely different in each case? 506 00:47:43,000 --> 00:47:46,000 Critical questions can be important, but one can doubt 507 00:47:46,000 --> 00:47:54,000 whether a person's background is extremely relevant at all times and everywhere. 508 00:47:54,000 --> 00:48:01,000 Here we see the Wikipedia in Dutch, article Sudan, female circumcision. 509 00:48:01,000 --> 00:48:04,000 Yes, what is the real problem here? 510 00:48:04,000 --> 00:48:08,000 Of course, we wonder, did the person photographed give their consent 511 00:48:08,000 --> 00:48:10,000 for the image to be uploaded to Commons? 512 00:48:10,000 --> 00:48:15,000 And most importantly, would she actually like to see this image being used? 513 00:48:15,000 --> 00:48:21,000 So a cruel topic where she happily looks into the camera? 514 00:48:21,000 --> 00:48:27,000 This is about personal rights and this use would be a problem anywhere in the world. 515 00:48:27,000 --> 00:48:31,000 Does this have anything to do with poor and rich countries? 516 00:48:33,000 --> 00:48:35,000 Well, I admit, maybe yes. 517 00:48:35,000 --> 00:48:40,000 It could be that some photographers from rich countries do not dare 518 00:48:40,000 --> 00:48:43,000 to violate personal rights in their own country. 519 00:48:43,000 --> 00:48:47,000 Because someone photographed could come with the lawyer. 520 00:48:47,000 --> 00:48:51,000 And if those affected live in the global south, then you might be a little more lax 521 00:48:51,000 --> 00:48:54,000 because they can hardly afford a lawyer. 522 00:48:54,000 --> 00:48:58,000 I emphasize that this is just a hypothesis of mine, I don't want to assume anything, 523 00:48:58,000 --> 00:49:02,000 but anyway, the problem of personal rights, 524 00:49:02,000 --> 00:49:06,000 that is street photography and the whole problem, 525 00:49:06,000 --> 00:49:09,000 the problem of personal rights is a general one, 526 00:49:09,000 --> 00:49:15,000 but it could be, that on top of that there is the problem of rich and poor. 527 00:49:16,000 --> 00:49:21,000 The Wikimedia movement sees itself as an educational movement. 528 00:49:21,000 --> 00:49:23,000 Let's use the word education for this. 529 00:49:23,000 --> 00:49:28,000 The aim of education is to help people better understand themselves, 530 00:49:28,000 --> 00:49:31,000 but also their environment and of course their fellow human beings. 531 00:49:31,000 --> 00:49:34,000 Self-realization in social responsibility. 532 00:49:34,000 --> 00:49:38,000 And that fits well with the traditional ideal of the encyclopedia. 533 00:49:38,000 --> 00:49:41,000 It doesn't just collect any bits of facts, 534 00:49:41,000 --> 00:49:45,000 but rather knowledge that helps the reader orient themselves in their world. 535 00:49:45,000 --> 00:49:51,000 Yes, and we often see a tension. 536 00:49:51,000 --> 00:49:56,000 First, we are all human beings with universal human rights. 537 00:49:56,000 --> 00:50:00,000 Secondly, people can see 538 00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:03,000 or are seen as members of groups, i.e. collectives. 539 00:50:03,000 --> 00:50:07,000 And thirdly, we want to see the individual, the individual. 540 00:50:08,000 --> 00:50:11,000 And 541 00:50:11,000 --> 00:50:13,000 opinions differ as to what a good balance between these areas looks like. 542 00:50:13,000 --> 00:50:17,000 And a person's opinion depends, among other things, 543 00:50:17,000 --> 00:50:22,000 on their personal situation or the global status of their group. 544 00:50:24,000 --> 00:50:28,000 And this tension, well, we also see that in the Wikimedia movement. 545 00:50:28,000 --> 00:50:30,000 And hence my theses. 546 00:50:30,000 --> 00:50:34,000 As we have seen, there is still much to improve at Wikimedia Commons. 547 00:50:34,000 --> 00:50:36,000 Keyword open letter. 548 00:50:36,000 --> 00:50:38,000 And on Wikipedia. 549 00:50:38,000 --> 00:50:44,000 And yes, where someone comes from and which collectives they belong to, yes, that is important. 550 00:50:44,000 --> 00:50:48,000 And it can influence how he photographs. 551 00:50:48,000 --> 00:50:52,000 But that doesn't mean that such an influence automatically always exists. 552 00:50:52,000 --> 00:50:55,000 Anyone who only pays attention to a person's background 553 00:50:55,000 --> 00:51:00,000 and judges or condemns their opinions or photos accordingly 554 00:51:00,000 --> 00:51:03,000 is arguing ad hominem. 555 00:51:03,000 --> 00:51:08,000 But an individual has the right to be perceived as such. 556 00:51:08,000 --> 00:51:11,000 And yes, when people stand up for a collective, 557 00:51:11,000 --> 00:51:15,000 be it women or people in poor countries, then that's good. 558 00:51:15,000 --> 00:51:18,000 However, they can overstep the mark 559 00:51:18,000 --> 00:51:21,000 by demeaning other collectives. 560 00:51:21,000 --> 00:51:25,000 And that would mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 561 00:51:25,000 --> 00:51:27,000 Thank you. 562 00:51:34,000 --> 00:51:39,000 Yes, thank you very much, dear Ziko, for the exciting presentation. 563 00:51:39,000 --> 00:51:42,000 Exactly, now we can both be seen in the hall again. 564 00:51:42,000 --> 00:51:47,000 And in my reply to your presentation I would like 565 00:51:47,000 --> 00:51:51,000 to address your theses, which you just showed again. 566 00:51:51,000 --> 00:51:56,000 The first was yes, the Wikimedia movement needs to deal better with images. 567 00:51:56,000 --> 00:51:58,000 I absolutely agree with that. 568 00:51:58,000 --> 00:52:01,000 I think we almost speak with one voice. 569 00:52:01,000 --> 00:52:05,000 And that's why I don't want to be too critical of this thesis, 570 00:52:05,000 --> 00:52:08,000 but would actually like to support it even more. 571 00:52:08,000 --> 00:52:12,000 I think what you have now shown very well with your lecture is 572 00:52:12,000 --> 00:52:19,000 that the illustration of Wikipedia articles involves many aspects 573 00:52:19,000 --> 00:52:24,000 that relate to the legal dimension surrounding images, 574 00:52:24,000 --> 00:52:29,000 to an ethical-moral and also to a cultural dimension Dimension. 575 00:52:29,000 --> 00:52:34,000 In my opinion, the illustrations of Wikipedia articles should 576 00:52:34,000 --> 00:52:37,000 be examined much, much more closely. 577 00:52:37,000 --> 00:52:42,000 And you've already mentioned at one point or another 578 00:52:42,000 --> 00:52:47,000 that perhaps the image inventories at Wikimedia are to some extent the problem. 579 00:52:47,000 --> 00:52:53,000 I think I said this at one point that the image explanations on Wikimedia are relatively short. 580 00:52:53,000 --> 00:52:57,000 From my point of view, this is a very central point that I would like to take up again here. 581 00:52:57,000 --> 00:53:01,000 I have the impression, but let the discussion prove me wrong, 582 00:53:01,000 --> 00:53:09,000 that Wikimedia needs to provide a lot more context for the images. 583 00:53:09,000 --> 00:53:13,000 So there really needs to be more precise image descriptions 584 00:53:13,000 --> 00:53:18,000 so that those who then use the images for the Wikipedia articles 585 00:53:18,000 --> 00:53:24,000 to provide them with images can be even more precise about 586 00:53:24,000 --> 00:53:26,000 where the image actually comes from. 587 00:53:26,000 --> 00:53:30,000 I think that this plays a role in many topics, but in some it doesn't. 588 00:53:30,000 --> 00:53:36,000 So of course, Ziko, I also think that with a mill it's certainly not that problematic 589 00:53:36,000 --> 00:53:37,000 who took the picture. 590 00:53:37,000 --> 00:53:42,000 But there are very, very many topics, and you have also shown good examples of them, 591 00:53:42,000 --> 00:53:47,000 where you have to think very carefully about which image inventories are taken up. 592 00:53:47,000 --> 00:53:51,000 And in my opinion, images of the global south play a big role. 593 00:53:52,000 --> 00:53:58,000 And you also named a photographer here who, in your opinion, 594 00:53:58,000 --> 00:54:01,000 made a major contribution to illustrating Wikipedia. 595 00:54:01,000 --> 00:54:06,000 From my point of view, it also plays a role that you don't just let the photographers go off like that, 596 00:54:06,000 --> 00:54:08,000 even if they are already making a great contribution, 597 00:54:08,000 --> 00:54:14,000 but that you perhaps start training photographers about 598 00:54:14,000 --> 00:54:18,000 what they can do with their photos provide photos. 599 00:54:18,000 --> 00:54:23,000 Namely, not this naive view that they simply depict the world 600 00:54:23,000 --> 00:54:31,000 and illustrate Wikipedia and lighten up texts, but that they also 601 00:54:31,000 --> 00:54:38,000 present certain world views of the world with their pictures, especially when it comes to certain topics 602 00:54:38,000 --> 00:54:41,000 such as the discussion of the global south. 603 00:54:41,000 --> 00:54:47,000 So I do think that a certain perspective, a Eurocentric perspective, 604 00:54:47,000 --> 00:54:53,000 plays a role in Wikipedia. So my appeal is that there must definitely continue to 605 00:54:53,000 --> 00:54:59,000 be a discussion about image inventories in Wikipedia, much more intensively than before. 606 00:54:59,000 --> 00:55:05,000 You should also develop a kind of grid or guideline about which aspects play a role. 607 00:55:05,000 --> 00:55:10,000 As I said, I think that the cultural background of a photographer 608 00:55:10,000 --> 00:55:16,000 plays a big role. You should also explain legal aspects, 609 00:55:16,000 --> 00:55:21,000 as you said or showed, the picture of a woman who may not have been informed about it at all, 610 00:55:21,000 --> 00:55:26,000 that now in the context of street photography it suddenly ends up in Wikipedia. 611 00:55:26,000 --> 00:55:34,000 In my opinion, all of this should be made available to 612 00:55:34,000 --> 00:55:41,000 the many photographers who perhaps take professional, semi-professional or even private pictures in order to 613 00:55:41,000 --> 00:55:46,000 influence the quality of image inventories in Wikimedia and thus also in Wikipedia. 614 00:55:46,000 --> 00:55:51,000 So that would be my big appeal, now also after listening to your presentation, 615 00:55:51,000 --> 00:55:58,000 more discussions about the different dimensions, aspects of images that are relevant, as I said legal, 616 00:55:58,000 --> 00:56:04,000 ethical, moral, cultural and even more training. I think there will be some people on 617 00:56:04,000 --> 00:56:12,000 how to train people on sensitive topics about the global south or about groups that are fundamentally underrepresented in Wikipedia, 618 00:56:12,000 --> 00:56:20,000 such as women, about what are important aspects when producing new images. 619 00:56:20,000 --> 00:56:28,000 And then also, as I said, the aspect that, in my opinion, many images in Wikimedia are decontextualized 620 00:56:29,000 --> 00:56:35,000 and, as I said earlier in my lecture, they have great potential for meaning 621 00:56:35,000 --> 00:56:41,000 and, in my view, they are partially integrated into Wikipedia in a dysfunctional way. 622 00:56:41,000 --> 00:56:46,000 This should be avoided if possible, to create awareness here, as I said, 623 00:56:46,000 --> 00:56:51,000 that images not only lighten things up, but also have a decisive influence on 624 00:56:51,000 --> 00:56:57,000 how the texts are perceived and how meaning is reconstructed other than ticking. 625 00:56:57,000 --> 00:57:01,000 Exactly, so I'll give it back to you Ziko if you want. 626 00:57:01,000 --> 00:57:07,000 Yes, thank you very much for this classification, it is really very important. 627 00:57:07,000 --> 00:57:12,000 I thought for the lexicon that it should be suitable for children 628 00:57:12,000 --> 00:57:18,000 and then I came up with criteria, like I'll go to Wikimedia Commons 629 00:57:18,000 --> 00:57:24,000 and then try to choose good pictures and I want to make a longer article about it for my YouTube channel. 630 00:57:24,000 --> 00:57:28,000 You notice with Wikimedia Commons that there is a kind of automatic bias, 631 00:57:28,000 --> 00:57:33,000 so when I look for a photo of a doctor, it is usually a man who has a light skin color 632 00:57:33,000 --> 00:57:38,000 and you have to invest extra time if you want to have some diversity. 633 00:57:38,000 --> 00:57:43,000 My keyword for this is actually the quality of the encyclopedia. 634 00:57:43,000 --> 00:57:50,000 There are woke and anti-woke and discussions like that, I can't do that much with it. 635 00:57:50,000 --> 00:57:56,000 I want to make a good quality, a qualitative encyclopedia and if I now have an article 636 00:57:56,000 --> 00:58:04,000 about noses, eyes, arms, feet, where you only ever see light-skinned people, then the encyclopedia would not be of high quality. 637 00:58:04,000 --> 00:58:13,000 That's kind of my approach and it's really not easy to find feet based on skin color. 638 00:58:13,000 --> 00:58:18,000 That's really incredible and I don't know whether it's the indexing or other things, 639 00:58:18,000 --> 00:58:22,000 we have so many problems at Wikimedia Commons as to how we can improve it. 640 00:58:22,000 --> 00:58:27,000 There's a kind of automatic bias and if, for example, in Chimney Sweeping, 641 00:58:27,000 --> 00:58:33,000 I happen to find a great picture of a woman who is currently learning to be a chimney sweep, 642 00:58:33,000 --> 00:58:39,000 then I prefer to take that, even if there may be other better pictures of men , 643 00:58:39,000 --> 00:58:44,000 but then I take that and then I know that in other articles I don't have the luxury, 644 00:58:44,000 --> 00:58:47,000 I don't have that much choice, but that's how I try to counteract that 645 00:58:47,000 --> 00:58:54,000 and what kind of thoughts you have to have in your head, that is Yes, yes, and it just takes an awful lot of time. 646 00:58:54,000 --> 00:59:00,000 When I pay attention to things like that, the illustration takes maybe twice or three times as much time as usual, 647 00:59:00,000 --> 00:59:05,000 but somehow I still have the pride that I say to myself, great now, it's worth it, 648 00:59:05,000 --> 00:59:10,000 even if the result looks okay now and doesn't look great. 649 00:59:11,000 --> 00:59:18,000 Take a photo, upload it, index it, find it, select it, caption it, image-image relationship, image-text relationship 650 00:59:18,000 --> 00:59:23,000 and what's in the reader's head, the exotic is also somehow what the readers then have in their heads, 651 00:59:23,000 --> 00:59:28,000 as they do classify, keyword Austria and Kenya, that we then assume with the Austrians, 652 00:59:28,000 --> 00:59:33,000 well, they don't always walk around in traditional costumes, that's a thing. 653 00:59:33,000 --> 00:59:37,000 I sometimes have the impression, I don't know, that with excellent articles, 654 00:59:37,000 --> 00:59:43,000 the authors have usually paid attention to good illustrations, but otherwise, I have the impression that 655 00:59:43,000 --> 00:59:48,000 perhaps the illustrations are not so prestigious or somehow, there are The initiative, 656 00:59:48,000 --> 00:59:57,000 Wikipedia, WPWP, that the Wikipedia articles should be illustrated, that doesn't quite come out of the pot. 657 00:59:57,000 --> 01:00:03,000 One more thing, you described the legal and ethical-moral aspects, yes when it comes to legal matters, 658 01:00:03,000 --> 01:00:08,000 I think we have to be very good at that and many Wikipedians are already aware of that 659 01:00:08,000 --> 01:00:13,000 and they know that many of the photos we get there are actually, They shouldn't actually be on Wikimedia Commons, 660 01:00:13,000 --> 01:00:18,000 then you always leave it to the subsequent users so that they then think about personal rights. 661 01:00:18,000 --> 01:00:22,000 But yes, when it comes to ethical and moral aspects, I think we should think about an image culture, 662 01:00:22,000 --> 01:00:30,000 how do we want to be as a community that deals with images and then we can be more Roman than the Pope, 663 01:00:30,000 --> 01:00:38,000 so our ethical guidelines can do a lot be stricter than the legal ones, why not? Thank you very much. 664 01:00:42,000 --> 01:00:49,000 Thank you Ziko, thank you Eva. We now have a good half hour left for the discussion, 665 01:00:49,000 --> 01:00:53,000 that is, if there are any requests to speak here in the room. 666 01:00:54,000 --> 01:01:00,000 Ah, okay, so if you want, you can come forward and they can see you too. 667 01:01:05,000 --> 01:01:11,000 Thanks, I'm asking on the basis of anonymity. I just wanted to make a few comments from the practice of illustration, 668 01:01:11,000 --> 01:01:16,000 because I also write long texts and try to illustrate them as intensively as possible. 669 01:01:16,000 --> 01:01:21,000 And starting from Ziko, from the picture you showed, where you had three pictures, 670 01:01:21,000 --> 01:01:28,000 strawberries in Ecuador, then the sulfur mining in Indonesia and this beach in Jamaica, I think it was 671 01:01:28,000 --> 01:01:36,000 where you said that shows either Clichés or exoticism. What struck me about all the pictures you showed 672 01:01:36,000 --> 01:01:43,000 is that you never actually described what captions were actually underneath, 673 01:01:43,000 --> 01:01:49,000 which makes you wonder whether some things that seem problematic at first glance 674 01:01:49,000 --> 01:01:54,000 that can actually be captured via the caption or whether it has also been captured. 675 01:01:54,000 --> 01:02:00,000 And the second thing is that it is not only important that an image is at the top right in articles, 676 01:02:00,000 --> 01:02:11,000 but also that images are assigned to sections. And for example, I also know why this sulfur mining in Indonesia 677 01:02:11,000 --> 01:02:20,000 is considered exotic, but when it comes to the illustration of the section about Indonesian exports, 678 01:02:20,000 --> 01:02:29,000 this picture is simply very good. As I said, and I also think this is a note to the speaker, 679 01:02:29,000 --> 01:02:37,000 the positioning of the image in the article is really an important thing, and also, for example, that you have the courage, 680 01:02:37,000 --> 01:02:44,000 that you are brave enough, to create an article without an introductory image , if you don't have a suitable introductory image, 681 01:02:44,000 --> 01:02:54,000 but rather just illustrate it in the article body. Last note, although we don't have the feet by color category, 682 01:02:54,000 --> 01:03:01,000 I think you can still work with photo galleries much more than is generally done. 683 01:03:01,000 --> 01:03:09,000 My experience is that if you 684 01:03:09,000 --> 01:03:15,000 create a gallery with four pictures dedicated to such topics on a topic such as impressive mountains, including agriculture, rice fields, steps, whatever, that is a little bit suspected of being 685 01:03:15,000 --> 01:03:23,000 exotic They take away a bit of this impressiveness from each other, 686 01:03:23,000 --> 01:03:29,000 or take away from this exoticism, which I actually think is a very good effect, because then you see, okay, 687 01:03:29,000 --> 01:03:35,000 that's noticeable, but also a bit normal, or show three pictures Just don't have such an exoticism, 688 01:03:35,000 --> 01:03:44,000 while only one picture shows it, and if you then have the courage to say, yes, I'll just go beyond the one picture, 689 01:03:44,000 --> 01:03:51,000 which of course also requires that you are reasonably capable on Commons , to find such pictures at all, 690 01:03:51,000 --> 01:04:01,000 but it's possible, and that's why I'm a bit unsure, Ziko, what you said at the end, 691 01:04:01,000 --> 01:04:10,000 that the illustrations on Wikipedia are progressing so slowly, could also be a very good thing, namely that 692 01:04:10,000 --> 01:04:17,000 it is better not to put a picture in there than a bad picture, even from a content point of view. 693 01:04:17,000 --> 01:04:21,000 I'm unsure what that looks like in reality. 694 01:04:24,000 --> 01:04:33,000 Yes, how do we do that, Eva? Mono-Ett, shall we go collect first? Maybe that's better, yes? Or should I react to it? 695 01:04:33,000 --> 01:04:41,000 So I think that would be a very differentiated statement. I think we should perhaps get into it straight away, Ziko, 696 01:04:41,000 --> 01:04:47,000 and you're welcome to start, because there were a few points, otherwise it might just be too much. 697 01:04:47,000 --> 01:04:55,000 I found wonderful pictures, points. I just wanted to say, a misunderstanding about the coffee and sulfur and sandy beaches, 698 01:04:55,000 --> 01:05:01,000 it wasn't so much about exoticism for me, and that impression can always arise, but it was about 699 01:05:01,000 --> 01:05:07,000 Whether the overall impression arises that this country now only has sandy beaches or raw materials to offer, 700 01:05:07,000 --> 01:05:17,000 then I would like to see more pictures from everyday life, street life, or I have a trade union meeting somewhere in a glossary article. 701 01:05:17,000 --> 01:05:25,000 There are people sitting around a table like that at the union in Angola, I think it was, and I would like to show you something like that, 702 01:05:25,000 --> 01:05:32,000 or a parliament building and then not just the holiday impressions. I think galleries are great. I have the impression that 703 01:05:32,000 --> 01:05:40,000 there are articles here like the ones I looked at in Ghana or Burundi, they were essentially written around 2009, 704 01:05:40,000 --> 01:05:51,000 and during that time they also essentially illustrated it, and in the meantime there is so much good stuff Added through Wiki loves Africa and other initiatives, 705 01:05:51,000 --> 01:05:59,000 so you can do more, but I actually find such reticence - I'd rather not take a picture than an inappropriate picture - very sensible. 706 01:06:00,000 --> 01:06:07,000 Yes, then I would perhaps jump right in, so I think it's very sensible to say that it's better not to have a picture than to have a picture that 707 01:06:07,000 --> 01:06:17,000 is inappropriate or that could definitely be problematic. But of course I also see, now when I take the perspective of my students, for example, 708 01:06:17,000 --> 01:06:27,000 who use Wikipedia very, very frequently, that as a Wikipedia author you might want to keep up with other platforms, 709 01:06:27,000 --> 01:06:36,000 which, as I said, are very image-heavy. So here is the question, how does Wikipedia position itself in relation to other knowledge resources on the Internet, 710 01:06:36,000 --> 01:06:45,000 and I would also like to consider the following: I also think the idea of the image galleries is good, and I also have to keep in mind 711 01:06:45,000 --> 01:06:56,000 that the image constellation is important to consider, that images can also influence each other in their meaning. 712 01:06:56,000 --> 01:07:07,000 What I always ask myself is that many young people, but also of course in all age groups, now access Wikipedia via their smartphone, 713 01:07:07,000 --> 01:07:16,000 which means that when illustrating articles, you may also have to take into account how the image galleries are on the website smartphone can be seen. 714 01:07:16,000 --> 01:07:27,000 I think many Wikipedia authors still edit Wikipedia via the PC, the laptop that is standing somewhere and have the classic view, 715 01:07:27,000 --> 01:07:35,000 but the question is always how do text-image relations and image-image constellations appear via the smartphone, 716 01:07:35,000 --> 01:07:43,000 i.e. here the specific Internet users who access a Wikipedia article may have a completely different view 717 01:07:43,000 --> 01:07:56,000 that you as the author have not taken into account. So you have to consider what the actual reception situation is like via the laptop or smartphone. 718 01:07:56,000 --> 01:08:06,000 And I think there has been little research on this so far, which is definitely an exciting point, also considering that the end devices accessed via Wikipedia have 719 01:08:07,000 --> 01:08:14,000 changed, and that perhaps you as an author have to deal with this anticipates what the reception situation is like, but I know that that's asking a lot, 720 01:08:14,000 --> 01:08:24,000 especially since many authors work on Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, and taking most and so many aspects into account is of course asking a lot. 721 01:08:24,000 --> 01:08:30,000 Thank you, I think we could now move on to the next question. Mono-ett. 722 01:08:30,000 --> 01:08:34,000 Thanks, Raimund here. I don't even know if you see us here in the hall. 723 01:08:37,000 --> 01:08:38,000 No. 724 01:08:38,000 --> 01:08:39,000 Then we move forward. 725 01:08:39,000 --> 01:08:48,000 Hi, now you see me. I would like to provide some context on the topic of Elisabeth Böhm. 726 01:08:48,000 --> 01:08:54,000 I was immediately triggered because my wife wrote the article. 727 01:08:54,000 --> 01:09:01,000 And she and I have been working on the subject of the Böhm family, i.e. the Böhm family of architects, for a very, very long time. 728 01:09:01,000 --> 01:09:06,000 I know that it was very difficult for her to write the article because Elisabeth Böhm took 729 01:09:06,000 --> 01:09:11,000 a very, very long time... on the subject of the Böhm family, i.e. the Böhm family of architects. 730 01:09:11,000 --> 01:09:17,000 I know that she had a very difficult time writing the article because Elisabeth Böhm 731 01:09:17,000 --> 01:09:23,000 Yes, we think she is relevant, but like many mothers, she was just a mother. 732 01:09:23,000 --> 01:09:33,000 That's just how it is. Think about why there wasn't a photo of her in the article, not a single photo, which you, Eva, criticized. 733 01:09:33,000 --> 01:09:38,000 I see the deficiency too, but it would actually have been better to have no photo than this photo, 734 01:09:38,000 --> 01:09:43,280 the photo that you, Eva, criticized. I can see the deficiency too, but there would 735 01:09:43,280 --> 01:09:49,280 actually have been no better photo than this photo, because the photo was taken in 2009 736 01:09:49,280 --> 01:09:53,960 from, I don't know, I knew, I just looked and I don't know the user 737 01:09:53,960 --> 01:10:00,600 . That's terrible, that's blurry, that's small. At some point 738 01:10:00,600 --> 01:10:09,720 in 2017, Ms. Böhm cut the man out and cropped him. It hurts to see the picture. 739 01:10:09,720 --> 01:10:16,120 So that's really, really bad. She died in 2012 and we 740 01:10:16,120 --> 01:10:21,000 saw the family from time to time, but mostly only Gottfried Böhm and brothers. 741 01:10:21,000 --> 01:10:28,200 The woman simply didn't show up anymore, including between 2009 and 2012. 742 01:10:28,200 --> 01:10:32,000 Well, not that I know of. Makes an interesting film. I think 743 01:10:32,000 --> 01:10:37,520 it's about the Böhm family for an hour. So just a little bit of context. I ca 744 01:10:37,520 --> 01:10:43,240 n't say much about the text right now. My wife isn't here either, she's at home. But I think 745 01:10:43,240 --> 01:10:49,160 I sent her a few screenshots of the slides earlier. Look what she's doing now. 746 01:10:49,160 --> 01:10:56,800 Yes, well, because I also take a lot of photos, it's not always easy 747 01:10:56,800 --> 01:11:03,640 to find the right thing, take the right photo and do a little advertising for a 748 01:11:03,640 --> 01:11:08,440 SteePro session. I don't know whether today or tomorrow he will complain about the fact 749 01:11:08,440 --> 01:11:14,080 that there is so much riffing on small, ugly photos. I also find it an exciting topic. 750 01:11:14,080 --> 01:11:16,280 Yes, so much for that. 751 01:11:16,280 --> 01:11:23,920 Yes, thank you very much. Of course, for me this is also a very, very exciting contextualization 752 01:11:23,920 --> 01:11:29,440 of images. So that shouldn't have been a fundamental criticism of the article. 753 01:11:29,440 --> 01:11:35,080 I think it's great that a woman 754 01:11:35,080 --> 01:11:40,440 has stood her ground and taken on an article about a woman on a woman who perhaps just about meets the relevance criteria. So 755 01:11:40,440 --> 01:11:46,440 that's also a point that is being discussed in many initiatives surrounding Wikipedia. How do 756 01:11:46,440 --> 01:11:53,240 we manage to get more articles about women who also had family constellations, 757 01:11:53,240 --> 01:11:58,280 historically speaking, that did not allow them 758 01:11:58,280 --> 01:12:02,600 to be present in an architectural office or to be present in professional roles? So to think about that, I've 759 01:12:02,600 --> 01:12:07,880 already spoken intensively about it with Ziko. So no fundamental criticism of the article, 760 01:12:07,880 --> 01:12:13,320 but rather nice that something is there. But there is still a bit of room for improvement 761 01:12:13,320 --> 01:12:20,240 to design the article well so that it doesn't cause any bite. And then it is now an 762 01:12:20,240 --> 01:12:25,440 exciting point to talk about image quality again. So I see that there 763 01:12:25,440 --> 01:12:30,800 are different aspects here too. So on the one hand there is of course the technical aspect. I'm 764 01:12:30,800 --> 01:12:36,160 actually relatively open and forthcoming. So it doesn't bother me when a photo 765 01:12:36,160 --> 01:12:42,000 isn't of good quality from a technical point of view, but rather I argued earlier that perhaps it would 766 01:12:42,000 --> 01:12:47,160 be better to crop it. I don't know exactly what it means, but I suspect that it means 767 01:12:47,160 --> 01:12:53,360 cutting out a person from a group photo in order to place the person in the center. Exactly, 768 01:12:53,360 --> 01:12:58,680 Zico indicated it with a gesture. From my cultural linguistics and 769 01:12:58,680 --> 01:13:03,360 image studies perspective, I think this is a good option 770 01:13:03,360 --> 01:13:08,480 for cropping the images so that people are in the center, so that certain constellations of people 771 01:13:08,480 --> 01:13:14,440 don't also have to offer a stage. And in particular constellations of people that 772 01:13:14,440 --> 01:13:19,840 bring men to the fore because, in my opinion, they are already very present in many places. 773 01:13:19,840 --> 01:13:26,600 Exactly, to put it a bit polemically. So as I said, from a 774 01:13:26,600 --> 01:13:30,600 technical perspective I can understand that with the image qualities there may 775 01:13:30,600 --> 01:13:35,320 be considerations, but from a cultural studies, image studies 776 01:13:35,320 --> 01:13:42,680 perspective I absolutely think it's a good process, good digital image practice here on the person 777 01:13:42,680 --> 01:13:47,640 who is being described, so to speak then cropping the image accordingly is my perspective. 778 01:13:47,640 --> 01:13:52,600 That would also be an exciting point to negotiate. And I'm very excited 779 01:13:52,600 --> 01:13:55,640 about the session I just mentioned, which might also be about that. Maybe you can 780 01:13:55,640 --> 01:14:00,920 include this cultural studies perspective in the session too. 781 01:14:00,920 --> 01:14:06,480 We now have one more question from the audience here and then a few more questions from the chat. 782 01:14:12,920 --> 01:14:21,000 User Matthias B. from Schwetzingen. Hello Eva. You mentioned it earlier 783 01:14:21,000 --> 01:14:29,600 to describe the question or concern about better naming images for subtitles. 784 01:14:29,600 --> 01:14:34,840 Of course, this has a really big problem and that is the mass of files that 785 01:14:34,840 --> 01:14:43,240 are on Wikimedia Commons. There are tens of millions of them now, so no one has the time to do it. 786 01:14:43,240 --> 01:14:50,680 So maybe we have to start by saying that images used on Wikipedia 787 01:14:50,680 --> 01:14:56,520 should be described in more detail. But this also goes into accessibility with the alternative 788 01:14:56,520 --> 01:15:04,400 names. It's a completely different story that the visually impaired cannot see the image. 789 01:15:04,400 --> 01:15:11,720 Or rather, it is even more difficult to assess. And another point that occurred to me, 790 01:15:11,720 --> 01:15:17,160 we had a discussion a few years ago, a very heated discussion in Wikipedia, 791 01:15:17,160 --> 01:15:23,440 about the illustration of the article Tights. At the time it was illustrated, if I'm correct, 792 01:15:23,440 --> 01:15:28,320 with a photo of an advertisement from the Austrian company Palmers, which is known for very, 793 01:15:28,320 --> 01:15:36,000 I would say, revealing billboards, which I think have now somewhat disappeared from the street scene 794 01:15:36,000 --> 01:15:44,040 here in Austria. And then they were deleted, other pictures came in, then there was a woman with 795 01:15:44,040 --> 01:15:48,760 opaque tights, that was then replaced again, then a ballet dancer was 796 01:15:48,760 --> 01:15:55,720 inserted, back and forth and back and forth. I have to be honest about what the situation is now, 797 01:15:56,120 --> 01:15:59,760 but the problem is not new, so it has been known somewhere for several years. 798 01:16:03,240 --> 01:16:09,160 Yes, thank you very much, Matthias B., for all the great tips. So, of course, I see 799 01:16:09,160 --> 01:16:15,280 that this is a practical problem to subsequently contextualize images well, 800 01:16:15,280 --> 01:16:19,360 especially the tens of millions that are already in Wikimedia Commons. 801 01:16:19,840 --> 01:16:24,080 But perhaps that would be something that could be taken into account with a view to the future. 802 01:16:24,120 --> 01:16:31,320 So the images that are newly added, there are good rules and criteria to set in which context 803 01:16:31,320 --> 01:16:36,760 these images are placed. I think it might also help with the specific illustration 804 01:16:36,760 --> 01:16:41,760 if there was a good context here. You would perhaps save time when working on 805 01:16:41,760 --> 01:16:46,640 illustrating an article if you had better access to the images. 806 01:16:47,120 --> 01:16:54,400 And as I said, what I'm now observing, especially against the background of AI, is that a large number 807 01:16:54,400 --> 01:16:59,640 of images are being posted in Wikimedia Commons, especially for women, that 808 01:16:59,640 --> 01:17:05,280 are not well contextualized at all and, in my view, also in a project like Wikimedia Commons have no business 809 01:17:05,280 --> 01:17:11,960 because they reproduce gender stereotypes on a mass scale. And that actually brings me 810 01:17:11,960 --> 01:17:17,520 to your second point, Matthias B. I actually know the case of pantyhose. 811 01:17:17,520 --> 01:17:22,720 Of course, I have to ask an online encyclopedia of the 21st century whether it's 812 01:17:22,720 --> 01:17:28,640 really about reproducing revealing images from advertising in a Wikipedia article. 813 01:17:28,640 --> 01:17:33,680 I mean, it's clear to everyone that advertising wants to get attention, that it's possible 814 01:17:33,680 --> 01:17:40,320 to bring a product to women and that perhaps certain ideals of beauty 815 01:17:40,360 --> 01:17:45,120 are also addressed. And I know that in this case there were also some kind of fetish images 816 01:17:45,120 --> 01:17:51,600 that also showed problematic images of women that, in my opinion, 817 01:17:51,600 --> 01:17:57,360 had no online encyclopedic relevance at all. So, this is a point that 818 01:17:57,360 --> 01:18:04,680 is really worth discussing. What do you really want to show in an online encyclopedia with such topics and 819 01:18:04,680 --> 01:18:09,440 articles like this? Is it necessary, as I said, to reproduce ideals of beauty or, even worse, 820 01:18:09,600 --> 01:18:16,680 fetish images or images that can be seen as fetishes and 821 01:18:16,680 --> 01:18:22,440 include them here in an online encyclopedia? In my opinion it has no place there. Therefore 822 01:18:22,440 --> 01:18:24,800 , I can understand if this article has been modified accordingly. 823 01:18:29,080 --> 01:18:29,800 Yes thank you. 824 01:18:29,800 --> 01:18:32,480 Yes, if I can add something or I'll take it. 825 01:18:34,000 --> 01:18:36,920 We also have questions from the chat and then there's someone else here at the front. 826 01:18:37,480 --> 01:18:39,520 Then it's better to ask your questions than yes. 827 01:18:46,520 --> 01:18:50,640 Dear Ziko, I am the online angel from the session and we didn't have any questions, just 828 01:18:50,640 --> 01:18:55,000 comments, but I'll throw them out there anyway. So a comment that 829 01:18:55,000 --> 01:19:00,640 deals with the picture of Elisabeth Böhm again and actually says regrettably that the 830 01:19:01,120 --> 01:19:07,520 photo, which was already so poorly resolved, was cropped. And then two comments that are so thoughtful, 831 01:19:07,520 --> 01:19:13,760 moving away from illustrations more to the larger topic of how do you get women out of the shadows of theirs 832 01:19:13,760 --> 01:19:18,560 Men in their Wikipedia articles and this is a bit like the example of Miliva Maric 833 01:19:18,560 --> 01:19:25,760 , the Serbian physicist and mathematician, who many know as Albert Einstein's wife, 834 01:19:25,760 --> 01:19:31,560 Albert Einstein's first wife. So the people of Zurich simply 835 01:19:31,560 --> 01:19:36,720 thought a bit, so to speak. Yes, now here's another question from the audience. 836 01:19:39,840 --> 01:19:45,400 Hello user Alfons, I actually thought that we would talk a lot more 837 01:19:45,400 --> 01:19:52,280 here about the question of AI-generated images. It resonated with you very briefly, but as you 838 01:19:52,280 --> 01:19:57,240 may know or have followed on the discussion pages, when Chet-T-Petit 839 01:19:57,240 --> 01:20:02,720 popped up everywhere in the spring, the question immediately arose: what about AI-generated 840 01:20:02,720 --> 01:20:11,040 images? the Wikipedia, which doesn't illustrate the article AI, but where someone just 841 01:20:11,040 --> 01:20:17,720 thinks, I'll make a prompt, I'll let the AI work for me and put together any 842 01:20:17,720 --> 01:20:24,080 picture that I think will fill some gap in Wikipedia . And we 843 01:20:24,080 --> 01:20:29,400 had a discussion about it in this context and in my opinion it was relatively astonishing, 844 01:20:29,400 --> 01:20:36,600 gratifying, consistent, namely that such pictures, if they do not illustrate the AI article, 845 01:20:36,600 --> 01:20:44,960 are under suspicion of TF, i.e. theory development, you just build something yourself together, this has 846 01:20:44,960 --> 01:20:51,760 no claim to final authenticity and will be deleted from the articles. We even had that, 847 01:20:51,760 --> 01:20:57,840 there is still a small variation of it, for a while there were people who 848 01:20:57,840 --> 01:21:05,800 painted contours of people for whom there were no pictures in Wikipedia. We had 30 or 40 pictures like that, 849 01:21:05,800 --> 01:21:11,560 I think especially articles about musicians, all of which 850 01:21:11,640 --> 01:21:15,280 were then deleted. Maybe we could discuss that again briefly. Thanks. 851 01:21:15,280 --> 01:21:24,160 So I'm very happy to take up this topic, even though I'm not an AI expert at all, but 852 01:21:24,160 --> 01:21:29,280 I'm approaching the topic out of my own interest and I do 853 01:21:29,280 --> 01:21:34,960 n't think there's been that much research yet, at least not on the Jet-GPT phenomenon. DALI, i.e. chatbots, which are currently 854 01:21:34,960 --> 01:21:40,600 being negotiated across society as a whole since last November. But I also see it as 855 01:21:40,680 --> 01:21:44,880 a big problem, the AI-generated images. So I see it as a 856 01:21:44,880 --> 01:21:52,200 double-edged sword. You can definitely see opportunities, but you have to contain them very, very well, 857 01:21:52,200 --> 01:21:57,880 so you have to think about very good rules about when images 858 01:21:57,880 --> 01:22:04,160 are still acceptable for Wikipedia. For example, when it comes to historical people, i.e. people 859 01:22:04,160 --> 01:22:09,240 who have already died and for whom there are Wikipedia articles, if there 860 01:22:09,240 --> 01:22:16,320 is image material that only contains historical constellations, such as the 861 01:22:16,320 --> 01:22:22,080 family photo of Marie Curie, on which her father sits so centrally, it would of course have a 862 01:22:22,080 --> 01:22:30,640 certain appeal to generate images based on such images in which Marie Curie 863 01:22:30,640 --> 01:22:36,720 can be seen in contemporary constellations. But that is of course very risky because it 864 01:22:36,720 --> 01:22:41,600 completely contradicts previous image cultures. I would say that we simply want 865 01:22:41,600 --> 01:22:47,000 images to have a certain authenticity and the 866 01:22:47,000 --> 01:22:52,280 images that were mentioned were the contours of people. I think it was also a wish to 867 01:22:52,280 --> 01:22:56,560 give people who have already died and can no longer be photographed a 868 01:22:56,560 --> 01:23:02,960 face, let's say on Wikipedia, because we have a very 869 01:23:02,960 --> 01:23:08,760 visual culture. But of course I also understand if you have concerns about 870 01:23:08,760 --> 01:23:14,920 integrating such images, as I said, given the idea of the authenticity of images. In my 871 01:23:14,920 --> 01:23:20,360 opinion, the dangers of AI-generated images clearly predominate at the moment. As I said, 872 01:23:20,360 --> 01:23:25,040 I have the impression at the moment that there is a flood of 873 01:23:25,040 --> 01:23:33,160 image material, especially when it comes to the representation of women, that builds on earlier material and 874 01:23:33,160 --> 01:23:37,880 even reinforces gender stereotypes that can already be found in earlier, authentic image material. 875 01:23:37,880 --> 01:23:43,880 And this is promptly chosen in such a way that gender stereotyping is taken to 876 01:23:43,880 --> 01:23:48,960 a much greater extent and that this is image material in Wikimedia Commons 877 01:23:48,960 --> 01:23:54,200 that should under no circumstances find its way into Wikipedia. I can't 878 01:23:54,200 --> 01:24:00,800 imagine any contexts in which these images could be used. And that's why I see one here 879 01:24:00,800 --> 01:24:05,680 There is a great need to rethink the rules at Wikimedia Commons. I 880 01:24:05,680 --> 01:24:10,640 don't think there's much regulation yet as to what can be posted on Wikimedia Commons. Probably in 881 01:24:10,640 --> 01:24:14,240 view of the fact that people were generally happy if someone had taken the trouble 882 01:24:14,240 --> 01:24:20,960 to post pictures here, but with the possibility of 883 01:24:20,960 --> 01:24:26,920 generating masses of pictures at the push of a button with certain prompts, from my point of view this beautiful picture inventory, this beautiful 884 01:24:26,920 --> 01:24:32,120 picture material, floods what was previously mostly available in Wikimedia Commons. In my opinion, this will be completely 885 01:24:32,120 --> 01:24:36,840 overshadowed if regulations are not found here in a timely manner. And then, 886 01:24:36,840 --> 01:24:41,320 secondly, you would of course have to consider how to deal with these image materials on Wikimedia Commons in other Wiki projects 887 01:24:41,320 --> 01:24:47,960 . This is my first rather tentative 888 01:24:47,960 --> 01:24:53,640 attitude towards images. Exactly, Ziko, you definitely want something now. Oh, I'm very tentative about that too 889 01:24:53,640 --> 01:24:59,840 . Yes, thank you very much, Alphons, for throwing it around again. I have a video 890 01:24:59,840 --> 01:25:05,600 on my channel so I don't want to go into most aspects of it. Yes, it's always the 891 01:25:05,600 --> 01:25:11,920 question, what do I expect from a photo? Do I really take it as a source or as an illustration? And 892 01:25:11,920 --> 01:25:16,880 then we have just as many examples from the history of the encyclopedia where you also 893 01:25:16,880 --> 01:25:22,760 had pure illustrations of something. History painting and yes, it is always difficult for me to 894 01:25:22,760 --> 01:25:29,360 say why AI in particular is not allowed. But well, more on that. As far as the images of women are concerned, 895 01:25:29,360 --> 01:25:34,080 they are very sexualized representations of what I know, fantasy, 896 01:25:34,080 --> 01:25:39,320 warrior woman who is scantily clad or something like that. And I also ask myself what the need is, 897 01:25:39,320 --> 01:25:45,080 unless you want to show in an article about artificial intelligence that such images exist 898 01:25:45,080 --> 01:25:50,480 or something. Yes, I don't know if the rules need to be stricter. Then they are simply 899 01:25:50,480 --> 01:25:56,480 ignored. They are on Commons. I don't know to what extent they're a nuisance there. However, yes, 900 01:25:56,480 --> 01:26:02,920 to what extent does Wikimedia Commons now want to be a platform for what is ultimately 901 01:26:02,920 --> 01:26:09,680 a kind of fan art or amateur drawings or whatever you want to call it. So this 902 01:26:09,680 --> 01:26:14,440 may not be the appropriate platform for this. I can understand this displeasure. 903 01:26:14,440 --> 01:26:23,680 Yes, but in general, how this will develop in society, whether people 904 01:26:23,680 --> 01:26:30,600 will perhaps be much cooler in five years with such representations as Albert Einstein somehow in 905 01:26:30,600 --> 01:26:35,200 reconstructions with AI. It may be that people will find it completely okay. 906 01:26:35,200 --> 01:26:39,840 I have one more question from the audience and then we are slowly coming to the end. 907 01:26:44,440 --> 01:27:01,480 So my name is Andreas Werle. You all know that my hobby is Shakespeare and I, 908 01:27:01,480 --> 01:27:09,400 together with an English scholar Wide Horizons, 909 01:27:09,400 --> 01:27:16,440 completely re-wrote the entire body of work, including Shakespeare, all the dramas, and also exchanged all the pictures and added new pictures. And that 910 01:27:16,440 --> 01:27:24,200 is problematic, because Shakespeare's work is full of misogynistic elements and 911 01:27:24,200 --> 01:27:32,440 colonial fantasies and so on. And I deliberately chose two examples of images 912 01:27:32,440 --> 01:27:40,040 that reproduce the colonial stereotype and a misogynistic element, namely in King Lear, 913 01:27:40,040 --> 01:27:49,040 a photo of Margaret Cameron, which shows Lear and then the two evil daughters 914 01:27:49,040 --> 01:27:54,000 who stand behind him, who are deceitful and then the good daughter, Cordelia, 915 01:27:54,000 --> 01:28:00,600 who bows to him a bit and who is supposed to be the humble daughter 916 01:28:00,680 --> 01:28:09,080 because she is the good daughter. In fact, the history of interpretation and 917 01:28:09,080 --> 01:28:15,560 the modern interpretation of the work and the work itself are completely contrary to this. So Cordelia 918 01:28:15,560 --> 01:28:22,600 is rebellious, contradicts Lear and then later appears as a military leader and tries 919 01:28:22,600 --> 01:28:28,600 to conquer England. And the two devious daughters, the evil ones, are the ones 920 01:28:28,600 --> 01:28:37,000 who are stubborn, who oppose the father, the father figure. And in the 921 01:28:37,000 --> 01:28:42,640 Cleopatra article I chose a very classic image, which 922 01:28:42,640 --> 01:28:48,760 represents Cleopatra as a femme fatale, which basically reflects the colonial context in an affirmative way, 923 01:28:48,760 --> 01:28:56,040 even though Cleopatra is one of the most fantastic characters that Shakespeare 924 01:28:56,040 --> 01:29:03,440 has played alongside Hamlet and... Falstaff generated and where everyone is fascinated by this strong and 925 01:29:03,440 --> 01:29:09,040 emotional and contradictory woman. So and this contradiction, I find it interesting 926 01:29:09,040 --> 01:29:14,240 and challenging and I did this consciously, so it is completely clear to me that 927 01:29:14,240 --> 01:29:20,360 these images are contrary, firstly to the content of the works and secondly to the history of interpretation. 928 01:29:20,360 --> 01:29:31,280 Do you think that's good? What do you think about it? Caption in the Lear article is simply 929 01:29:31,280 --> 01:29:38,960 King Lear and his daughters by Margaret Cameron and Cleopatra, there it is just 930 01:29:38,960 --> 01:29:46,040 a name, painting by so and so. Thanks. Yes, totally exciting, Ziko, I would start 931 01:29:46,040 --> 01:29:51,680 if you like. The discussion of fictional texts in Wikipedia is of course 932 01:29:51,680 --> 01:29:57,680 highly relevant for teaching contexts, because students also 933 01:29:57,680 --> 01:30:03,080 access Wikipedia when they 934 01:30:03,080 --> 01:30:11,680 discuss fictional texts in teaching contexts and this area of tension from what we have now discussed, how images work and 935 01:30:11,680 --> 01:30:16,600 I find it very exciting that people would like to include reception stories in the article, 936 01:30:16,600 --> 01:30:21,800 but I would also like the captions to perhaps also 937 01:30:21,800 --> 01:30:27,200 reveal the background against which these images were chosen. So I think it will 938 01:30:27,200 --> 01:30:33,320 make a lot of sense to reformulate the captions again and at least include to some extent 939 01:30:33,320 --> 01:30:37,760 why which images were selected here, with what background, 940 01:30:37,760 --> 01:30:46,240 so that it becomes transparent for, at least for, students. Whether students 941 01:30:46,240 --> 01:30:51,360 then access Wikipedia in such a thoughtful way remains to be seen, but at least for 942 01:30:51,360 --> 01:30:56,360 students it would perhaps become more transparent and perhaps also offer a different opportunity 943 01:30:56,680 --> 01:31:02,280 to think again about why certain image inventories are included here. So, 944 01:31:02,280 --> 01:31:08,040 as I said, please don't underestimate image captions, but rather disclose 945 01:31:08,040 --> 01:31:18,800 why which image inventories are included here. Yes, thank you Andreas. A very interesting example, 946 01:31:18,800 --> 01:31:22,640 I honestly hadn't even thought of something like that. Yes, I don't know whether 947 01:31:22,800 --> 01:31:27,360 an AI image might help and then we'll discuss it together, yes the daughter would have to 948 01:31:27,360 --> 01:31:32,760 be portrayed a little less humbly or something like that, who knows. Very interesting, thank you. 949 01:31:32,760 --> 01:31:40,800 Yes, I think that's where we've come to the end. Thank you Ziko and Eva 950 01:31:40,800 --> 01:31:47,280 for joining us digitally and thank you to the audience for joining in the discussion. Bye.