Does it really have to be covert? Why?
It isnt, of course it isnt.
There is even a Wikipedian facebook group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facebook
Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that anyone can edit any unprotected page and improve articles immediately for all readers. You do not need to register to do this. Anyone who has edited is known as a "Wikipedian"
There are multiple language versions of the street photography wiki and a couple of them are very good but the English one always fares badly. For example the photos that are inserted into the page are often times photographers using the wiki to promote themselves as credible because their photo is in the wiki and so they have to be continuously removed and replaced with photographs that are regarded as equitable to the community. The Stieglitz photo for example and also because it is in the public domain and has no copyright issue to deal with.
But wiki is assaulted all the time with hit and run attacks by coward trolls and some with a taste for the obscene and malicious. There are wiki members that monitor just these. Its a tiresome pastime.
I pointed out earlier the sentence in the street photography wiki ...but here is a bit more of it and it gets worse.
After the invention of the candid camera, candid photography in public places became an issue of discussion. Street photographers create fine art photography (including street portraits) by capturing people in public places, often with a focus on emotions displayed by people in public, as in public display of affection between lovers or a parent caring for his or her children, thereby also recording people's history from an emotional point of view.
Of course Candid Camera is a television program and nothing to do with anything but there are no citations and the relevancy let alone the facts are absent. It a joke of a page now and yet some like it and think it is relevant and an explanation.
The parts I wrote are all still there and much from some other authors too, there are hidden reasons in the definition that I gave it so that it would be more inclusive. It has a strong historical component as well and in a prior version the author had confused documentary and street together and it was fixed but it has happened again ...
Social documentary photographers operate in public places documenting people and their behavior in public places for recording people's history and other purposes. Services like Google Street View also record the public place at a massive scale. Photojournalists work in public places, capturing newsworthy events, which may include people and private property visible from public places.
The page does not even meet the wiki requirement and is a breach of wiki policy, I'm surprised there isnt a policy to delete the whole page. I took it on back when it had been over run by Leica owners and it had become an advertisment for Leica.
I've given up on it, its an idiotic thing and is so corrupted now. Some like it but my supermarket sells SPAM and tinned spaghetti (and some like that too).
Street is in a state of confusion and populated by a lot of aggressive and angry photographers, a definition for all is not possible and yet a single definition can be written that satisfies all. That definition is my property and not for abuse here. As everyone has seen in this thread some even object to its name or that it even has one or that it is even defined
😱.
Its insane and yet some of us have no trouble understanding it and proven by our own photographs. Fortunately too RFF has a high incidence of skilled street photographers and some of them even in this thread ....thank goodness for them. In fact Ko.Fe, I'm surprised at you with the abundant resource right here on RFF ...you should already be able to define it yourself by the examples that count for some of the best on the internet and every one of them worth a thousand words ...if only you read them.
