Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-17 Photo editing

What's going on?
The main dispute concerns a single section of the photo editing article, namely the Photoshopping section. From what I can tell, the issue is that some editors (mainly DreamGuy) feel that the section should only mention the professional usage of the term "Photoshopping," to mean editing images using Adobe Photoshop, mainly for professional purposes. Other editors think that, in addition to the professional mention, there should be mention of the cultural use of the term to mean editing images using any image editing program for a variety of purposes (not just professional). --clpo13(talk) 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable summary. To be more specific, "what's going on" is that the article is currently locked to prevent recurrence of long-term edit warring and allow a compromise to form along the lines clpol3 outlines here. The page currently shows the section having only two paragraphs, one covering the neologistic nature of the term, the other the cultural reference, plus an image which pretty much everyone agrees should be removed, or at least changed for a more appropriate one. The discussion page is currently focussed on the preferred nature, reliability, scope and indeed necessity of references (sources) for the second para and a proposed third para, pointing out that the term refers primarily to the professional use of the software. An alternative version currently proposes a smaller "popular culture" para, includes the new third one, and carries no image. mikaultalk 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative version looks nice to me. The main thing here is that while we can regulate the use of the term as a verb in our articles, we can't deny the fact that photoshop is, and has been, used as a verb in everyday life and popular culture.  Cool Blue  talk to me 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Essentially, I would like a compromise to be made regarding the section, so that all parties are satisfied that the section does not give WP:UNDUE weight to any particular thing while also giving suitable mention to things that are significant and notable.

Discussion, including an RfC, has already taken place, but no consensus has been reached due to apparently irreconcilable differences between the editors. I feel a completely independent and (hopefully) unbiased mediator might be able to prod the parties into coming to an agreement. --clpo13(talk) 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With the proposed version in mind, barring minor agreement on specific sources and possibly (but not necessarily) choice of image, there's very little needs to change. Current editorial differences are way, way smaller than the past controversy surrounding them. All that needs to change is the unwillingness to let all that crap go. mikaultalk 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative version fine by me yo 3tmx 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
If everyone doesn't mind, could everyone please list their view below? I'll ask all parties if they want to participate, and if they don't they will be removed.  Cool Blue  talk to me 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Below as in right here you mean?


 * My view is that the only difficulty with the article is that one editor wants the "photoshopping" section to say that photoshopping simply means using Adobe Photoshop. Since we've got multiple reliable sources that talk explicity about what photoshopping means to various communities, we ought to talk about that briefly, limiting ourselves to what is supported in reliable refs.  The version that Alucard worked up as a consensus of most editors is pretty good, though it's missing a ref or two and maybe a ref url if I recall correctly.  Dicklyon 06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As per my comments above, concerned editors should concentrate on tweaking the proposed version into something we can use: as far as I can see, it needs minor agreement on sources and perhaps fine-tuning the balance. Discussion about an image can wait. I'd certainly like to hear from User:DreamGuy here before the process goes any further. mikaultalk 15:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll review the information, and, you're right, we should probably wait for DreamGuy.  Cool Blue  talk to me 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Discussion regarding the Photoshopping section has been ongoing on the article talk page for a long time now. --clpo13(talk) 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)