Slashdot Mirror
What Image Should Represent All of Humanity On Wikipedia? (wired.com)
An anonymous reader writes: If aliens ever do come across the Pioneer spacecraft and make assumptions about the entire human species based on the man and woman etched onto the plaque it carries, this is what they will think of us: We all look like white people; we all look about 30ish years old; we do not wear clothes. It's a problem you encounter anytime you have to choose a few individuals to represent an entire group, and it's one that the editors of Wikipedia have debated for years: What image should grace the top of the "human" entry in the online dictionary?
The photo that's there now, after years of feverish debate, is of an Akha couple from a region of Thailand along the Mekong river. "The photo of the Akha couple remain humanity's type specimens on Wikipedia," writes author Ellen Airhart. "Just as a shriveled northeastern leopard frog at the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology represents its whole species, so this couple stands for all of us."
Such musing about the taxonomic representation of the human species could actually have a big impact on our digital future. "Future scientists will have to teach computers, not aliens, to recognize the human image. Right now, software engineers program artificial intelligence to recognize people by feeding them millions of pictures of faces," she writes. "But whose faces? Computer scientists run into the same questions about gender, race, and culture that the Wikipedia editors encountered. Being able to use more than one photo expands the conversation but does not necessarily make it easier."
The photo that's there now, after years of feverish debate, is of an Akha couple from a region of Thailand along the Mekong river. "The photo of the Akha couple remain humanity's type specimens on Wikipedia," writes author Ellen Airhart. "Just as a shriveled northeastern leopard frog at the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology represents its whole species, so this couple stands for all of us."
Such musing about the taxonomic representation of the human species could actually have a big impact on our digital future. "Future scientists will have to teach computers, not aliens, to recognize the human image. Right now, software engineers program artificial intelligence to recognize people by feeding them millions of pictures of faces," she writes. "But whose faces? Computer scientists run into the same questions about gender, race, and culture that the Wikipedia editors encountered. Being able to use more than one photo expands the conversation but does not necessarily make it easier."
a 'Boot on a face'. It sums up most of history marvelously.
It's not about you. It's not about inclusion. It's just a stupid picture and not important.
Stop categorizing each other and creating divisive conversations all because you expect life to be fair. Stop getting upset because your color/ethnic background isn't getting the spotlight. Your pride is causing all of us to fall.
Move on with your lives and concentrate on doing something important.
Not like me wasting my time commenting on this post.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
We're bipedal, have two arms with five fingers each, a mouth, a nose, two eyes and two ears and our species has two sexes.
The proportions are also about accurate for most of us.
I think that's enough for first contact information. I mean where does it end? Do we need to tell them our social structures and capacity for empathy and destruction as well?
I'd think those are info bits for a second or third contact...
We can make the next plaque with black or Asian people, I don't care.
The Vitruvian Man to be more specific.
if they use that asian couple, then what about the people's of other ethnic origin? why not a panoramic (extra wide photo) showing several couples of various ethnic origins to capture the diversity of humanity
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Why do we require one image to signify humanity on wikipedia? The pages for cats, dogs, birds, bats, spiders and fruit all feature composite images of the many species represented in one image. Why would the page for humans be any different? Indeed, the page goes on to show many examples of humans.
Am I missing something here?
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
Norman Rockwell's The Golden Rule
https://i.pinimg.com/originals...
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.