User:Crotalus horridus/Problems with Zombietime image

There has been a great deal of controversy, particularly on Talk:New antisemitism, regarding the inclusion of a photograph allegedly taken at a San Francisco anti-war rally in 2003.

Background

The image was taken by "zombie," the pseudonymous author of a Web site called Zombietime. There has been some controversy as to the exact nature of this material. According to the author, "Zombietime is not a blog. It is simply a Web site." Nonetheless, it has been described in reliable sources as a blog.

According to its description page, the image in question was uploaded to Wikipedia on August 30, 2006. It is currently used in three articles: New antisemitism, Anti-globalization and antisemitism, and Zombietime. In all three articles, it has been prominently placed in the lead.

The image is deployed under a claim of fair use. Although "zombie" has given authorization for his photograph to be used under a CC-BY license, the photograph is a derivative work of the poster which comprises the majority of the frame. The artist who drew the poster has not provided a valid free license for the image contained therein. Although the artist's name is not specified on the image description page, a statement says that it is "available upon request."

The inclusion of this image has been controversial, with some users opposing its inclusion while others just as adamantly defend it. The opposition case was summed up pithily by G-Dett, who described the photograph as "a crazy image of Jewish devils torching the globe — an image whose economy of distribution (before Wikipedia got its hands on it) consisted of having been designed by one crank, held aloft by a second, and photographed by a third."

Problems with the image

The inclusion of the Zombietime image, especially on the New antisemitism article, is highly problematic. Our three core content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. The current use of the Zombietime photograph doesn't just violate one of these principles; it violates all three.

Neutral point of view

The Wikimedia Foundation mandates "neutral point of view as the guiding editorial principle." According to the policy page, "We are supposed to "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." We are also required to avoid giving undue weight to fringe and minority views. Moreover, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints."

Placing the Zombietime photograph in the lead of New antisemitism, in particular, violates the neutrality policy. As discussed in that article, the very existence of "new antisemitism" as a real phenomenon is disputed by several reliable sources. Norman Finkelstein, in particular, has written that the concept is simply a shield to "immunize Israel against criticism." Brian Klug argues that "new antisemitism" is actually a conflation of several different phenomena, that the use of the term is unhelpful, and that, as a result of this discourse, "legitimate moral and political views about Israel and Zionism" have been "branded anti-Semitic." Of course, other prominent commentators, such as Abraham Foxman and Alan Dershowitz, disagree with this analysis. Nonetheless, our encyclopedic responsibility is to present all such views in a neutral manner, in accordance with their prominence and weight in the reliable sources.

Placing the Zombietime photograph in the lead of New antisemitism fails Wikipedia's neutrality obligations. It essentially says, in the encyclopedic voice, that new antisemitism does exist and that this poster is an example of it. The caption says, without qualification, that "this placard mixes anti-American, anti-Zionist, and anti-globalization imagery with classic antisemitic motifs." Several sources are cited for these assertions, but most of them are blogs or other unverifiable Web sites.

Perhaps more importantly, the use of this image clearly violates the policy on undue weight. It is currently featured prominently in the lead of three different articles. Moreover, depending on the revision, the caption often contains a link to either the Zombietime article or to the website itself. Currently, if an average user goes to Google and types in "new antisemitism" (with or without quotes), they will be directed to the Wikipedia article as the first hit. This article then prominently displays a disgusting fringe placard which has virtually no notability outside of Wikipedia itself. In contrast, a controversial New Statesman cover image, which has been specifically discussed in multiple reliable sources as a possible example of new antisemitism, is much smaller and much further down in the article. This placement of the image prioritizes a fringe website above an editorial by a prominent commentator in a major U.S. news magazine and a book by a scholarly publishing house, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutrality rules.

Verifiability

Zombietime is clearly not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. The Wikipedia policy on verifiability states that "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Such sources may only be used in a few carefully delimited circumstances, none of which apply to this image. Whether or not it is a blog, Zombietime is unquestionably self-published.