:Redlinks among lists of "Notable anybody" should be deleted anyway: half the time it's a prankster's buddy. Guidelines never substitute for missing common sense: instead they get rigorously enforced by people from authoritarian cultural backgrounds. --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
:Redlinks among lists of "Notable anybody" should be deleted anyway: half the time it's a prankster's buddy. Guidelines never substitute for missing common sense: instead they get rigorously enforced by people from authoritarian cultural backgrounds. --[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that this should be its own guideline - we have too many separate and overlapping guidelines already. The nutshell version, however, should definitely be policy SOMEWHERE.. it would be good to have it clarified front and center. [[User:Perel|Perel]] 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People
So, it's been talked about, hinted at, and finally, appears to have happened -- a group of editors have decided that there should be NO "fair use" rationale for promotional photos of living people.
The short version: If an image is a press hand-out or other "for media use" image, and it depicts a living person, the image is deemed to be "unfree" (the horror!) and replaceable with a "free" image, usually one from a Flickr stream (and usually, an image without the subject's approval). Several hundred of these images have been deleted over the past week; many, without following the proper guidelines for image deletion.
Of course, there are a large number of people who feel this course of action is perhaps emphasizing the wrong word in the Wikipedia goal to "create a free encyclopedia" - valuing the "free" far more than the "encyclopedia." And, I have to say, I'm one of them -- If a promotional photo is distributed for wide media re-use, with the approval of the subject, photographer, and copyright holder, and the image is sourced and tagged appropriately, who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia? Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable.
Please note: I am aware of Jimbo's feelings on this, and would encourage editors to refrain from the tired "But Jimbo says..." posting that even now, some editor is composing. I am more interested in OTHER EDITORS feelings about this. Should Wikipedia replace all professional promotional media images with images such as this? :Image:Kristen Bell.jpg Or should we hit the wayback machine a bit, and allow sensible fair use of copyrighted promotional photographs, such as was done until this most recent spasm of anti-promophoto editing?
Jenolen11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion break 1
I couldn't agree with you more. A press photo is by law 100% usable for any purpose here on Wikipedia. and should not present an issue for us. It is nutty to think otherwise.--BenBurch14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The massive deletion campaign that has gone on in recent weeks, eliminating thousands of properly tagged promotional photos (many of which are irreplaceable) is seriously damaging our project. The use of horrible photos such as the one you present above supports your argument that such personalities may wish to have no association with our encyclopedia after seeing such an image of themselves here. Badagnani14:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost at least 32 images in the past week as well, not to mention countless hours of work both creating and defending the images. In many cases said images were obtained directly from the artists themselves, and involve persons from around the globe who don't walk into major public forums. In my case, the rule applied has been nearly universal - if the person is alive, your press or promo photo gets deleted, and nothing you can add to a fair use rationale can change it. Period. After this experience, I have stopped loading any images onto Wikipedia at all, and I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward. Many of them will not give up control of their images in such a wholesale fashion, and they have otherwise been major Wikipedia supporters. Tvccs05:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tvccs said, "I refuse to ask the artists and celebrities I know for GFDL images - it's insulting at the outset, and opens up major issues for them going forward."
Also keep in mind that any "free" (read: "permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes") images of celebrities people create are only going to wind up showing up on sites like this. I can see Wikipedia becoming the premier site for obtaining such photos for alteration and profit, and I absolutely refuse to upload any free permissible to use for for-profit and alteration purposes image of any celebrity because of these ethical considerations. This anwers the questions below of "why not just bring a camera and take a picture?" Copyrighting is not without excellent cause in many cases, after all.
I haven't seen this level of deletion going on but if you're in contact with the person and have a chance to meet them, why not just bring a camera and take a picture? There are some pictures that we'll miss, but for a lot of the media figures (minor actors and so forth), if they don't want to give us a picture that fits our requirements, it hurts them more than it hurts us. They want their picture in Wikipedia and are constantly trying to spam us to insert articles about themselves (hang out on AfD sometime). An awful lot of our articles about actors, musicians, etc., except for the most important ones are basically spam (material created by publicists). We're not a publicity agency and we don't need those pictures. 67.117.130.18116:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Material created by publicists" is not spam. Spam is material with no useful content. Material created by publicists, although perhaps pov, perhaps hyperbolic, is still not spam. Wjhonson18:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. At the very least, the amount of prior discussion with the parties involved should be proportional to the number of images affected. If you are going to delete one photo because you think it's wrong...fine, "Be Bold". If you plan on deleting ten of them for the same reason then you'd better talk with some other editors about it first. When you plan to delete hundreds to thousands - the entire community needs to be involved on a much larger scale discussion with full consensus before proceeding. Talk first, delete later. SteveBaker14:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't come to Wikipedia because the images are free, they come here because of the information. Never remove a (properly tagged) fair-use image in favor of a free one, if the fair-use image illustrates the subject better. -Freekee15:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. Do replace fair use images with free ones; yes, even ones that are of slightly lower quality. (The example is too blurred to be useful, but anything better would qualify.) Promotional photos will always be of somewhat higher quality because they're taken by expensive photographers; fair use images will be taken by volunteer editors, very few of whom meet those qualifications. If we don't replace them, there will be no incentive to take truly free photos. However, don't remove fair uses images until free ones become available - it is unrealistic to expect volunteer editors to go to the lengths that paparazzi go to to snap photos. AnonEMouse(squeak)15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern. I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding — or worse, misrepresenting — the choices available to us. We are not forced to choose flatly whether to allow fair use or not. We have before us a more nuanced choice. If it is possible to replace a 'fair use' image with a genuinely 'free' one, we should definitely be doing that. Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case.
If a 'free' image exists, it very seriously weakens any 'fair use' argument associated with a promo photo; it also weakens Wikipedia's claim to be a 'free' encyclopedia when we include non-free images in our articles. You ask rhetorically (I presume) "who am I to say the photo is not "copy-left" enough for Wikipedia?". I'm going to answer anyway — you're not required to decide or interpret. If the image hasn't been explicitly released under a free license (GFDL, CC, PD, etc.) then it's not copyleft enough, and we should seek a genuinely 'free' alternative. It's kind of a no-brainer.
Note also that it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to make stars look pretty. Their agents ought to be well aware of Wikipedia by now; if they want the promotional value of a pretty Wikipedia picture, they can provide us with one under an appropriate license. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one releases images to Wikipedia. That is pure BS and deceptive to say to someone and agents can see through the euphemisms. You are asking them to release images to the world for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes. Wikipedia just gets to use the images after that fact, in the rare instance it occurs. If I were famous much because of my image and my agent released an image of me for use by anyone anywhere for for-profit and alteration-allowable purposes, I would fire that agent as a completely irresponsible idiot. So many editos and admins have deluded themselves that "people just don't know about the GFDL and Creative Commons. Nonsense. It is that they have heard about them, and dismissed them as stupidly against their interests. Hello Wikipedia Paparazzi. CyberAnth00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where no 'free' image exists, we should retain the promo photo until a free image becomes available; I think most people support retention of the 'fair use' images in that case. -- But this is not how the policy is being implemented. As has been noted, a "delete all promotional photos of living people immediately" campaign is already well underway. As for star agents/publicity people, they DO make their stars available for promtional photos all the time... it's just that the current system (stars pose for studio photographers, in character, for photos released by the copyright holder) seem to mandate "fair use." You're not going to convince the entire entertainment world to release to Wikipedia, alone, images that are in totality, "free/libre." There will ALWAYS be rights reserved by the copyright holder, which is why fair use MUST be used. But there are plenty of editors who would rather have NO IMAGE than a fair use image, and these editors have been especially vigorous in implementing this new "no promophotos of living people" ban. To me, that's counterproductive, and not making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Jenolen21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly concur with TenOfAllTrades. I also note that a lot of the photos used are not actually promotional photos released as part of a press kit, and their use is questionable. I am also of the position that having an unfree image up tends to discourage people from taking free photographs: they see that something is already there and will not have the incentive to go out and do so. Unless the image is genuinely necessary to discuss in the article (Marilyn Monroe with her skirt blowing up is a classic example), where it is possible to get a free photo (i.e., the person isn't dead, retired, or otherwise out of public life) I would prefer to see nothing, in order to provide that incentive: promoting future value in the creation of new free content rather than going for the short-term quick-fix but worse solution. In most cases photos of celebrities are nice but not absolutely necessary for the value of an encyclopedia. There are plenty of reference materials on the web available at no cost to view; what makes Wikipedia different is its being free-as-in-speech rather than simply at no cost and we need to act to further that, our mission. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern with the deletion is that too many mass image taggers are failing to consider what relevant information the photo actually provides relative to what a free alternative could actually provide. A current picture obviously could not replace a publicity photo taken many decades ago (though this is arguably relevant only if we're dealing with a celebrity whose specific appearance is important, as opposed to say a scientist), and a free picture could not substitute for an in-character publicity shot or screenshot from an actor's work (yet I have seen pictures of all of these natures inexplicably tagged as "replaceable"). "The subject is alive" is obviously not a catch-all justification for deleting any fair use photo without qualification. Our policies rightfully require that the replacement be able to "adequately present the same information" as the fair use image, and anyone tagging an image as replaceable should not do so if they don't understand what that information is. Postdlf16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably changing the subject a bit, but how does wikipedia reconcile discouraging editors from doing original research in articles with encouraging editors to take their own pictures? Shouldn't pictures come from a reliable source, and why wouldn't original pictures be original research? It seems contradictory to me. --Milo H Minderbinder16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone else sees the inherent contradiction between an insistence on prior publication and no original research in written content and an insistence on original images. Tvccs12:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's discussed over on Commons. Remember also that the original historical reason for the NOR policy was to deal with physics cranks. OR isn't inherently bad, it's just that we couldn't find a better way to filter out crank stuff than to exclude OR completely. 67.117.130.18116:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jenolen says, "Instead, the previously sensible fair use criteria would seem to allow for such images, but the wording on this policy has been tweaked and shaved so as to be basically nonsensical, and entirely impracticable." Well, no, it hasn't. The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created -- not where free images already exist. Policy on this issue has not changed in the past few weeks. All that has changed is that people are finally starting to enforce the previously ignored criterion 1. There is simply no excuse whatsoever for using copyrighted images of living people who regularly appear in public. —Angr17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best excuse in the world; If the picture makes the article better, and it is actually fair or permitted use of the material, then the BETTER picture is the one that ought to be in the article. We want to have the GREATEST encyclopedia, not simply the freest one. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Break the rules. Be Bold. And if you have looked, a lot of the replacement pictures SUCK.
No, we're about having the freest encyclopedia. Having a free encyclopedia means that our work here will outlive all of us, no matter what Jimbo or the board may do. It means that the encyclopedia can be spread to poor families in third world countries, whether whether it's spread solely by non-profits or by market-driven methods. --Interiot18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia grows by being a great source of information. Reducing the amount of information here by removing pictures, and replacing them with images that don't well illustrate the subject (or not replacing them at all) is counterproductive. I would have an easier time accepting this rule if someone could explain the harm in having fair-use and promotional pictures here. -Freekee19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You're discussing how Wikipedia grows — and certainly, nobody will dispute that adding non-free images and other content to Wikipedia will make it larger. The concern is the effect that non-free material will have on allowing Wikipedia to spread or to be distributed. Mixing free and non-free licensed content in our articles greatly complicates (and curtails) the ability of people or organizations to reprint, republish, mirror, or otherwise redistribute Wikipedia's content. For instance, having non-free images makes it difficult or impossible for an article to be included in a book — or, for that matter, a digital CD compilation — and sold.
I feel that the bigger and more helpful the encyclopedia is, the more it will be spread around, but your point is taken. What I don't understand is why we're more concerned about others passing on our information, than we are about having the best information available. And to TenOfAllTrades, just below, I wasn't suggesting we push the boundaries of "what we can get away with", I was questioning why it isn't within the boundaries in the first place. -Freekee22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having a great deal of information here is only one part of what we do — we also have a responsibility (and specifically enumerated aim!) to make our content freely available to as many people as possible. Encumbering our work with images bearing restrictive licences hinders us in achieving that goal. Remember that we're building a free encyclopedia; we're not just assembling a large collection of whatever we think we might be able to get away with on this one particular web site. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. The whole damned point behind a press release photo is that you can, with attribution, us it in any publication whatsoever. The rights have been given. You'll have to come up with a better excuse to justify this Political Crunchiness than that.--BenBurch21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity photos I see are usually not so explicit. If they do have explicit releases like that, then we can use them. Here is a photo gallery of U.S. Senator-elect Amy Klobuchar and these are professional publicity photos without any explicit license. News media have been using them but it's problematic for us. (Once she's actually sworn into the Senate, some government photographer will shoot an official portrait and we'll be able to use that since official US govt publications are public domain). 67.117.130.18116:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ones where permission is granted for use, they're not free content. You do not unless explicitly granted have permission to modify them, to create other derivative works from them, or to sell them (though you may in many cases sell publications which include them). You might also get better responses by taking a less antagonistic tone. The "political crunchiness" of which you speak is on the part of the project, not on the part of the individual editors you're talking to. (Well, said editors may hold those views too, but that really doesn't matter. :-)) We aim to create content that is free for those uses, not just reprinting, and so content that we cannot do that to is a poor substitute. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a non-sequitor that if mirrors and other reusers of Wikipedia content are unable to use fair use material for whatever reason, that Wikipedia should be unable as well. Fair use images are all tagged and categorized as such and so should be easy to filter out; why shouldn't it be up to mirrors to find "free" images to fill in the gaps left by the exclusion of fair use images, rather than Wikipedia removing what it has a legal right to use based on applicable U.S. copyright law?
Regarding "free encyclopedia," the repetition of this mantra does nothing to advance understanding, and suggests that it's an all-or-nothing prospect of a "free" encyclopedia "or" one that "gets away" (?) with fair use. I can understand wanting to minimize fair use, as 1) it makes sense legally to be more cautious than we think the law permits; and 2) there is no need to go out of our way to increase the burden on reusers to filter out fair use content. However, it should be acknowledged that Wikipedia cannot become devoid of fair use-reliant content and "free" without making far more drastic changes than deleting some images, such as the removal of all textual summaries of copyrighted fictional works and textual descriptions of copyrighted fictional characters, the removal of all quotes from copyrighted works... Postdlf22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are images that can't be included in a hard copy of wikipedia (or part of it), isn't the obvious solution just to omit those images in that version? Since wp is technology based, it should be possible to have images that are tagged as not being free identified and omitted automatically. And is there a reference to the "law" that says that publicity photos can't be used in a hard copy? --Milo H Minderbinder22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Angr says, "The wording of the fair use criteria on this question has not changed since criterion 1 was first added in October 2005. The fair use criteria have always prohibited the use of unfree images where free images could be created." That may well be; the change I was thinking of when I wrote that may have been in the {{promophoto}} template, which, until October 2006, had a more liberal wording with regards to that criteria.
However, I think it's fair to say that the images I uploaded -- and worked with many admins to properly tweak and tag under the fair use policy when I uploaded them (mostly spring and summer, 2006) -- seemed to meet the criteria as they were being applied at the time. Admins I contacted to MAKE SURE my images were properly tagged and sourced agreed that they, in fact, were. And then, the log rolled. A whole new interpretation bubbled up - this "no promophotos of living people, at all" kick that many editors are currently on. I disagree with their interpretation of policy. I disagree with their implementation of the policy. And I'm glad to see some sensible discussion about it here! Jenolen21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion break 2
Just my two cents; promotional images are used as such because (in theory) they are excellent samples of the subject (case in point: Image:Davidsedaris.jpg). In my opinion, it makes perfect sense for us to use such photos until a better photo can be found; to remove a photo just because the person is still alive is a poor concept that does more harm than good. EVula// talk // ☯ //21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what of the idea that it discourages volunteer photographers from making the effort to find/take free pictures themselves? In the long term, I think that's more harmful, because we don't get anyone with the incentive to take these photos. (For example, does he ever do book tours and signings? If you knew a picture was already there, would you make much of an effort to go seek out one of these events?) If you can find a digital picture of the person to use as "fair use", anyone else can find it on the web too, and we can link to the official site which presumably has them; it's a small inconvenience but better furthers our long-term aims. Kat Walsh(spill your mind?)22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what discourages people from taking their own pictures. If I take a decent quality picture of David Sedaris, I know it has a good chance of replacing that publicity photo on wikipedia because "free" photos are preferred if they are available. And for the record, I've met David Sedaris at a reading, and he's incredibly friendly and accessible - I'd be surprised if he didn't agree to having his picture taken. Now I wish I had brought a camera, but now that I think about it, I do have other pix that could be useful to wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy that disincentive argument either. People are too competitive and prideful; they like to point to pictures they took of an article's subject (or maybe that's just me). Furthermore, all fair use pictures should be reduced in size so that they're no larger than needed to be legible; there will therefore always be the incentive to improve upon these fair use shots with a larger, high-res GFDL photo. Postdlf23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The practical experience we've had, however, suggests very strongly that image removal does trigger replacement; already a number of fair use images that had been around for months or years have been replaced in very short times after being removed. I suspect this is largely a question of the need for an image becoming much more visible. --RobthTalk23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not one of the promotional photos of very obscure Asian liquors has been replaced, nor likely will be. Despite my justifications to this effect, every single photo of this type was deleted, almost all without serious discussion. The deleting editors, of course, have not lifted a finger to find such replacements, nor likely will they. I certainly will never upload another photo to Wikipedia, after the treatment I was subjected to in this regard. This campaign has impoverished us all, and really for nothing, as our own guidelines state that it is extremely unlikely that one of the producing companies would ever object to our use of photos that they placed online for the very purpose of promoting knowledge of their products. Badagnani06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a digital camera, you bet your ass I'd take a picture of a celebrity that I meet and summarily check Wikipedia to see if I could replace a non-free image with the one I took. I think the only people who could be discouraged to replace a non-free image with their own are the same people who wouldn't think about uploading their own pictures in the first place. EVula// talk // ☯ //23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope one of the GFDL only admins will buy you a digital camera and send you out as the first member of the Wikipedia free papparazzi,and pay all of your expenses. Tvccs05:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a real clear answer on this, and I'm hoping someone such as Postdlf will jump in, but let's say EVula DOES take a digital photo of a celebrity he/she meets. I understand that EVula can license his contribution under the GFDL, but how are the personality rights issues addressed? How are the rights of the person photographed handled? Remember - 28 states in the U.S. have 28 different laws; doesn't it make more sense to go the fair use route in this instance? So, and this is the crux of the matter, is EVula supposed to contact the person after the photo has been taken, and get THEM to sign off on it, too? Just because they're in public doesn't mean they've given up all rights to their image, of course... Jenolen23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated, and will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will depend greatly on the use. Making your own "merchandise" (e.g., t-shirts and posters) featuring your favorite celebrity in your own GFDL photograph is undoubtedly going to get you sued. Publishing and distributing a hard copy of Wikipedia articles with a full cover GFDL photo of a celebrity might as well. The most ironic thing is that the First Amendment protection in the United States that gives Wikipedia the right to make informative uses of celebrity likenesses in our own photographs to accompany articles is arguably as jurisdictionally limited and use-contingent as fair use. Postdlf23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have a simple study? So why do we want to remove promophotos from wiki? -Because it increases the amount of "Free" content. Why do we want to increase the amount of "Free" content? -Because it makes our work survive even if something happend with WMF, because it increases it usability and because it protects WMF from litigations. Right? Now lets consider each point.
Survival: We do not need freeness for our work to survive. We only need forkability. If an image was a fair use in the contest of a wikipedia article it is a fair use in the context of a fork. For the purposes of forking the fair use is as free as GFDL as far as the "Fair Use" laws in the USA and anological clauses in other countries are valid.
Usability: Wikipedia without images of models, actors, dancers, singers is less usable no questions about this. Most of these images would not be replaced by free images. On the other hand, the fair use image has more limited usage over the GFDL. Users can not use fair images in e.g. an open-source game or as a decoration of a website. In most cases both GFDL and Fair Use are equivalent: we cannot put a GFDL image on t-shirt (without providing the GFDL license and the list of contributors), it is impractical to put anything GFDL into the commercial software, etc. Does a small increase in the potential usage of some images compensate for the removal of many others? I do not think so.
Safety: The less fair use images we have the more we immune to the litigation over abuse of the fair use clause. Since our policy is already strict we are already quite immune to this. Is it the only danger? How about privacy laws? For the fair use images they are the problem of the copyright owner. For the GFDL it is owr problem. The ban on promophotos encourage users to claim copyrighted pictures as their own work. Do you see problem here? By posting images with free licenses we become responsible if the images will become used in an inappropriate way by others (on a website advertising condoms, for example, or in producing photoshopped pornography). Do you know who will be the subject of litigation from the angry celebrity? WMF will. In short I strongly doubt we are to become safer after we remove all the promophotos.
If the deletion of promophotos (even if it is followed by the increased uploads of free images) does not increase our chances for survival, have questionable effect on usability and does not make us safer from litigation, then we do we do it? Alex Bakharev01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the increase in usability of GFDL over fair use images as small as you think; some of the most prominent media in which Wikipedia content will hopefully be reused someday (such as commercially produced books) would be on much surer ground with GFDL images than they would be with fair use images (even promo images).
I'm not sure where you get the statement that "For the GFDL [privacy and other liability issues] is our problem." Wikipedia is no more liable for GFDL images that it hosts than it is for promotional or other fair use images; remember that the holder of copyright over an image retains that status even if they release it under a free license. --RobthTalk02:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL require copy of the license and list of contributors. It is not very convenient for most book publishers. Fair use in the context of the Wiki will be in the most cases the fair use in the context of book. The difference between responsibility for the promophoto and the GFDL image is one is a product of a known and accountable person the second is a product of an anonymous uploader. When wikimedia accepted this product on its servers it surely accepted some responsibility in the case it was a violation of privacy, libel, etc. I guess it could be an important point for the publisher of a book as well. Alex Bakharev02:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find a Wikipedia article about a celebrity, it's very nearly certain that same individual is capable of using Google to find an image of that celebrity. (After all, that's more than likely how we got the promo picture in the first place.) For that matter, our article probably links to the celebrity's website. A handful of 'Wikipedia wouldn't be as pretty without this picture', combined with a dash of 'None of our editors can be arsed to get out and take a picture of this public figure', sprinkled lightly with 'It might take weeks or even months to get a picture, and we can't stand to have an incomplete article about my favourite celebrity for that long', baked at gas mark 7 for thirty minutes, does not a fair use soufflé make.
Regarding your point about 'safety', I would strongly recommend that you consult a genuine lawyer about...well, all of your legal assessments. I'm also a bit confused about the use of the term 'usability' in this context...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the information on Wiki can be found elsewhere if you spend some time doing googling or doing some research in a good library. In the best case the image is just one click away, sometimes the click goes to a dead link or to a foreign language site, sometimes the image shown on the celebrity's site is not exactly one needed for the text, but who cares about such small things, surely all the readers of wiki do not know what to do with their free time anyway. Alex Bakharev06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that most of the promotional photos on Wiki have provided much encyclopedic information. An article about singer/actor X is going to stand or fall on the content of the text, not on whether the picture is pretty. What encyclopedic question is answered by saying "person X looks like this" ? In most cases, as far as I can see, none. Thus, although I respect the work that many people have put into finding, tagging and uploading these images, I can't say I'm sorry to see them go. I've noted an unhealthy image-focus in many new contributors, as well... If we treat our encyclopedia like a photo blog, we end up attracting users who think it *is* a photo blog. It's imperative that we keep focused on our goal which not just to create a great information resource, but to create a great freeencyclopedia... things which divert energy from that are best done away with. -- Visviva07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Remember that guy? He was in Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? And I think he was in Memento, too? That guy? You know, he's got that thin kinda' face? Glasses? Damn... uh ... Stephen something? Stephen Tobolowsky! That's it! Yeah... What's he look like?" It seems to me that this is the kind of question that Wikipedia should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat (or having a massive policy dispute). Promotional photos help answer these types of questions, and in no meaningful way affect the "free-ness" of Wikipedia content. Jenolen08:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the kind of question Google Images should easily be able to answer without breaking a sweat or having a massive policy dispute. Wikipedia is for providing encyclopedic information about him in the form of free content. —Angr08:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's an interesting line of thought. I'm fairly certain that you don't think an encyclopedia should be devoid of images. And there's quite a difference between a series of random Google Images results and a Wikipedia entry, I think we would both agree. I would even go so far as to argue that images, and the ability to actually illustrate an article, are what make an encyclopedia much more than just a dictionary on steroids. At the end of the day, I still have no idea why people are so supportive of content that is GDLF free, and so against promotional content that is, under reasonable fair use standards, equally free. It's just odd. Jenolen09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course an encyclopedia shouldn't be devoid of images. But a free content encyclopedia should be devoid of unfree images. In the absence of free images, images (which are secondary to encyclopedic content) should be left out altogether. This is what German Wikipedia does, and its quality as an encyclopedia does not suffer for it. —Angr09:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are very important fair use images in the Wikipedia that are not secondary at all. Marilyn Monroe's skirt was cited above, Elian Gonzales and the INS most of us know, even I uploaded one, Gary Hart with Donna Rice. Those are all easily worth any other thousand words in their article, not just "what does X look like"? So we will always have some fair use images, as long as we try to completely cover the topic. Given that, the argument that we should exclude promotional shots to be completely free is invalid. AnonEMouse(squeak)14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't? Well, let me say it more clearly then: pictures are secondary to text when describing a subject. If a picture is worth a thousand words, but the only picture is unfree, I'd rather have the thousand words. And this includes things like Marilyn's skirt and Elian Gonzales. We aren't the only site on the web. For historical but copyrighted images like that, we can provide links to noncommercial websites that make no pretense to being free content and so can use fair-use images without compromising their principles. Better yet, if there is one, we can link to the copyright holder's own website showing the picture. —Angr06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. To me, ANgr's attitude is the electronic equivalent of using the technology of the Internet at the level of the Gutenberg Bible. I never knew pictures (shudder) were such an evil thing until now. Tvccs05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your post says "pictures". The commentary to your post says ads. Which do you mean? If the latter, I'd say that they decrease the signal to noise ratio by adding noise to the page. By noise I mean something that doesn't contribute positively to my experience with the page. Victor Engel20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument above what should be how is purely hypothetical as it is based on fairuse images banned from Wikipedia altogether. This is not the case. As such, the fairuse images should be based on existing policies. WP:FUC #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. " (in the specific context as any fairuse claim applies to a specific article.) --Irpen10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite heavyweight enough to address all the issues being discussed here, but I'd like to chime in that I think that the anti-fair-use crusaders are making a mountain out of a molehill. Outside of this little enclave, the distinction between fair use and free images is hardly noticeable. Promotional photos are provided for the purpose of public release, and I don't see why downstream use of Wikipedia's content wouldn't be acceptable under the fair use doctrine. So why is this an issue? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is that it is a free content encyclopedia. That does not mean using everything we can get our hands with low likelihood of getting sued. —Angr08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, as an intellectual matter, the difference between fair use and free content. However, as a practical matter, in the real world, is there any discernible difference, for the purposes of Wikipedia and its downstream uses? I'm not sure that there is.
Remember this is a free culture project, it's being done out of ideological activism, and that activism is why many of us spend our time here doing professional quality writing without getting paid. If all I wanted was a good practical encyclopedia, I'd buy a Britannica cd-rom from Amazon instead of trying (alongside lots of other people) to write a free encyclopedia from scratch. There are more considerations than pure practicality. We're aware of practical concerns and we do things to accommodate them, but those who want us to ignore the ideological side are missing the point of this project. 67.117.130.18115:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a relatively new Wikipedian, with no previous experience in the policy-making end of things, let me throw out my perception of the situation to see if it has more than a passing relationship with reality. 1. Official policy directs that a "free" image should be used rather than a "fair use" image, even in the case of promotional images clearly intended to be widely distributed (which legally constitutes an implicit waiver). 2. Recently, rigorous enforcement has begun, including deletion, as if the policy stated that free images "must" rather than "should" be used. 3. Even the most casual glance through this discussion would seem to indicate that nothing approaching consensus has been reached on whether these deletions are appropriate, let alone advisable. Am I missing something? Is there a mechanism to put a hold on the enforcement until consensus is reached? --Jgilhousen00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion break 3
Support. I see no reason to exclude promotional photos. The purpose that they are released is to make it easier for the media to add the likeness of an artist, author or notable person, when traveling to that person to take a photo might be inconvenient. They are commonly used in newspapers, which follow guidelines on notability, neutrality and conflict of interest that are similar to Wikipedia's.--Dgray xplane23:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself is supposed to be notable, neutral, etc., but Wikipedia material is supposed to be re-usable in publications that do not have to have those characteristics. Even within Wikipedia there's issues with these FU images. If we use a promotional photo of Brooke Shields (famous for bushy eyebrows) in her biography, we might have a problem if someone cropped the photo to just show an extreme closeup of one eyebrow, to illustrate the article about eyebrows. We want content that we and others can re-use like that. 67.117.130.18116:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something to be said for reducing our use of fair use, to ensure that we remain a free encyclopedia. Having said that, I would suggest that there are better ways to do this than to mass-delete stuff that's been here for a long time without problems. These ways would include focusing more on getting rid of new unfree images, and to increase efforts to create/obtain free photos/images. These are probably more productive than deleting ancient images, for which the benefit is more than negated by the alienation of long-time contributors. JYolkowski // talk23:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SupportHackajar I'm concerned at the requirement of Promotional images being forced into "Fair Use" when the original publisher is dumping images into Public Domain for use. Why does the WP:FU caluse even apply in this case? Hackajar01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concern Just something minor no one's addressed very well - I noted that one other person suggested 'free' images taken without permission could expose WP to as much, if not more, liability due to using a likeness without permission, but one other thing that I didn't see any mention of - did anyone consider that a lot of celebrity appearances outside of "the general public" are conducted in a "closed" manner such as to prevent people from taking such pictures? It hardly seems a good idea for us to be promoting that WP editors deliberately violate venue rules in many cases to snap GFDL pictures that don't carry the picture subject's permission and risk having venue staff confiscate their photography equipment. UOSSReiska13:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell your saying "If I bring my camera to a concert to procure an image that is "Free" for use on wikipedia do I risk 1.) Loosing my camera during entrance search and/or during concert by security. 2.) Open wikipedia to liability because image was procured illigally at concert that prohibits photography." Right?Hackajar05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I first thought I'd stay out of this debate but Jgilhousen (talk·contribs) has brought up a point that's being lost in the debate storm. Noone can in good faith say that the mass-deletion of fair-use images is massively supported by the community and it's not right for anyone to go on crusade without getting community approval. Pascal.Tesson07:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have seen many high-quality free images added to articles after the existing fair-use image was removed. Clearly, restricting fair-use images from being used to depict subjects which still exist (such as living people) has, in many cases, resulted in a freer encyclopedia as there's no doubt that freely-licensed images are freer than fair-use images. That said, the law certainly allows us to use promotional images to depict living people, provided they are promotional images of the people and not of a character that person played. Still, our goal is to produce a free encyclopedia and I believe we should rely as little as possible on fair-use; in fact, I understood this was a core principle. --Yamla05:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(That is, creating a free encyclopedia is a core principle, not necessarily relying as little as possible on non-free content) --Yamla05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with replacing, when one is available, a promo or press photo with a GFDL image of generally equivalent quality. I ran into one of these some months ago and after a revert, left the free image alone, even though I don't think it's as good, and it was of a car, and it least it was properly exposed. However, on the now "magic" subject of living persons, what in some cases is happening is members of the GFDL club are out hunting Flickr for images which may be of bad quality, editing and cropping, and using those. Furthermore, they don't even have the courtesy of verifying with the Flickr user what they are doing, and just take the CC license and run with it. I had one of those with an image on the Keith Emerson page, where a period-specific promo photo of Emerson at his peak was replaced with an awful fan image that was washed out, over-exposed and off-color. When I notified the Flickr image holder, a fan of Emerson's, of what had been done, and sent him the link, he immediately chose to relicense all of his images, some others of which have also been "nabbed" in his words, to prevent any such use. Said discussion can be found at the Chowbok Rfc page, If you're going to be changing policy here, you need to have these Flickr grabbers obligated to send a note verifying the use of the image on Wikipedia as being acceptable, especially when they are cropping it as they did in the Emerson case, or you'll open of a far larger can of potential hornets than a thousand legitimate press photos ever could. This copy and run without notice attitude towards Flickr CC images is frankly, disgusting. Tvccs06:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying here. If the image was posted on flickr with a license that allowed modification of the image (not all CC licenses do), what was the problem as far as licenses were concerned? There's no requirement to notify the original owner of the image, though this may be good etiquette. That the flickr account owner changed the license does not mean that the original image could not still be used under the original license offered by the flickr account owner. The owner of the image clearly and specifically wanted the image to be used elsewhere, this is the whole point of choosing a CC license. This is of course an entirely different matter than the possibility that the image could have been of very low quality and, for this reason alone, unsuitable for use on the Wikipedia. --Yamla18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I find almost amazing in this instance is that Wikipedians who may be "copyright junkies" don't accept the concept that many of the general public loading images onto Flickr have no real idea how a CC license can be applied, and when they see how, could change their minds, having not understood a CC license in the first place. Tvccs12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I really wonder just how much the average Flickr user understands what CC means. I swear some of them use it because it sounds cool. (Not that I mind when I'm image hunting). Daniel Case06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example image. This image is a fair use image. Please help us replace it with a free image. Maybe if someone was a bit smarter instead of mass deleting images they could have advertised the need for a new image (using a template) similar to that shown at right. Just a thought. —Mike06:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "help us replace it" caption seems like an excellent idea. Deleting images without replacing them makes the encyclopedia less informational, and seems disruptive and contrary to current wikipedia guidelines. Is there some action that can be taken to get people to stop doing this? --Milo H Minderbinder14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, change the policy. At the moment, images which are replaceable must be deleted after seven days. It is not considered disruptive to follow Wikipedia policies. --Yamla18:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about interpreting the policy correctly though. For instance, the Woody Allen article is now illustrated with a picture of a statue of him. Is that as good a representation as the picture that used to be there? Of course it's not and it's not even close. So the quality of the article was downgraded. I understand the objective of free-ness but if we have a fair-use guideline, isn't it precisely so that we can use fair-use images in the event that no alternative of similar or at least close quality? I think editors who are against fair-use altogether are in essence proving their point by deleting them as fast as they can find them. Pascal.Tesson19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this one out - it's indicative of the absurdity of the policy being enforced as it is now. In cases like this, Wikipedia appears as a joke. This helps Wikipedia? Tvccs12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more absurd than you think, and illustrates another one of my minor concerns.
That image of the statue is currently dually licensed as CC and GFDL. But it can't be — it's a statue. Statues and sculptures are not specifically exempted from copyright when photographed by themselves, per §106 (as opposed to architecture and fashion). Therefore (and I learned this the hard way), no picture of a statue can be a free image. It must be licensed under {{statue}} instead. And guess what? This kind of fair use is only permitted when you're writing about the statue.
This is dangerous because, by suggesting any pictures of anything taken by a user to represent something are automatically free use, we are conveying a misleading impression of U.S. copyright law.
Agreed completely. I've had three promotional images tagged for deletion recently. All three are of African artists, and all three came from the website of the National Museum of African Art. Which is part of the Smithsonian Institution. Which allows such images to be used for educational purposes. Now granted, they're articles about artists, which means that they might be better served by being illustrated with an example of the artists' work. But the images are there, and are available, and I don't see why they oughtn't be allowed for use in this instance. --User:AlbertHerringIo son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I preface my comments by saying that I support the use of "fair use" photos at Wikipedia, even of living people.
I think the policy on "fair use" needs to be revised before it will be possible to come to consensus on the issue "fair use" photos of lving people. Currently, the the fair use policy does not have aclear definition of "free content". It's not clear whether "free content" is meant to apply to only content produced by the individual supplying it, or whether it also includes proprietary photos which a company has decided to make publicly available free of charge. Clearly those people that are indiscriminately deleting photos that are tagged as "fair use" seem to think that promotional photos are not "free", yet I don't see anything in the "fair use" policy that invariably leads to this conclusion.
Where the policy is clear is on the preference for "free" photos over "fair use" photos. The relevant portion of the policy is:
"Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:
1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.......However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."
Whoever wrote the last sentence seems to think that any "free" photo that can be created will adequately give the same information as any "fair use" photo. While I think this is true in many cases, I don't think it's true in all cases. The biggest set of cases would be photos of actors as characters in movies, plays, tv shows ect. Another case would be people whose fame came decades ago, have since faded from the spotlight, and who no longer look anything like they did when they were famous (ex. child actors who only acted in childhood, and who ceased being famous after they stopped acting).
The definition of free content that I would be in favour of would allow for the use of "fair use" photos that have been provided by comapnies free of charge for public use. If this could not be agreed to, then at least the line "However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." should be removed. We shouldn't make it impossible to post photos that identify a character from a tv show or movie.Librarylefty11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free content is any content that gives you the following freedoms:
The freedom to distribute the content by any means.
The freedom to modify the content in any way.
The freedom to distribute modified versions of the content by any means.
This seems like a case of wikilawyering to push an agenda. The rules say that "No free equivalent is available or could be created". But "could be created" is being interpreted to mean "has any possibility, no matter how slim, of being created". Saying that a picture "could be created" for all living people uses a very unnatural interpretation of that sentence. People aren't just enforcing an existing criterion; they're enforcing an extreme reading of it that nobody who just reads the rule will get from it. Ken Arromdee20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the word that's being misinterpreted in "No free equivalent is available or could be created" is "equivalent". Some editos have dicided that all photos of living people are "equivalent", so that they can use that sentence to justify removal of all proprietary photos of living people. The thing is, all photos of living people are not equivalent. A screen shot from decaeds ago is clearly not equivalent to a photo of the same person taken today.Librarylefty11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could be created must also be open to interpretation. Could be created - at what level of difficulty? In the Automotive project area, we are constantly removing 'free use' images scanned from car makers brochures because unless the car is really rare or ancient, it's very easy indeed to get a high quality free photo of that car - so we prefer GFDL to free use in almost 100% of the cases. But if we considered...I dunno...a photo of a flag planted at the top of Mount Everest that we were using under some free use criteria - it's almost impossible for us to get a Wikipedian to the peak of Everest with a camera...but one could argue that a GDFL image "could be created"...hypothetically...well, yeah - but if it's impossibly difficult then that's not a fair test. We'd have to agree that such a photo would fall into the "could not be created" category. This issue with celebrities falls somewhere between those extremes. It's actually very hard indeed to get a decent GFDL photograph of a celebrity for an article you are writing. - it could be years before a Wikipedian with a camera gets a good shot. So while you can definitely argue that a free image "could be created" - that's just not a useful measure. The criteria needs to be "could reasonably be created" or something. We need flexibility in these rules - some celebrities are easy to get photos of - others stay hidden and are virtually impossible to photograph. SteveBaker11:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Deleting promotional images is damaging the project. It is placing the free part of our mission before the encyclopedia part of our mission. I welcome an effort to replace unfree images with free ones, but let's not delete promotional images if we don't have a replacement. Images, free or not, strongly benefit a number of articles in Wikipedia and this stricter approach to images is not helping the project. Cedars02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly disagree: We are here to write a free encyclopedia. One that can be redistributed freely. Think beyond this pathetic little website—it may be the 12th most popular in the world, but that's nothing compared to the impact that it could have. That is, if it is free. If it isn't free, there's no more growth beyond this website. If it's free, it can be redistributed around the world, to places without internet connections, without restrictions. Promotional photos with free alternatives do not fit in this mission, and must not be used. --Spangineerws(háblame)15:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This website is Wikipedia. There has been very little success in creating a offline version of it. Most offline versions would also be able to use the images as fair use. If this wasn't the case, such images could easily be removed since they are all tagged as promotional images. Cedars16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with every fiber of my being. I hate taking as much time away from editing as I have to argue about this, but this is the right forum for this knockdown dragout. (Also, interested readers might want to check out the guidelines for when images are replaceable or not that I've started drafting. We need to settle that).
I incorporate everything I said here as if fully included on this page, and add the following thoughts about what happens when this policy comes face-to-face with the law of unintended consequences:
The creation of fraudulent "free-use" images: Does anyone really, honestly and truly believe that people won't cheat on this? I'm not the only one whose Adobe Photoshop skills are such that I could disguise an unfree image as an original free one. And, given that one of the most infamous pictures in Wikipedia history was only recently discovered to have been impermissibly enhanced, to the point that it has been taken out of the article in question, after a year or so within with the evidence of enhancement in plain sight, if I were the sort of person so inclined to do this, I would do it. Especially given a strong encouragement to show that quality free photographic content can be created to replace a deleted fair-use image.
All you'd need would be some flopping (without a telltale giveaway like something in the wrong hand), putting in a different background and perhaps reorienting the subject a bit, then changing the lighting and I bet no one would find for ... months. Do we all remember the last time it took months to catch the sort of thing we like to brag that our million or so pairs of eyeballs will find and quickly remove?
The policy direction we are headed at the moment will absolutely encourage this if we continue to send a huge message that we want free-use images and we're not too picky about where they come from as long as we get them.
The whoring of Wikipedia. I got into this when I was notified that the book cover photo of Alice Sebold I had found and uploaded was being bounced. So, I tried to do the right thing and emailed her agency about getting the photo released. They don't own the rights; instead, Jerry Bauer, the photographer, does (makes sense). Well, I was given a phone number in Italy to call and ask him about this. If one of the free-use junkies wants to front me about US$20 to handle the phone bill for that, I'll gladly take it and refund you the balance (But how "free" is the image then?).
Now, if and when I do call him, I have every intention of asking him if he'd like us to create an article on him as a way of sweetening the deal. As someone who's published several books and taken a number of book-jacket photos, he's undeniably notable so I'm not worried about that.
But what about the borderline cases? I'm certainly not the only editor to see the quid pro quo possibilities here if free images are to be easily acquired. Can we, will we have to add to WP:BIO: "The person has taken quality and representative photographs of a notable person, place or thing that would otherwise not be available to Wikipedia"? Will we create an article on Alan Light? How will this affect the public's perception of Wikipedia? How seriously will editors in deletion debates be taken in arguing for non-notability?
It inextricably involves us in the commercial process, with all the attendant ugliness. I have always liked about Wikipedia that decisions here are taken with absolutely no regard to the market, just our own ideals. We don't have to worry about advertisers pulling support, we don't have to worry about keeping our page counts up, we can decide things purely on the basis of whether they're good for the site and its ideals.
But paradoxically, going to more free-use images would actually commercialize Wikipedia more than permitting the current level of fair-use.
Why, you ask? Well, the proponents of all free-use images of living people imagine that publicists will eventually see things our way and provide us with pictures of their clients of suitable quality for online distribution (but not as good as what they send out in press packets). Suppose that actually happens, arguendo. Even if the same publicists can somehow stand up to their clients complaining about detailed, unfiltered (and likely vandalism-prone) coverage of their drug arrests, messy divorces or rumored homosexuality right next to the picture they gave Wikipedia and not threaten to relicense them unless we write it their way or get rid of it entirely (in which case, of course, we can respond that we'll put the mug shot in the infobox, but what kind of Wikipedia is that where that would be SOP?), we would thus be more explicitly acknowledging Wikipedia's role as a promotional tool merely by that level of involvement. We have enough "fun" on AfD explaining to angry garage bands that Wikipedia is not there to promote them; imagine trying to make the same argument to someone who can point to Wikipedia's active relationship with the entertainment industry. Yes, the article would probably still get deleted; but maybe you just created a future Willy on Wheels.
Nope, the current arrangement of sort-of picking up publicity photos second- or third-hand helps us keep that discreet distance from "the industry" that works well for both us and them.
Another scenario: someone here is able to take a bunch of high-quality free-use pics of some celebrity, uploads them to the Commons at a high resolution and then gets featured picture status (And as an aside, when we consider image quality we should consider that currently our featured picture collection includes only one free-use image of a notable living person (McCoy Tyner) ... and that one is 30 years old). Naturally, media outlets glom onto this and use these images, as well as it being widely reused on the Internet. There is thus no commercial market for most pictures of said celebrity, at least for a while. How will the photographers who make their living taking this sort of picture feel about this, especially when they get emails from Wikipedia editors asking them to release rights or change the licensing on other images?
Oh, wait ... there would still be one market left for these images: Paparazzi shots of them getting out of cars to buy groceries in sloppy clothing without makeup, or canoodling with spouses of people other than themselves? If that were about the only way to make money taking pictures of celebrities, do you think they'd be even more amenable to allowing free images of themselves to be created and distributed? And if the reverse were true, if we got free images from paparazzi, how do you think they or their publicists would feel about giving us those pictures?
I think that I support, in that I agree with Jenolen, et al, that the current way policy is being enforced is both legally dubious and unnecessary. I'm not sure I accept Daniel's doom and gloom predictions as particularly likely, but I don't see any good reason for the current policy, except what I've described before as a kind of Leninist attitude that sometimes we have to make things worse to make them better, which I don't think we follow in any other content related area (and, personally, a really really terribly written article that is focused on some really idiosyncratic aspect of a topic and is full of two barely literate POV warriors arguing with each other would seem to me to be generally more worthwhile to delete "to encourage creation of a better article" than a perfectly good fair use picture.) john k03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly hope most of these don't come to pass, but right now that's all I can do, and as they say in the Army, hope is not a plan. Daniel Case06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would stand by the common sense idea that using copyrighted publicity photos is a fair use, as long as we attribute it as a promotional image provided (first or secondhand) by the person in question, or their associates. However, I would prefer use of GFDL images if such are available and of comparable quality to the publicity photo in question. (The use of Flickr CC images concerns me for the reasons others have stated.)
Implicit license is a tricky thing. (I Am Not A Lawyer)
Just as the purchase of a music CD includes the implicit license to play the CD on a single CD player, but not the implicit license to copy that CD, and the purchase of a book implicitly allows the gifting or loaning of that book to a friend, the handing out of a "publicity photo" by a "celebrity" implicitly allows its use in "media".
What is the legal status of the licensing of "publicity photos" or "promotional images" in printed books? In encyclopedias? In tracts handed out on street corners? Online? Until we answer these questions, we have a mess on our hands.
In addition, I would support creation of a new license, modification of an old license, or research into the existing licenses, to explicitly allow such images to be used, with reasonable modification allowed for size/resolution/cropping, and reminding our mirrors that they are as liable for violations of fair use as we are. --BlueNight23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that fair use images and free-use copyright press photos should be allowed. In my opinion, some of these 'completely free' materials are ... well ... not good. I'm not saying ALL are not good, but here's a prime example: Kirsten Dunst - her press image was replaced with a fairly low quality user-taken free image. Now, WHY would you want to degrade the quality of the publication just to satisfy an overly zealous policy of "everything should be free use" etc?
You'd want to portray an image of reputability & quality media to the outside world, AND, keep things free at the same time.
If the subject is not being an issue (say, Kirsten Dunst wants her Wikipedia page to portray her beauty as it is - rather than having a grainy yellow-hue photo of the top of her head ....) - then leave it as it is, with the copyrighted, but free-to-use-and-distribute press photo or publicity image.
Plus, whether we like it or not, a quality image portrays a notion of you're a good source. I'd go to cite a shiny new page - like Wikipedia - vs some 1996 crusty HTML3.0 relic. We like to say otherwise, but people do judge the book by its cover more often than not.
Keep it free, maybe with a little limitation, but I'd say quality & reputability comes first over 110% free.
Strongest Possible Oppose Against Not Being Able To Use Promo Photos- If there is any reason why a photo can be used without Wikipedia being used, why would Wikipedia not want to use it? Some might say that commercialization of Wikipedia will follow, but guess what -- that's going to happen anyway unless Wikipedia removes the dynamicism that's made it so big. It's best to move that future into a positive direction -- let people make money off Wikipedia, but while being transparent about it, and with the first goal being contributing to the collective knowledge of humanity. Just H02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mass deletion of images In my view it amounts to institutionalised vandalism. Changes to and deltion of templates and tags plus the use of 'bots as part of the deletion process has only made it worse. --Henrygb15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One counter-example for NO fair use photos: photos of criminals (mugshots, newspaper photos). There's usually no practical and safe way to get picture of a mafioso, yet such image may be valuable for an article. Pavel Vozenilek21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear [whoever],
I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia
(en.wikipedia.org), the free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is among the
most-visited sites on the Internet, ranking near the top ten according
to the estimates of Alexa Internet (alexa.com).
Unfortunately, our article about you at
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[Whoever]) currently lacks an image.
I am aware that there are publicity images of you available, but since
Wikipedia aims to be reproduceable even for profit and even in nations
where generous United States "fair use" provisions in copyright law are
inapplicable, we cannot use an image that is not released under a
so-called "free license". Essentially, the copyright holder of any image
that we use must irrevocably permit anyone else to use it, modify it, or
sell it, with the only permissible requirements being that the author be
named and that any modifications be released under an identical license.
Example licenses that would permit us to use an image would be: the GNU
Free Documentation License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), the
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode), or a simple
"no rights reserved".
Given Wikipedia's great popularity, I was hoping that you could provide
us an image under such conditions. Please do consider this, and feel
free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Kim Scarborough
I find the sample letter he offered very interesting but unclear.
I thought I would therefore suggest a much more clear wording of the letter. This version avoids euphemisms and jargon. It also responsibly lets the celebrity know of some important implications of their decision to release a "free" photo of themselves.
Since our Jennifer Love Hewitt article currently lacks an image, I thought I'd just go ahead and address this letter to her, to make it more realistic.
Here is the sample letter:
Dear Jennifer Love Hewitt,
I am one of the many volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and use for any for-profit or non-profit purpose.
I am aware that you have already made copyrighted publicity photos of yourself available for fair use, and that these depict you as you yourself wish to be depicted in media such as Wikipedia. However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. This is because we must maintain the encyclopedia's entire contents, including all images, as reproducible and alterable for for-profit purposes by anyone anywhere.
We are therefore requesting you to legally and irrevocably release to the world an image of yourself, an image that
However, we can require that attribution is always made to the producer of the image.
After you have released in perpetuity a photo of yourself under this type of for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable licensing, we at Wikipedia along with anyone anywhere can then use the photo.
We hope you agree, and thank you for your time and consideration.
Joe Gotdagall
I for one cannot see any possible reason why a famous person would not wish to eagerly fulfill such a request.
I agree that the letter is somewhat wordy (the response I got when requesting a picture of Morningwood included "that's the wordiest photo request i've ever received"), so thanks for writing up a new one. The new one seems a bit too direct to me though. Would it be possible to rephrase the part about keeping content free so that people know that's one of Wikipedia's objectives and then remove the word "anywhere" (since if anyone can use the image, where they are doesn't really matter)? —ShadowHalo06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out job to explain the extremely unlikely down-sides of free-licensing. Providing a link to both licences is enough, and it doesnt actively discourage permission... Oh, and that "big boob" site is blocked at my work, so I can only guess at it's content! But, parodies are usually protected by fair use... so licensing under GFDL/CC doesnt actually increase the risk. ---J.S(T/C)21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't understand. Like Tvccs, CyberAnth wants to discourage free images. Their position goes beyond most of the fair-use advocates in that they are actively against free images in any event, at least for celebrities. Don't make the mistake of assuming this "letter" is meant seriously. —Chowbok☠22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that they're against free images. What I think they're against are crappy, fuzzy, poor quality free images. And they're trying to make the point that when Jennifer Love Hewitt or whomever actually understands what it means to release a photo under one of these licenses, they're gonna say "forget it".
Please note that Chowbok does not dispute the accuracy of any of the claims in the exaggerated boilerplate. (Which, I think, makes its point rather nicely...) Sadly, all these things are true... or, at least, so close to current Wiki-truth that they cannot be challenged. I would submit the only fib in the letter as written is: However, fair use images are not actually allowable within Wikipedia. only seems like it's true. Actually, fair use images are allowed... you just wouldn't know it from the number which get deleted for "no copyright info" or "replaceable" or "a photo that only shows the person"... Jenolenspeak it!04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prime example of the abuse of the free image license. [1] This photo, which someone apparently uploaded to the commons, appeared in a newspaper article (Daily Mail comes to mind, but I could be mistaken), is copyrighted by that newspaper, and is 100% a fraudulent upload. Yet, here it is uploaded to the commons under a PD author license. And we're worried about fair use images? Give me a break. TheQuandry04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, dare I ask - have any actual lawyers weighed in on this? Surely there's got to be a few out there who'd be willing to do pro bono advisement work. IANAL, but my brother is - and in discussion with him, it turns out that the what the law actually means is rarely as "clear" as some people make it out to be. --moof04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against "free" images per se, especially when it comes to photos of things or anmials. What I wish to do is responsibly make full implication disclosures to living persons before they release a photo of themselves to the world under a for-profit-allowable and derivative-allowable license. Once that is done, of course, 99.9% of especially the most famous people will respond by summarily discarding the letter in the trash where it rightly belongs. In contrast, this bluebird has no rights it cares about. During its very brief life, it cannot really be harmed by someone snapping a "free" photo of it. And it doesn't care what happens with its photo. I do not think the accuracy of any of the claims in my satirical boilerplate to a famous living person can be countered. Fair use images of living person they release for use is the way to go. CyberAnth06:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, excuse me Chowbok, I have never discouraged free images, I have discouraged bad "nabbed" images from Flickr and other sources. I have specifically and publicly stated that I have no problem at all with quality free images replacing promophotos, and have also publicly supported the template proposed that would identify promo photos and ask users/editors to help locate free images. I support an artist or celebrities' right to control the use of their likeness when they are the ones providing it, and fair use images on Wikipedia. The above Jennifer Love Hewitt letter suggested is a very good one in explaining the realities of a GFDL license, something you seem loathe to do to Flickr users. What I do not like is bad amateur images, such as your Keith Emerson Flickr-nabbed image, being substituted for good ones, and not telling people posting on Flickr that their images can end up on Wikipedia as a primary artist image, or notfying Flickr users of your intentions. While some photographers may be flattered, many others do not want their images used in this way. And I do not support the illusory claim that free images are readily available for all of the people we need them for, as has been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt, despite the oft-offered flowery statements otherwise. All of the above are facts which, has often been the case, you seem to have trouble dealing with, and others simply ignore or deny. Tvccs17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion break 7
I would like to resurrect this topic, for I believe it is far from settled. Many have argued that the use of fair use non-free images somehow limits the for-profit distribution of wikipedia content. However, they seem to have no problems with for-profit distribution of all the other wikipedia fair use material. This appears to be internally inconsistent.
The purpose of wikipedia is educational. If you want to highlight the "free" aspect of wikipedia, then the current image standard should also be applied to all other media currently approved under fair use rationale; otherwise, said non-image media is somehow "not free".
The removal of fair use image for the purpose of encouraging users to find free images is nonsensical. What is more important to the educational purpose of wikipedia: to provide accurate information, or to unreasonably try to force editors to go out scampering for similar but "free" information in order to facilitate for-profit distribution, especially when such a standard is not applied to other media?
And I say unreasonably because it is not reasonable to expect editors to track down the subject of an article, wherever they may be around the world, to provide a free, still dubiously legal equivalent (acquiring said photographs does not shield wikipedia and its derived content from litigation: photographs taken without the subject's permission or in an unathorized venue are illegal in many if not most jurisdictions, subject to prosecution. And asking people whose living is influenced by their image to release pictures of themselves under a GNU license is both unreasonable and an ineffective way to build content [most artists do not want their image altered for unknown and unauthorized purposes, which the GNU allows]. Using images that said people have already approved, such as promotional/press kit/professional website images, under fair use rationale is much easier to defend as fair use, more likely to elicit the person's approval and much more effective when building content).
Lastly, as I mentioned before, applying the current draconian prohibition on fair use images as opposed to all other forms of wikipedia-approved fair use media appears inconsistent and nonsensical. If someone wanted to distribute wikipedia material for profit, how would it make sense that they could use all other fair use media but not images?
I thus suggest that all forms of fair use media be held to the same standard: either images of living persons or buildings should be allowed under fair use rationale (with a narrower interpretation of the nonsensical "reasonable possibility of procuring free image equivalents" idea), or all non-image fair use media should have the current draconian image standard applied; ie, they should not be allowed in place of free equivalents. Maybe the idea of fair use media should be altogether banished from wikipedia (would that make sense for an encyclopedia whose ultimate apparently implied motive is to be educational)?
Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USURP
Hey everyone. Over at Wikipedia:Usurpation we've got a useful proposed policy to allow active users in good standing be renamed to already existing but totally unused accounts. It's got a fair bit of support, but it doesn't seem to have been commented on by a lot of people, so the bureaucrats are worried the community doesn't really know about it. It'd be pretty good if people would go read it and comment. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 3 December2006 (GMT)
Trolling: I know it when I see it
Everyone agrees that trolling is bad. It's right up there with vandalism and spam. But often people disagree about what constitutes trolling. Since it is as bad as vandalism and spam, editors often take it upon themselves to remove what they consider trolling. This then sets off edit wars with people who don't consider it trolling.
Reverting mainspace articles to remove vandalism and spam is uncontroversial. But trolling happens on discussion pages. I believe that discussion pages exist to document what people said, and editing them to remove trolling doesn't make what was said go away. It's right there in the history.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that whether a post is trolling is a matter to be decided by the community, not a small group of editors who often are emotionally involved.
At first I thought I was the only victim of this. Then I saw the same group do the same thing to another editor.
I believe this has to stop. I work on Wikipedia for fun, and if it stops being fun I will stop doing it. If the community decides I am a troll, I will be happy to leave. But this is not a decision to be made by a small group.
If you believe I am a troll, there is no need to participate in this discussion. You will not listen to anything I say, and anything you say to me would just be "feeding the troll". It is impossible for me to prove I am not a troll, since by definition everything a troll says is suspect.
Personally I believe, removal of one user's comments from a Talk page should be against policy for *any* reason whatsoever. It is so outrageously antagonistic that it does not serve any wikipurpose. Actually it serves the purpose of keeping the mediation cabal and the anti-vandal police active, also the sockpuppet warriors... and the vandals for that matter. Go figure! Wjhonson07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? If the community thinks you are a troll you will leave but if anyone here thinks you are a troll they should keep their mouth shut and not add to this thread? eh? (Never interacted with this editor before) I find that a bizzare statement to make - it's basically saying "speak up if you support me or shut your gob if you don't!" --Charlesknight20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already know who thinks I am a troll. I also know who does not think I am a troll. I am looking for opinions from those who are yet undecided. --Ideogram20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, you know the process is doomed when a) people start deleting other's comments, and b) someone accuses someone else of a personal attack for accusing someone of a personal attack. -Patstuarttalk|edits20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patstuart. It was debatable whether your post was trolling or not, but it wasn't constructive. Neither was the reaction, of course. What to do? Stop your side of it. Don't make it worse. That's all you can do. AnonEMouse(squeak)21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was my view. Are you saying I should not speak my opinion? That the other party should be allowed to say whatever he wants without opposition? --Ideogram21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I believe that you should report this to WP:PAIN, as far as I am concern you obviously were not trolling, and accusing other person of trolling (not to mention deleting his comment) should be a blockable offence per WP:CIV/WP:NPA. Unfortunatly me experience shows that unlike 3RR, abuse of those policies is usually ignored :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdenting) For some reason Ghirla doesn't care about hurting my feelings (or those of many other people). Do you really think it is best for the project to let him have his way and just wring our hands? Are you saying his feelings are more important than mine? --Ideogram21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, and if he had asked for comments on his behaviour here, I would write something similar to him. He didn't, and you did. I could, of course, write for advice to you on how he should behave, but ... I'm a strong fan of being "constructive", as you may have gathered. :-) By the way, "he did it first", and "he did it worse", is not usually accepted as sufficient excuse. AnonEMouse(squeak)21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I do have a temper. Given sufficient motivation, I can restrain it. But if I feel I am doing all the work to maintain the peace I am likely to decide it is not worth it. In order to follow your advice, I would have to avoid Ghirla and, perhaps, leave Wikipedia entirely. I think there are not a few editors who feel the same way. I honestly don't feel it is right to tell them all, "let him be a jerk, as long as you don't reciprocate". --Ideogram22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would just remind people to assume good faith before leveling accusations. Wikipedia can often get rather ugly when that principle is forgotten. EReference 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would add that this type of matter can quickly become VERY ugly when the "assume good faith" principle is ignored, as I have found out. EReference09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "good" troll and a legitimately concerned person cannot always be distinguished and we should always assume good faith. For example this comment about Peter Garrett's dancing abilities.. The comments are legitimate, and anyone who's seen a Midnight Oils video clip can attest. Sadly the comments were deleted shortly after being made, and again after I tried to restore them. —Pengotalk · contribs02:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan/Republic of China
due to a recent act of "content dispute" at the article Chinese Taipei at the 2006 Asian Games, i committed myself to raising this point of order. an administrator treated This, a "content dispute" instead of an act of vandalism.
Taiwan, Republic of China or Chinese Taipei is NOT a province of China. my proposal here is: Any direct implication that Chinese Taipei/ROC/Taiwan as a province of China should be considered vandalism and MUST be deleted. the following are my rationale:
the Taiwanese Government officially calls itself Republic of China. (an indisputable verifiable fact)
the government of People's Republic of China exercises NO active jurisdiction over the domains of Taiwan.
the International Court of Law has NO final and executory ruling on this subject.therefore status quo should stand.
the claims of PRC and ROC are internal, Wikipedia has no control over it. as per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a medium for soapboxes.
Since wikipedia is not a democracy, more weight should be given on discussion points raised here rather than mere voting. --RebSkii19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I'm not sure how to handle this one - it's pretty sticky. But I can say that referring to Taiwan as a province of China, without explanation of the conflict, ought to be treated as unnecessary POV-pushing. Unfortunately, it's not vandalism, and can't be treated as bannable. -Patstuarttalk|edits19:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's vandalism either, but it's definately POV-pushing. That's why I replaced the original text in this article with the headlines used in the Chinese Taipei article. Somebody making these kind of changes should however be warned. If he/she still make edits like this, then it's vandalism. SportsAddicted | discuss19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic POV pushing by one given user should be considered as vandalism but we most certainly won't start creating classes of particularly unwelcome POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatent POV pushing of a political agenda without fact to back it up most certainly constitutes vandalism. I realize that I have more experience with the Chinese Communists and their sympathizers than most because I live in Taiwan and am very active in support of the legitimate rights of the Taiwanese people. Chinese use that reference to Taiwan being a part of the PRC to serve political ends, though we have hashed out the most acceptible wording regarding this in a variety of places, the lastest of which was on the 2006 Asian Games discussion page, where we seem to have come up with a workable compromise regarding the use of Chinese Taipei. I will henceforth regard any insertion of this line in Chinese Taipei related sports articles as vandalism and will summarily delete any such references I see. ludahai 魯大海22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a content dispute. It may be wrong, it may be POV pushing, and it may require warnings be given to the user if this persists against a clear consensus, but it is not vandalism. That policy page makes clear that NPOV violations and stubbornness are not considered vandalism. Fagstein05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is definately POV pushing. The status of Taiwan is NOT resolved in any meaningful way, and any statements on a Wikipedia article implying that it IS resolved (either by stating that it definitively IS a province of China or that it IS NOT a province of China) is pushing a non-neutral Point of View. Any article on Taiwan or the ROC or Chinese Taipei needs to carefully indicate the controversy and the unresolved issue of Taiwans independance. It may be treated as de facto independant in certain contexts (such as international sports competitions or in business dealings) but neither the PRC or major international agencies like the United Nations recognize it as such, so de jure it is not a fully accepted member of the international community. Again, unless and until the status of Taiwan is resolved one way or the other, all articles dealing with Taiwan at wikipedia need to indicate BOTH points of view in such a way that the entirity of the issue can be presented. --Jayron3204:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a China Policy disclaimer template, that pretty much recaps the lead paragraph of Chinese Taipei and any article on mainland China acknowledging the dispute, and giving some acceptable names wrt NPOV. That paragraph gives all the pertinent information with links, and I'd much prefer to see that sort of informative acknowledgement of a dispute template IN-MY-FACE than many of the one's we use for routine maintenance and notification. Ditto for a few others, like the Sea of Japan naming dispute. Given the general ineffectiveness of the UN, (ask any Israeli or Palestinian, Korean and Japanese nationals, etc.) these matters probably won't be resolved in our lifetimes, and I hope wikipedia will outlast us all. // FrankB02:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sprotect all templates?
Rationale:
Generally, only experienced users know about templates, and how they are used. Templates ate frequently targeted for vandalism, due to their wide reaching effects. While we already have many high profile templates protected, there are many more that can be used disruptively, and few, if any reasons why new or anonymous users would need to edit them. Also, it can be reasonably assumed that anyone with sufficient knowledge of templates that would be affected by this and would reasonably need to change a template would also know how to request a change.
Proposed Policy
Admins are permitted and encouraged to indefinitely sprotect templates used in the article namespace (only established users able to edit it), in order to prevent their use for mass vandalism.
Current Policy
A current de facto policy of full-protecting high risk templates seems to exist, both to prevent vandalism and denial of service.
Not sure I see a compelling reason for this; has there been a lot of template vandalism recently? -- Visviva
There was at least one pretty serious bout of vandalism the other day, inserting offensive images into little-known but widely used templates, yes. Fut.Perf.☼10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, it seems to be a more and more common way to attack the FA-of-the-day; rather than simply vandalising the page itself - which will be reverted in seconds - vandalise an obscure transcluded template, which can take five or ten minutes to notice and track down... Shimgray | talk | 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Template vandalism, which can be maddeningly difficult to locate and fix, seems to be increasingly common. The proposer's points are well-taken. Newyorkbrad14:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this change seems to only have positive features. Under what circumstances would we ever WANT to have an anonymous IP editor or an editor registered for less than four days CHANGING a template? If such users should, for some reason, actually figure out that there really was a problem with a specific template, they could always post to the template talk page or notify an admin or even just another user.
On the other hand, we DO know that templates have been vandalized, including some within the past few days that were used in a Main Page article, and we DO know one avenue to attack templates is an experienced vandal doing so anonymously or via newly registered accounts (sock puppets).
Will semiprotection stop all or even most template vandalism? Quite possibly not. Will vandals figure out ways around it (sleeper accounts, for example)? Some certainly will. But changing this policy clearly will stop SOME vandalism, and there really seems just about no downside to this proposed change. John Broughton | Talk14:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the histories of various navboxes I'm familiar with, I would have to disagree with the premises of this proposal -- that unregistered users do not understand templates, or that their contributions are unlikely to be anything but vandalism. Actually, I see lots of constructive (though mostly trivial) changes by anons, like this one to a history navbox... Some templates were even created by anons (not possible anymore, of course). There is some vandalism in those histories too, but nothing terribly out of line. Now, I recognize that Wikipedia is slipping slowly (inevitably?) away from being "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but I don't think we need to hasten the process. For my money protected pages are still considered harmful, even when they are templates. I concede that we should be a bit more aggressive in protecting or semi-protecting heavily-used templates, or those which are particularly inviting targets for vandalism; but the ground rules at WP:PPOL already allow for that. -- Visviva15:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her'e what WP:PPOL says (in total) about protecting templates: A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for ... Protecting certain "system administration" pages. This includes many editorial templates, such as deletion notices and stub templates.
I suspect that a lot of admins would be troubled by the leap from "system administration" templates, clearly covered by the policy, and "heavily-used templates, or those which are particularly inviting targets for vandalism", which aren't mentioned in the policy, unless the policy was reworded. For example, I don't think the templates that were vandalized on the Main Page article recently were "system administration" templates, though I could be wrong. John Broughton | Talk16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of heavily-used templates already are permanently protected, in accordance with Wikipedia:High-risk templates, so in practice it seems that they are considered to fall under system administration. That's as it should be; vandalism to something like Template:! would cause a mess to horrible to consider. On the other hand, I don't think that most garden-variety templates really fall under the high-risk category, and I don't see why such templates should be protected. It's not that hard to spot and fix vandalism to a simple navbox or infobox, and changes can be tracked through "Related changes". -- Visviva16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm wrong on that last point; "Related changes" doesn't seem to cover transclusion links at all. Bit of a bug there, if you ask me. -- Visviva04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable corollary to WP:HRT. I've noticed that a naughty image on a page is quickly removed, but one on a template can stay there for quite a bit longer as a significant amount of editors don't know where to find it. (Radiant) 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One could argue that actually, anons not editing templates is the real problem. They can't figure out how templates work and so don't edit them. One ad hoc approach I once tried was include an external link to the edit link for the template in the template itself, but this violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Another approach is the software feature that links templates used in the article on the edit page, but this is easy to overlook and not very intuitive. Any other ideas? Deco10:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a very serious WP:SELF violation; but there is concern about it, you could enclose the edit link in Template:Selfref. Thinking about it, such edit links are probably most appropriate for navboxes (which are fairly transparent and don't normally take any arguments), rather than for infoboxes and other more esoteric things. -- Visviva04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Troubled: Am I misunderstanding, or is this a general proposal driven largely by concerns about articles featured on the front page? If so, that seems to be very much putting the cart before the horse; the front page is a tiny part of Wikipedia, and not really central to our mission of building a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Perhaps WP:HRT should simply be amended to include templates currently transcluded into an article of the day? -- Visviva04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template vandalism in general, and the recent template vandalism specifically, affect tens of thousands of pages, especially the main topics that have many more readers (most of the 1.5 million total articles are more rarely read, whereas the main articles can receive hundreds or thousands of visitors an hour). It also much more difficult to identify and remove. As has been said before, checked/stable revisions for templates would be a better solution, but what other option is there? —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support-ish. I believe that while the semi-protection of every template in existence would be overkill, that the indefinite semi-protection of templates with any significant history of vandalism should be made normal practice. In other words, if it would qualify for a few days or week of semi-protection as an article, we could safely bump that to indefinite for a template. This, combined with the full protection of any template that is going to be put on the main page, should be able to curb template vandalism easily enough. --tjstrftalk05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:AGF even applies to anon users. There is NO reason why an anon user could not be a long-time editor and get to know Wikipedia well enough to reliably edit templates. If a specific template is a target of constant vandalism, then protection is in order. But we must not enact any restrictive protections of any class of pages simply because some users are targeting some templates for vandalism. Until a page becomes a problem, there is no reason to assume it will be a target. Until any user, even an Anon user, has shown themselves to be a vandal, we cannot assume they will vandalise. --Jayron3204:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no reason they couldn't become one, I challenge you to find any anon or newbie whose first edits are legit changes to templates, other than perhaps reverts. They just don't exist. -- Zanimum19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one dif, to a template I use and watch: [2]. This user has made several other valid changes to this template. They are minor but real, and in some cases useful and knowledgable, changes. There are many reasons why an experienced editor may not want to make an account. WP:AGF means we don't need to ask why. An experienced but anon user has a valid reason NOT to create an account, and we should not ban them from making constructive edits just because they never register. If a user, anon or not, is vandalising templates, block them. We shouldn't assume all anon users who show a knowledge of wikipedia to be vandals. Many are good, experienced editors who prefer to remain anonymous. --Jayron3223:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Widely used templates (say, anything transcluded into more than 100 articles, or into any templates transcluded into other templates that are transcluded into more than 100 articles), can be identified and protected. As pointed out above, high-use templates already have full protection. I don't see the real value in extending this to all templates. I agree with Jayron32 that there are undoubtedly long-time anon editors. —Doug Belltalk16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relatively few anonymous editors who do make positive contributions to templates can continue to do so even when templates are soft-protected, simply by posting to the talk page of the template (I'm assuming there is some soft of flag they can be post, requesting assistance, so they aren't watchlist-dependent for assistance). They can also be encouraged to become registered users. John Broughton | Talk02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: we need better tools to deal with the kind of vandalism, rather than a change in policy. e.g. a tool to show a history of edits of all transcluded templates used in an article. As long as we're allowing both registered and anon users to edit wikipedia, we should continue allowing everyone to edit templates. —Pengotalk · contribs02:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd hope that included BOT replacements of renamed pages on templates. Moreover, I think it would be a good idea to indef Protect such widely used templates like {{Wiktionary}}, {{Commonscat}}, {{Wikibooks}}, {{Wikisource}}, etc. (Most of those are, however, Wikisource is open).
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
I would further suggest that the attraction of a 'big score' of attacking a FA or former FA candidate through a template vandalism would be essentially eliminated if the templates used on FA pages were hard protected when the article was put up, and kept that way for a week or two afterwards. Actually, I'd rather see a indef Protect once a page achieves a GA status. (Not GAC) Why leave ourselves wide open on security grounds. I've never bought into the idealism of fully editable by anyone, as even vandalism is such an edit, and I'd rather the collective talent were more free to improve articles vice chase bad edits by the sicko looking for a kick. Sorry, AGF is a bit too wide open as we as a society don't do that at all, just ask anyone patrolling recent changes why they're doing that. Most other (non-infobox) templates would tend to occur low enough on a random article page, that normal policing should be sufficient. // FrankB02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idealism of being a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is exactly what has gotten us this far. If you really find WP:AGF so problematic -- and I'd prefer to believe that you don't, but are just making a point -- then, well, perhaps you should reconsider why you are here. -- Visviva14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly see why. By the same logic, it seems to me that we should semi-protect all pages. After all, anyone can suggest a change to an article on the Talk page. Why should we trust anons at all? This is a seductive line of thought, especially for those of us who spend a lot of time housekeeping; but the logic of stasis and closure has long since led DMOZ to failure, and it will lead us there too if we do not stand firm. -- Visviva14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am a long-time anon-editor, and I am finding that Wikipedia is a less and less desirable place to contribute to because of the default assumption that all anons are vandals and haughtiness by some registered users who consider anons worthless. 132.205.93.8923:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion ban all anon users from editing anything except talk pages. Then I'll be free of any desire to contribute, and people can "think" they've solved the vandalism problem (even though making a throwaway account and vandalizing with it is common enough). 132.205.93.8923:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're a long-time anon-editor with less than 100 edits, who is free to register, of course (Wikipedia:Why create an account?). Doing so would give you more credibility when you make an edit. It may be a stereotype, but for most of the articles on my watchlist, there's at least a 50% chance that an anon IP edit is vandalism; the percentage is far less for named users (many of who are, in fact, reverting vandalism of anons when they post.) So yes, I tend to behave differently when I see an anon edit than when I see a named user edit, and I'm not going to apologize for that. John Broughton | Talk18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whilst vandals can theoretically get around sprotection by creating 'throw-away' accounts - they hardly ever do that. Whilst anonymous contributors might theoretically have good reasons not to create accounts - they hardly ever do. SteveBaker20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the occasional anon does do something helpful for a template, rarely is that the case. I don't see any significant harm as a result of protecting templates. In fact, the opposite is true. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal and Oral Knowledge wiki
The call for a citation in Mukurob (yes, I am the original author) sparked a train of thought which I think is interesting and might be very important.
Throughout the world, but especially in Africa, knowledge, news, fiction and so on are all passed on orally. Only rarely are these nuggets of information (and disinformation) formally recorded, and then often with great differences of interpretation and content.
In the article, I assert that Nama oral tradition predicted that 'white' rule would end when the rock structure collapsed. My statement is based on several conversations in the Seventies and Eighties, around campfires and while travelling through the desert. There are no citations; the Nama stories are largely unrecorded.
The fact that I cannot provide a citation does not particularly bother me; I think that factoid is interesting but not significant. Probably a coincidence. There have been several other similar predictions the most famous of which is the prediction of Nonquase, a Xhosa girl, that two suns would rise and the white people would be driven into the sea by the ancestors who have risen from the grave. Well, that didn't happen.
What does concern me (and prompted my relating the prediction) is that these snippets information are just going to be lost through inattention, and worse, through self-censorship. On the other hand, I do recognise and agree with the policy of NOR; however, these oral nuggets are only unpublished, not original.
Perhaps there should be another wiki for this sort of thing. Before it is too late.
Oral sources have become acceptable to historians and other academics, but unfortunetaly I don't think we can use them in Wikipedia. To ensure accuracy and NPOV all our articles need to be verifiable, and there is no reasonable way to verify such oral sources. - SimonP15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, we have too many pranksters who make stuff up to see if they can get away with it. Some of it is quite reasonable-sounding unless an expert is available. We have to require accessible sources for verification, or risk allowing false content. Fan-196716:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that having a Wiki (separate from Wikipedia) to record oral history is a very admirable goal. Wikis are perfect for this, since they allow the user to enter the information without requiring an academic to record it directly. Bluap23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some thoughts that occur based on the responses above
Regarding the need to 'ensure accuracy'; this is a admirable goal, but somewhat elusive as far as history is concerned. And citations and publications will not help much; publications cannot be revised as easily as a wiki, but they can be revised. See how, on the White House website, the words "Mission Accomplished" prominently displayed behind George Bush as he made his 'victory' speech, have now mysteriously disappeared from a video made by CNN.
It is true that we can use published work as a citation. That is not the question or concern. The concern is about the rich (admittedly undisciplined) knowledge that is being discarded. One spectacular example. The Khoi-San have known for millenia that a certain plant has wonderful medicinal properties. A large pharmaceutical company discovered this 'fact' from the Khoi-San's oral 'knowledge' (no previous research or publications!), and have started the (admittedly expensive) process or providing it commercially. They refuse to compensate or acknowledge the contribution of the Khoi-San in any way (despicable, but understandable). The case is sub judicae, so please don't ask me for any citations or details. The point I am making is that valuable, real knowledge is being lost.
I don't think that wikipedia is the right place for this knowledge to be recorded. However, I do think that this community could be invaluable in helping to establish and manage a wiki where it can be recorded, and eventually fed into wikipedia.
I think we should upgrade WikiLawyering to guideline status. I've seen this used a lot in the community, and it's already being treated like one. Several policy pages, such as WP:NPA and WP:3RR mention WikiLawyering as being a bad thing. It would definitely benefit the community. There's already been a ton of disruptive 3RR violations that sysyops can't do anything that's too uncontroversial because WikiLawyering is a simple essay. With this in place, there would be a lot less edit wars. That's for sure. -- Selmo(talk)04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IAR and WiliLawyering are related, but I wouldn't call it the same. IAR is more like the be bold guideline: don't worry about the rules, because someone else will fix it. WikiLawyering, while it in a way says we should ignore the rules, it's more focused on ignoring the technical interpretation of the rules, while it still requires editors to follow the spirit. -- Selmo(talk)04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This essay was essentially created in order to document a common piece of jargon, normally used in a pejorative manner, rather than to prescribe a particular course of action. Nobody ever does wikilawyering from their own perspective. Thus it doesn't particularly make sense as a guideline. Deco10:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikilawyering is covered more by WP:POINT than by IAR. Even real courts have the power to say, "Clever argument, and you would appear to be right on the technicalities, but that is not what this particular law is meant to accomplish, and we don't intend to be a party to defeating the intent of the legislature." That is not ignoring the rules, it is implementing them with a clue. If Wikilawyering does not rise to the level of disruption, what is the need for a guideline? Robert A.West (Talk) 12:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the page as written is guideline material; it doesn't really provide much guidance on what to do. That said, it would be helpful to have a more detailed treatment of what rules are and aren't good for on Wikipedia. For a start, it would be good to have a line in WP:NOT to go alongside "not a bureaucracy" and "not a democracy" ... maybe "Wikipedia is not consistent"? Or perhaps Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not governed by rules as a spinoff page expanding on the various Wikipedia-is-not-government items on the NOT page? -- Visviva04:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen people use policies like WP:NPA to issue WARnings to someone who dares to speak a contrary opionion in a AfD debate, then if the warned person seeks to defend his speech or to get a block rescinded as not a violation, they fall back on claims the accused is Wikilawyering. This seems like the policies are there for some to usew, but not for their opponents to use in their own defense when blocked. Very convenient. If Wikipedia establishes policies, guidelines, and rules, they should beusable by anyone, without accusations of "Wikilawyering." Edison18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. Obviously, Wikipedia does and should discourage wikilawyering. The page is both actionable and consensual, and per WP:POL that would make it a guideline. It's not particularly important, though, as Wikilawyers almost never see themselves as such and thus would not apply such a guideline to themselves. (Radiant) 13:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
communication = notification be phone [or even] eMail and at least Snailmail
why not ALERT a user that [at the worst] our 'TOPIC' is about to be deleted or [ the LEASTE] an important responce is in your Bit-Bucket ? ! ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNiRaC (talk • contribs)
Wait, what? Are you saying you want us to send you a postcard before AfDing "your" page? No. A talk page posting and maybe an e-mail is more than sufficient. --tjstrftalk06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But most of the time, users don't even get a notification on their talkpage when an article is AfD'd. Admins just use their arbitrary powers to delete anything they don't like. Walton monarchist8910:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please (re)read WP:AGF - the view of most of us here, I believe, is that admins try their best (and usually succeed) in being objective about deletions.
Having said that, I do think that it could be a major improvement to have an automated system post a message on user talk pages (as is done, for example, with the Signpost), for, say, the person who created the article (but does NOT, as noted by someone else, own the article), and also post the same message on the talk pages of (say) the last ten editors (or, alternatively, anyone editing the page in the last 30 or 60 or 90 days). John Broughton | Talk14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge numbers of editors who fix typos, refine categories and DAB wikilinks on pages they have not made major content changes on. No bot could distinguish them from actual content editors. I would think most of them would be, uh, less than thrilled to start getting their Talk pages filled with notices like this. Fan-196714:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep things simple. Users want their page in good condition : they respect our policy and they put the page in their watchlist. They may use RSS too - see VP:Tech. -- DLL .. T18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to supersede WP:V and WP:RS. If a reliable source (such as a peer reviewed journal in that field) proclaims that it is "obviously bogus" a mention of that can be made in the article. Similarly, if another reliable source disputes the "obviously bogus" claim, that too should be included as a conflict of views on the subject. I would be weary of editors going around slapping the "obviously bogus" tag (or removing it) without that strong connection to a reliable source. That would seem to trickle into original research. Agne20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have one article [3] described as pseudoscience, and the reference is to a Wired magazine article which seems to reference Wikipedia as its source. I've requested an alternative source, but none are forthcoming. I'm not disputing the critical sources. --Iantresman22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no original research allowed, there is original analysis. If the claims that the Time Cube article make are sourced, and the definition of pseudoscience is sourced, then I don't think you need a source to link the two together, and so I see no reason why it cannot be categorized as such. —Pengotalk · contribs01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion criteria for images?
I see a number of images in CAT:CSD with reasons given for speedy deletion that aren't listed at WP:CSD. While I think all of these should be candidates for speedy deletion, are they? Examples:
Presumably UE stands for unencyclopedic, which is not listed as a reason. (Also fails to follow WP:CSD guideline for {{db-reason}} template which states: Please try to write out a reason that will be comprehensible to non-Wikipedians)
Used for vandalism is not the same as is vandalism.
Non-notable is a criteria for articles, but not for images.
Spam is defined in a commercial context, which does not apply in any of these cases.
The above images account for most of the speedy-tagged images in CAT:CSD. Either we need to expand WP:CSD or untag all these images. I prefer expanding WP:CSD to cover these types of personal images that will never be used in the encyclopedia. —Doug Belltalk09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As expected, somebody has gone and deleted the images, but the question still remains regarding the speedy deletion criteria. Being able to see the images is not that useful to evaluating the question: as I said above, they all should be speedy deletable, they just don't happen to meet any speedy deletion criteria. —Doug Belltalk11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What new criteria would you suggest? The general point seems reasonable; if the images have no conceivable encyclopedic value, I can't see any reason not to speedily delete them. But encyclopedic value can be hard to judge, which is presumably why UE is currently a criterion for IfD and not for speedy. -- Visviva07:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, UE should probably not be a speedy deletion criteria. One criteria could be personal images, but then that would create a criteria for people to delete all user page photos, including what would be the few personal userpage photos that are typically allowed for regular contributors. But having to go through IfD for all these is burdensome, so I don't think that should be the solution. Perhaps a WP:PROD process for images? I don't know, but I don't think we should continue with the current practice of tagging and speedy deleting images without setting some guidelines that cover those situations. I'm bringing it up here to stimulate discussion, but it's apparently not a very stimulating topic. :-) —Doug Belltalk09:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to extend prod to images. Remarkably few IfD's are controversial, but listing something on IfD is such a headache that one is often tempted to just "look the other way." -- Visviva16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pain to list at IfD, more so than other XfDs. It's just that "looking the other way" now seems to be defacto policy. It would be better to extend policy than just have people make up reasons to speedy delete images. —Doug Belltalk22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That image was tagged right after uploading, before it could be added to the article. Although it's not a very good picture (poor composistion, lighting and angle), tagging it was not correct. The tag was subsequently removed. —Doug Belltalk22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to get rid of a lot of useless clutter I would suggest we make images that meet all of these criterea deletable on sight:
Photo where the focus is only one or more non-notable persons (typicaly user mugshots, random "party photos", funny poses or garage-band "promos" leftover from deleted articles).
Image is not used on any pages (if for example used on a userpage it's not speedyable, if you think a userpage is breaching the "not a personal photo album" policy simply ask the user to tone it down, or failing that go though the normal deletion proces).
Image was uploaded more than -- let's say 2 hours ago (should give people ample time to put the image on a suitable page if that was the plan).
I must have listed several hundreds of such images on IFD in my time, and all have been deleted without objection so I don't think such a speedy deletion criterea would be very controversial. --Sherool(talk)01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it needs to be something like this. Any single criteria is going to sweep up other stuff, but not having any criteria makes it too much work to remove these. —Doug Belltalk02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that has listed all the above images, and others. I have been asked to stop since it isn't CSD criteria and I have. But I do believe that listing these, and similar images through IFD is a burden on IFD and the purpose of CSD, to relieve the burden from a full xFD process. I do agree that I over-stepped the bounds on several images that were recently uploaded and tagged them before they could be properly added to an article. I have proposed criteria at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal for Additional Image CSD Criteria which requires a 2 hour minimum before tagging (I now use this personally, despite not being policy). In the past few days I have looked at thousands of images (a guess) and there are so many images that 1) have no encyclopedic value, 2) the user provides no source, not even a guess at copyright, no description, or 3) the image is redundant and only a different size/shape (this is caused by ignorance that an image can be resized, proper planning to upload the best image format, or other image use lack of knowledge items). I believe images that are uploaded that are of the user and used solely on user pages should be deleted. Upload them to WikiCommons. WP:NOT specifically states that images uploaded to Wikipedia should be used (or planned to be used) in the article or project namespace only. Userspace is not covered. They should host them on an image hosting service, such as Photobucket or otherwise. I also think that a user that uploads these "nonsense" images should be warned not to do so and if they continue, they should be blocked (it's in the proposed policy I mentioned above). Lastly, I was bold in trying to subject that these types of images have no place on Wikipedia and tagged them as CSD since there is no need to wait 5 days and burden the IFD with them. However, I was asked to stop and in order to prevent being accused of making a point I have, though by no means should that be construed as a change in my mind that this is the proper method to handle these images. --MECU≈talk02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not being vandalism is irrelevant if the image is used only for vandalism. After I posted that last message, I looked at new images and this one: Image:Corndoggy.PNG was used to vandalize the Corn dog article (see history before my revert). Should we keep this image then? I believe that CSD should handle this also, so long as the image still retains no UE criteria. --MECU≈talk03:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mass dumping images with false criteria onto CSD is unhelpful. CSD is at capaicty and doesn't need any more people trying to introduce deletion policies by fait.Geni03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've used {{db|Only uploaded for vandalism}} before, because it was what any sensible person would call obscene and was added to totally irrelevant articles. Sometimes applying WP:BOLD and WP:IAR is OK if you're absolutely certain that everyone will agree. I like the proposed deletion idea extending to images - it would make things a lot easier for everyone. --WikiSlasher08:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was directed here by one of the admins to express my concerns over the issue of third party sources for verification, and how it is affected by original research as well as proving notability and all that.
There are a number of locations in the world where notable events occur and there is no record of it that would under normal circumstances be recorded due to local circumstances - such as the lack of a local newspaper, or the lack of a local subject specific publication. Even though the event or group or anything else is worth recording as it is no different to others that have such sources.
It concerns me that it will leave the WP database incomplete. There is a dispute occuring at present where a number of wrestling promotions were marked for deletion due to an alleged lack of notability and a lack of sources. To me that looked like an over reaction - particularly in the case of one article. PCW
An admin who shall remain nameless alleged that unsourced articles will be deleted - even if the article is not original research. The Carnage Controversy noted in the article I mentioned is definitely a notable event - in that it had a major negative effect on the industry in Melbourne as a whole. But because this fact was never recorded - it could lead to an wholly unacceptable article deletion. It creates a conundrum - if articles like this and events like this are deleted, editors will leave. WP relies heavily on editors to get the information to make WP reliable, and the less editors there are the less reliable WP will be.
Whether WP likes it or not - it is seen by the Internet community as an "Encyclopedia for Everything". It is widely used as a source in this regard - indeed I've used it myself for this reason, and have linked the Aspergers Syndrome article which is magnificent. I mention Wikipedia a lot in other regards as a spot to start research. I am now discouraged from doing this because of the rock hard belief that all articles have to have reliable third party sources. It stops me from providing articles on other independant pro wrestling promotions in Australia, as one place that is not seen as a reliable source as I understand it is the fed's official website. That's a bad thing because mostly in this case it is the ONLY external source.
I hope I have covered the problem sufficiently, and I seek comment. I am seriously considering leaving WP over this issue, because if I hold to this rock hard attitude I have nothing to contribute. And the amount of material that I wanted to place on Wikipedia will not be added. I consider that to be poor form and a bad thing for an online encyclopedia. Curse of Fenric21:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An admin who shall remain nameless alleged that unsourced articles will be deleted - even if the article is not original research. How, exactly, does one distinguish between an article that IS original research, and one that simply lacks sources?
The assumption that is usually made in my experience is that unsourced statements and so forth are labelled original research because of the lack of sources. Especially the lack of online sources. I know of one wrestling promotion in Adelaide for example that does not have a website (they aren't listed on the Pro Wrestling in Australia page for this reason - and of course do not have an article. And in that case rightly so). Original research is personal experience. Lack of sources could be a POV issue - ie acting off rumours, not original research (heavy emphasis of "research"). Curse of Fenric09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your concern that editors will stop joining Wikipedia if they realize that they can't add articles without reliable sources, that's an interesting hypothesis. Last I looked, new accounts were being established at the rate of something like 10 per second 5 per minute (more than seven thousand per day)[4]. I suppose if that rate were halved, it would mean something, though exactly what is unclear.
With respect, I consider that stat to be misleading because it is possible that - at a ball park guess - 3 or 4 1 of them could be accounts created purely for reasons of vandalism and other such behaviour. But I would suggest that if it did get around that the verification rules and all that were going to be strictly enforced - then yes, WP could indeed lose half of those new editors. Notwithstanding the existing ones as well. Curse of Fenric09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your statement that Wikipedia is seen as an "Encyclopedia for Everything", that certainly argues for correcting such a misunderstanding, because that's not what Wikipedia is. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original, from WP:V, one of the three main content policies.) So yes, there will always be holes in Wikipedia. Fortunately or otherwise, there is so more work to be done on what CAN be documented by reliables sources that the editors here are never going to come close to finishing things. John Broughton | Talk22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've got your work cut out to eliminate that "misunderstanding". Wikipedia is being referenced for a large number of things over a wide range of subjects - in many cases over other online encyclopedias for the very reason I explained. That's why I say the loss of editors is such a threat. Curse of Fenric09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also my impassioned plea above regarding oral and tribal knowledge....Regarding your assumprion the the 'fed's official website' is not a 'reliable' source, I did see a reference recently here that websites can be cited. not young enough to know everything07:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there or should there be a policy, perhaps as part of WP:SPAM, which prohibits links to websites purportedly collecting money for the victim families when there are memorial articles about people who die in well publicized incidents such as the tragic case of James Kim dying of exposure when he and his familiy got lost and stranded in the mountains? The links in question go to sites JamesAndKati.com "set up by friends and family of James Kim" and (Link provided by James' former employer CNET)the first of which says which says in part
"We have set up "The James Kim Memorial Fund" through Bank of America. Donations to the paypal account above will be transferred to that account. Checks can be sent to either of the addresses listed below. Make checks payable to "The James Kim Memorial Fund".
We have also received requests for some who wish to send items to the girls or the family. Cnet has graciously offered to receive and store these packages, letters and cards.
The Kim Family
c/o CNET Networks
235 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94105 The James Kim Memorial Fund
c/o Bank of America
Noe Valley Banking Center
4098 24th Street
San Francisco, CA 94114-3716
James and Kati started two stores in San Francisco in the past couple of years. Helping to support these stores is a way that residents of San Francisco can help support the family. Doe is in the lower Haight and Church Street Apothecary is in Noe Valley.
I deleted the link to the website, but it was restored on the grounds that it is an official family website providing info about the family of the subject of the article. It is claimed in the AfD debate for the article that the James Kim article is not a memorial article, that he was notable before the incident, but just did not happen to have an article. But in general, if links are sometimes deleted as being spam links because they link to a site which provides information but also seeks to sell items, is it legitimate to link to a site created by the family or friends of the family which solicits funds and gifts in addition to well-wishes and condolences? I can see that this method might be widely used whenever there is some well-publicized tragedy in which Wikipedia readers might feel sympathy for the families of conjoined twins, victims of a plane crash, coal mine disaster, war injury, or fire, in which money might be sought for the family or sadly, as in several well-known cases of the past, by charlatans. Is it legitimate to use Wikipedia for fundraising efforts? Thanks. Edison18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link as it appears now (in the external links section):
[http://www.jamesandkati.com JamesAndKati.com] set up by friends and family of James Kim [http://news.com.com/How+to+help+the+James+Kim+family/2100-1028_3-6142209.html (Link provided by James' former employer CNET)]
I personally find the first link okay, though I'd prefer more neutral language describing it (such as - help, support, and donations. The second link, which leads to a CNet page titled "How to help the James Kim family", I DO find problematical. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to provide a link, then a second link that provide informations about the first link.
As for charlatans, if there is any question of the veracity of link - and there is clearly none here - then obviously it should come done.
But I do agree that policy/guidance is needed here - how does one properly interpret this (from WP:EL): Is [the link] proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?John Broughton | Talk21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SENSE, we're not robots. Discuss it on the article talk page and come to consensus. The Cnet page verifies the authenticity of the family link so I'd leave it in for a while (especially since the family link is asking for donations). I'd get uncomfortable with the family/memorial page if it doesn't tone down the fundraising within a reasonable period (a month or two maybe) but at the moment I can understand that the family is having a rough time. 67.117.130.18115:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothesis
Hello
I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. I have a hypothesis that is relevant to the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. It is based on observational data from the Hubble programme and draws upon other observations at the quantum and atomic level.
I am concerned that as a hypothesis it is original thought and so barred from Wikipedia.
The hypothesis relates to the creation of our visible universe as a subset of the total universe. It proposes an unique model for gravity and the fundamental nature of energy.
I thought it might be useful to add as a stub to the main Big Bang Theory page.
Should I contribute it? It is not famous, challenges Einstein's views and is my original work.
Thanking you for taking the time to ask this question. Per Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia does not allow for the inclusions of new interpretations of science, only those that have been previously published in an appropriate peer reviewed venue. It is Wikipedia's goal to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, which necessarily means limiting ourselves to work that has been previously vetted. So, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the right place for your new ideas. However, I'm sure there are other venues on the internet where new theories can be included. Dragons flight19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interacting with child editors
This is something that's been on my mind for a while, so I thought I'd ask for input. Has there ever been any substantial discussion about the appropriate way to interact with users that have identified themselves as children, or given a lot of reasons to think that they probably are? I have followed Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy a bit, and that is not exactly what I'm talking about, though it obviously has relevance. And I agree with the statement that children who vandalize, violate WP:NPA, etc. need to be treated precisely the same way as adults that do those things. I am thinking more about tough-ish cases like <snip>, or <snip> who clearly don't intend to do harm, but can be quite, well, consternating. My first impulse, a while ago, was to suggest a talk page template something like "this user is a child, be gentle" but obviously that has some serious issues with the children's privacy concerns. I have occasionally witnessed users who either have a lower tolerance for childishness, or who haven't figured out that a user is probably a child engaging in "edit warring" of one kind of another with children. Which, god, anyone who's tried to argue with a bright child in real life knows can only be an exercise in total frustration. I know some users are quite young and have made substantial contributions, and that many adult users have behaved quite awfully. So I'm not trying to be ageist. Perhaps a welcome message that specifically mentions activities that children could be helpful with (some wikignome activities could certainly be performed well by a bright child)? Something to direct their energies into good directions? Dina19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain to where you trying to get at. As far as I am aware, children are looked upon the same as adults here. If their edits do not contribute to wikipedia then they are reverted. Assuming good faith is directed at both the young and the old. As I understand it, you are frustrated with some young wikipedian users making unprofessional edits and are reluctant to criticize them. I wouldn't worry about the possibility "hurting their feelings" but just inform them in the nicest possible way of how their edits are problematic. Personally I came across quite young wikipedians who have a quite good knowledge of complicated fields such as programming so I wouldn't go as far as "discriminate", in a sense, agains't young wikipedians by suggesting to them what they are allowed to do here. Just my 2 cents. - Tutmosis19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not making myself clear (my fault): discriminating against younger users is exactly what I do not want to do. But I do find that the standard methods for explaining editing errors and Wikipedia policy (warning templates, references to policy and guideline pages) seem to fail when it comes to very young users. It is difficult to fault someone for really not understanding something. If you look at some of the contribs and experiences of the two editors above, perhaps what I mean will be more clear. I recently spent a fair amount of time with another user, trying to explain what "non-notable" meant. It seemed that she was quite young and not really grasping it. Maybe I should sit down and write some simplified versions of policy pages to help editors confronted with this situation. Dina21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:N is now a disputed policy. My recommendation, based on comments of others, is to use WP:V and WP:NOR instead; notability, quite frankly, is so squishy, and is defined so differently for different types of articles, that it's probably only suitable for hashing out at AfDs.
In other words, perhaps something like: You're not allowed to make things up, or add things you think you heard or read somewhere else. If you add something, you HAVE to provide a link to where you got it. Admitted, it's still challenging to explain what "self-published" means, but getting a link would certainly be progress (for adult editors, as well, for that matter). John Broughton | Talk21:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think these things are best handled on a case-by-case basis, for all the reasons mentioned. I think the younger editors want, for the most part, to be treated just like anyone else, and to take their lumps with the rest of us when that's what's called for. Equal treatment is the way it should be, ninety-five or so percent of the time; but sometimes occasionally there are special circumstances, and my rule of thumb is to treat a younger newbie the same way that I would have wanted to be treated if there had been an Internet and a Wikipedia when I was a child–to be given the full run of the place if I could handle it, but not to be thrown in at the deep end unnecessarily, either.
When a sixth-grader entered a writing contest and won best book in the county by a student in that grade, and he (or perhaps his parents) was excited and proud enough to write a Wikipedia article on the book and the series it was part of, a few kind words beyond the norm would have been in order when the article was listed for deletion as non-notable/possible hoax and the creator started getting scolded for vandalism for reverting the AfD tags. When an RfC was filed because a younger editor was occasionally making immature remarks, someone pointed out that it was probably in order for fewer editors to pile on with "we all agree you're being a jerk, cut it out at once" than might have been the case in other circumstances. When a younger editor is clearly in over his or her head on RfA, I'll occasionally throw in a "moral support" and praise for his good contributions rather than cast "not experienced enough, immature, clueless, no freaking way" oppose !vote number 25. I certainly would have counselled Nathannoblet that his arbitration cases two months ago should be withdrawn if I'd realized he was a younger editor rather than just someone who thought he was right all the time.
Those situations are the exceptions, though. Wikipedia and other Internet forums are founded on recognition of a person's merits rather than any other criteria, to a greater extent than probably any other institution. We have an ArbCom member who's 17 (unless he just had a birthday recently), a bureaucrat who's 14 (ditto), and several administrators who are 14 (and perhaps even a year or two younger, I'm not sure). We have lots of excellent editors of all ages. If an editor is contributing good edits, it makes no difference to me (except as anecdotal background information) if he or she is 13 or 23 or 43 or 83. The only official restriction I know of on our editors under 18 is that they're ineligible under Florida law to run for the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think most of them can live with that. Newyorkbrad21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: maybe read that arbitration case in its entirity, I think it contains many steps towards a solution of the issue presented here. If a contributor behaves "childish" that's not so much an "age" problem (Wikipedia doesn't, and shouldn't, investigate the "real" age of contributors): it is rather a behaviour issue. And as far as behaviour is concerned, Wikipedia doesn't discern on the basis of age. If the behaviour is disruptive, try to remedy it as you would remedy any disruptive behaviour: that includes with respect (it might be a young person) as well as with firmness (it might be an adult impostor or just a make-believe childish troll). --Francis Schonken12:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough to snip out their names -- that's one of the things that makes even discussing this issue a bit difficult. I'll dive deeper into the arbitration. User:Trödel's recent mentorship towards "snip" are instructive as well. Cheers. Dina15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think, when it is known that an editor is a child or rather in his early teens should be dealt with love, respect, politeness and encouragement. The possibilities of posititve results would be any day far better than getting the same from an adult editor. We do have to be extra nice and show niceties to children editors. The care for Wikipedia articles should not neglect care for feelings of children editors. They are the assets of Wikipedia. They will deal with other editors in future, the way we deal with them now. swadhyayee13:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding warning templates: I don't think this is an age-specific problem, though some very young editors might have problems.. just like it's not a location-specific problem, even though some editors whose first language is not English have trouble with some of them as well. Many of the warning templates are fairly "dense" and could be simplified; I've been looking at the templates the Simple English Wikipedia uses and wondering if maybe we should move a bit in that direction for warning templates. Perel20:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting images along with articles
I've noticed that articles that get deleted via AfD (and probably other processes as well) often don't get their images deleted as well. (Look at these contribs and this AfD, for example, where an experienced AfD closer didn't delete the images or list them at IFD.) There's not an explicit image CSD that covers this, nor is deletion of related images part of the AfD process (that I know of). Perhaps it should be one or both of these things.
The only counter-argument I can see is that images could be re-used in other articles, leading to disputes at AfD about whether to keep an image that might be useful elsewhere. That said, images on WP (as opposed to commons) are often only categorized by license, meaning if you didn't know the name of whatever you were looking for, you wouldn't find it. Thoughts?--KchaseT06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not active in the image speedy process, I like the idea of a criterion for images along the lines of "The image's only conceivable use is in an article which has been deleted". I'm thinking more along the lines of Newpage patrolling for vanity articles than AfD, but it should work for both. Melchoir08:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about the proposal to delete images along with articles. One the one hand, why not clean these up. On the other, unused images take up a trivial amount of computer storage space, aren't accessible via search, might actually be useful at some point (deleted articles DO reappear for one reason or another, legitimately - for example, via deletion review. (If an image is deleted, can be it be restored by an admin? And even so, this is more work.)
Actually, yes it is a problem. It's quite common that vanity and nonsense speedied articles have images that end up not getting deleted along with them. Whether CSD or AFD, if an image was uploaded by the author of a later-deleted article, as part of the article creation process, I can't see keeping them around on the off-chance that some other article might use them. (Really, we don't have that much need for pictures of drunken teenagers.) -- Fan-196705:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you might not agree with me, but I think that all photos in wikipedia should be censored. By no means am I saying that pictures of nude persons or of sexual organs, should be deleted; all I'm saying is that photos portraying some sort of nudity should be replaced by diagrams. There are two main reasons for this to be done
Wikipedia is not only used by adults, but also by young children for schoolprojects. We do not have any control on who views wikipedia pages, therefore there is no way of stopping young children from seeing erotic pictures. Another solution would be to create an online encyclopedia for children (I know that you are already working on wikijunior, but there's still some work to be done on it), but that would still not stop children from entering wikipedia.
The other reason is to preserve the human dignity. Respect should not only be shown to a person by the way to talk to him/her, or by the way you behave in his/her presence. It also involves respect to that person's body. There might also be poeple who do not wish to see such photos on the web, such as married adults, priests (of any religion), and poeple who consider such things as dirty.
As I said before, I'm not against pictures showing nudity or sexual organs, but against photos. Once again I'd like to emphatise that I thing that the solution to this is by replacing such photos by diagrams. Keith Azzopardi19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about the respect and dignity that is associated with showing the human body in its most natural form? Nudity or even "erotic" images are not, by themselves, inherently bad or disrespectful. It the POV of the observer that colors that view. 205.157.110.1119:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you, you've got to keep in mind that it is very difficult to see things from that point of view. Nature is beautiful, as long as human beings keep it that way. Keith Azzopardi19:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the proposal. Without going into a debate about our ethics on sexuality, I want to say that sexually explicit photos are only added to "illustrate the subject". That constitutes them as encyclopedic. Furthermore they are, to my knowledge, never appear on the main page or any other neutral place. The above points have already been considered many times in the past, always ending with a conclusion that wikipedia is not censored. Of course if you feel that any image is used for a purely pornographic or shock value purpose, you can be bold in removing it or discussing the issue on the article's talk page. - Tutmosis21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected, because we rejected it mere days ago when someone asked the exact same thing.
Well, at least this time the proposer was honest that he wanted to introduce censorship, rather than dancing around it and going THINKOFTHECHILDREN. The answer is quite simply no, Wikipedia is not censored and it will remain that way. If you do not wish to see such things, do not look up the articles on them. I'm sorry that you wasted your time. --tjstrftalk04:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles about films/books have a plot/spoiler which are too long to read within a few minutes. For someone who wants info about the film/book quicky, it won't be possible for him to stay reading such a long review. Therefore, I think that apart from the plot subtitle, we should add another feature: Summaries. Summaries would be only a paragraph long, very concised, yet contain all the necessary information about the plot. This would also be useful for poeple who want to know the basics about a film/book before renting it, yet do not wish to learn everything in one go, as it would ruin the fun of watching/reading it. Please add you comments below. Keith Azzopardi20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I usually find the premise of the film is included in the lead. Ofrcouse it's usually only a couple sentences long most but it gives a general idea of what the film is about. When looking to read a film plot preview, I dont think anyone wants to see it go into much detail, so personally I find including it in the lead quite convenient and satisfying. - Tutmosis21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If film/book spoilers are too long, as you suggest, you should consider trimming them down. Wikipedia is supposed to write about a book/film, not reiterate its plot. See also WP:WAF. (Radiant) 13:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protect user pages?
Can the user pages of all logged in users be semi-protected? Most vandals of such pages are IP addresses. One user told me that he was being vandalized by someone with an open proxy. You can't block those users as they just get a new IP. The only reason we felt it was the same vandal was the consistancy of the attack.
Nothing I am proposing would affect the user's talk page. Also, I would suggest continuing to let new users edit their own user page -- even if they just created their account. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think every editor has the right to request semiprotection of his or her user page: just ask your friendly sysadmin to do it for you. I personally would prefer my own userpage to act as a honeypot for the vandals. It is on the watchlist of many good people and it is easier to fix than an obscure article in the mainspace Alex Bakharev05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on this last week. The short answer is no. We do not preemptively (semi-)protect an entire namespace. If you want your userpage protected, go to WP:RFPP. (Radiant) 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All: I am currently in a dispute with (mainly) User:Lunokhod on the interpretation of the Wikipedia:No_original_research policy. He recently started a project on everything related to the Moon, and included some articles that I have been contributing to. I had added some numerical facts, that I derived from published and referenced sources. He objects on grounds of the NOR policy. I understand his objection to be that the exact numerical values listed in the articles have not been taken literally from published sources, but computed from them: he regards that as "original research" and therefore forbidden by the NOR policy. He wants these published in a reliable source (journal or on-line) literally before accepting them in a Wikipedia article. I disagree with this interpretation for reasons that I will outline below. I ask for the opinion of the Wikipedia community on this issue. Disputed pages are mainly new moon, also full moon and lunar phase, and (related but in my opinion centered on other issues) full moon cycle.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By its very nature it is a compilation and summary of existing material: at best from reliable and verifiable sources and written by knowledgeable experts. Copying of existing sources is explicitly forbidden because of copyright: it must be original work. So the "NOR" policy will conflict with the very nature of Wikipedia if it is interpreted strictly.
The NOR policy is closely related to the NPOV and Verifiability policies. Its stated purpose is to prevent Wikipedia becoming a forum for discussion or propagation of new and potentially controversial ideas. My interpretation is that applying computational and mathematical operations on source data in the course of digesting sources for presentation in Wikipedia is NOT original research forbidden by the policy. First, it is not in the "excluded" list in the policy; second, arithmetic and mathematical operations and their results can not be controversial (but at worst mis-understood or wrongly applied), and they are verifiable by any competent potential author on the subject.
Specifically, most of the disputed expressions involve (among other things) a change of units. Wikipedia is full of conversions from SI to imperial units, always unexplained and unreferenced. Most readers will be confused when trying to convert unfamiliar units like those in the disputed pages, but it is not fundamentally different from miles per gallon -> km per liter conversions. Potential authors knowledgeable on the subject can be expected to reproduce this.
Which brings on the issue of verifiability: by whom? Do we require that each factoid in Wikipedia can be verified by any reader? I say not. To the long list of what Wikipedia is not, I'd like to add: Wikipdeia IS NOT a scientific journal, and IS NOT a student's text book. Not everything that is inhere can be expected to be verifiable by all its users. Without propagating an elitist attitude: people read encyclopedias because they need to learn something they do not know. That means that generally they are not competent to verify the validity or understand the referenced sources; nor do they care about all these details, as long as they can trust the content. Experts do not read encyclopedias, they write them. They read their specialized literature inaccessible (both in location and content) to most people, and rework the information to make it digestible for some more general audience (and we can debate endlessly what the level of understanding of the target audience(s) of Wikipedia might be). If this process is to work, then the Wikipedia community must trust its expert writers to do their thing and apply the tricks of their trade to process the primary sources to something more palatable to the general public. Sources should be referenced so other experts can verify the content of the article, but authors should be allowed to assume that their peers are familiar with relevant literature, data, procedures, and techniques, and can reproduce results using their own skills without detailed instructions that would clutter the Wikipedia.
If each factoid in Wikipedia should be literally quoted from an existing source, this has consequences for the relevance of Wikipedia:
it becomes a list of links to existing data, and has little added value. A reader would probably be better off doing a Google search, because then (s)he gets many results and gets an impression of consensus (not that factual knowledge should be decided by majority vote...), while Wikipedia will only present one or two links for which Wikipedia can not even guarantee the relevance or accuracy.
the (text from) original sources may be incomprehensible to the reader anyway.
I want to make the following observation. Publishers of journals, books, and websites, and the expert communities they serve, only accept cutting-edge non-trivial new and insightful contributions, that are not available elsewhere (like in the Wikipedia...). There is a large gap with the lay public. People trained in engineering and natural sciences do manipulation of formulae and numbers all the time. It is perfectly allright to do such things when at work or when condensing information for Wikipedia. But you cannot publish such results in a "reliable source" exactly because any competent peer can generate the same when needed. In fact the Wikipedia is a perfect place to make generally available facts that are trivial to experts but not to the general public, iff they are of general interest. Example: the Gregorian_calendar#Numerical_fact is full of factoids that anyone with a calculator can find out themselves, but which find their way into Wikipedia anyway. A personal webpage is less suitable because it is not as persistent as Wikipedia and not as reliable, since in the Wikipedia at least another expert can correct errors.
My motivation why I put those numerical expressions in the Wikipedia pages: I thought they would be useful, also to a general audience, but did not find them on-line anywhere. The original ephemeride expressions are there for those who know where to look and how to use them, and there are plenty of ready-to-run programs (some with source code) that can compute e.g. the time of New Moon with high accuracy: but those are black boxes to their users. I think the Wikipedia articles on these subjects with these expressions explain something to their non-expert readers, without exposing them to cutting-edge ephemeris computation. Yet I feel obliged to present the best available data, even if that requires some computation not published or publishable elsewhere.
Thanx for making the distinction explicit, I suppose the issue is what is "research" in the context of the policy. I think that computation is not. 167.202.196.7115:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems that I see here is that deriving equations or ephemereses, as Tom Peters has wanted to do with articles such as full moon cycle, is a form of research. Many theoretical astronomy papers are based on deriving new equations and relations from existing equations and data. The computations or derivations may be based on referenced material, but the derivations and computations are new. These derivations need to be validated to ensure that they are physically valid and contain no errors. Based on this, I would say that it is appropriate to present equations that are already published but that it is inappropriate to derive new results from these existing equations.
Another issue is that Tom Peters does not seem to understand that Wikipedia is a tertiary reference. It is not supposed to draw conclusions; it is simply supposed to survey the existing material. In contrast, primary references (such as journal articles) would present raw data or new calculations, and either primary or secondary references (journal articles or journal review articles) would draw conclusions based on those data. Tertiary references should simply report the results. They can report the results in interesting ways by highlighting the most important results and how those results improved people's knowledge of the subject matter. Nonetheless, tertiary references are not the place for new results, including new computations. Dr. Submillimeter17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the application of verifiable mathematical relationships, within the bounds with which they are stated to be relevant, should not be considered original research. In other words, we can apply the fact that the area of a circle is pi*r^2 to find the area of a circle of radius 10 m, even if no known reference explicit lists the answer for this particular value of r. However, one should be cautious about applying formulae (or deriving new formulae) if the process being studied lends itself to disputes over what is the right mathematical approach. Dragons flight17:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dragons flight's comments here. Simple calculations do not need intensive references. On the other hand, if someone transcribed a new twenty-step derivation based on existing equations, then that would be original research. (However, referencing the derivation in a journal article is OK.) The major question is: at what length or level of complexity does a derivation or calculation change from being common sense to original research? Dr. Submillimeter17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
interjections chronologically
In my opinion, if the equation were to be published, Wikipedia should not quote unless this has been published before in the context as described in the text. If no one ever published this "variant", then it is apparently not important for the scientific community, and giving this "new" equation would not be a summary of existing published knowledge. I think that converting the units of a, x, and/or y is fine. However, the debate at hand is whether we should be able to update the constant "a." Doing so, in my opinion, would be original research, even if it is just calculating a new value for a new epoch (say years 2000+ instead of 1950-2000) based on a pre-existing equation. I understand that some of these mathematical manipulations are simple (to some), and that there is a desire to keep Wikipedia update, but the problem is that this is only verifiable by repeating the calculations oneself, and some people are not endowed with mathematical abilities. In addition, there is always the possibility that one could make a simple mistake, or even transcribe the value of the constant "a" incorrectly to a wikipedia page. If a transcription error occurred, this could not be verified by an external source, and the only way that this could be corrected would be by a "scientific peer review" of the article. Furthermore, by leaving out all of the (simple) intermediate steps, we are in essence asking the reader to swallow a statement like "it can be shown." Even if every intermediate step was given, if there is not a reference, I, as a scientist, would naturally be suspicious of the result. For instance, are there more complicated secord order details (such as the eccentricity of the lunar orbit) that are being neglected? Or, Are all the digits following the decimal point really justified? A good primary reference would give error bars for each quantity. Lunokhod15:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is converting units OK but inverting a formula not OK? It seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. As to verifiability, the beauty of wikipedia is that anybody can do the verifying and are encouraged to do so. Of all encyclopedias, wikipedia is the most suited to this sort of thing. I think we should also be able to assume the reader of an article has the intelligence to comprehend the article he's interested in. We should grant him/her the right to follow along. That's not possible if there is nothing to follow. If there is a transcription error or any other error for that matter, someone can correct it. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Furthermore, having a plethora of citations is of little use if the references are not available to the readers. If we can expect the reader to find and verify an obscure document, why can we not expect them to be able to derive a simple formula? Victor Engel16:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that all units be quoted in their original SI units! Fortunately, few scientific journals use imperial units, and thus it is sometimes helpful to give the result in something like "miles" for our american colleques. I would consider such a conversion to be "trivial," as it can be performed at google and only involves one multiplication. The operations that are being discussed here are, in principle, "simple", not trivial. Simple calculations generally involve solving an equation, or contain intermediate steps. In my opinion, only trivial mathematical operations should be allowed at wikipedia, and we should attemp to define what is the most complicated trival operation. Lunokhod17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume that all papers are written using SI units just because no one uses imperial units. I would prefer that derived CGS units such as ergs and dynes be converted to SI. Other papers could use electronvolts for energy, or, as is often done, use electronvolts for everything with c=\hbar=1. --PhilosophusT17:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological skip ends
Also, there is the problem of "assumption" and "applicability." Just because a formula can be used from a reference and applied explicitly within an article does not prevent someone to do OR. The relevant assumptions and boundaries must be verifiable, and thus be found in a reliable source. I would object to all such applications, if they are not of the simplest kind, as given in the above example. I would suggest to all that we rather err on the side of having a verifiable source than on thinking "it's just simple arithmetic." Awolf00218:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather interesting discussion! In Tom Peter's own words, "What I did was re-compute Meeus' expressions (which are essentially 25 years old) with newer constants from the 2002 Chapront paper already referenced." (from Talk:New_moon#Numerical_formulae_and_sources). My question: is that "unverified" section where Tom Peters uses the newer constants to calculate some values (the step under debate, I assume) even necessary? If it's easy enough for anyone to do, yet it isn't published, then why does it belong in the article? In my opinion, the whole section New_moon#Explanation_of_the_formulae needs to be cleaned up for terminology and readibility. -sthomson19:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a straight forward set of simple equations like these outside of presentation issues of understandability (I really only looked at New Moon, but do caution that terms and conventions within a discipline or any technical area of specialized knowledge like this need to have an adequate introduction of terminology, discussion of meaning, and go slowly enough to be comprehensible. IMHO, the following section needs similar 'dumbing down' balanced with encyclopedaic tone. Like sthomson06, I thought cleanup was in order. I did some of that (link above) and tagged the Full Moon and it's talk with {{confusing}}.
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
As far as formula that are derivative in general, the derivations should be set out clearly in the talk by first citing the source and their equations, then the adaptations made to reach the state of the ones given in the article. OR, would necessarily involve introductions of new physical constants and the like which are not established by conventions in at least one text book... which means they'd also be present in preceding journals and such as discussed by Dr. Submillimeter above. If the equations were outside perameters like that, then they probably are verging on OR. OTOH, if set forth where the many technically trained editors here can cross-check for errors, mathematical formula are generally precise and exact in meaning and scope. It's getting the accompanying basis concepts to be understood that gets to be the difficult task.
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Returning to Sthomson06's objection, from what I can grasp, the alteration is a normalization—a correction to give an old formula a new and more convienient updated bases year (2000). This would in all probability be considered 'trivial' math by the journals and savants, and is not going to be 'published' outside of a revisitation of the topic in a text, perhaps. Normalizing values is a commonplace and time honored technique in presenting information more clearly. // FrankB20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, this is not about a change of epoch; rather, most computations involve a change of time units (from Julian centuries to synodic months). The expression is based on published polynomials for an angular (i.e. cyclic) parameter, D; the expression tells you when D is 0 . Meeus published such an expression based on older published ephemeride theories; I adapted that from a more recent publication, so using a) published numbers and b) a published method to c) get an update for a published expression: my opinion has been that that is not original research. If it is, I would be very happy if someone could name me a journal editor who would publish that. Tom Peters22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth quoting a bit from the WP:NOR policy, because (in my opinion) it forbids more than what people think of as "research": Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories ...John Broughton | Talk21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but continues "... that appears to advance a position."; I understand that to refer to an opinion. I don't see how that applies to results of mathematical procedures. Tom Peters22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In deriving a mathematical ephemeris, you are effectively advancing your technique as a valid one for deriving an ephemeris. Your position is that your derivation works, just like a theorist's position is that his derivation of physics equations describes a physical process. Dr. Submillimeter22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remarkably, WP:NOR does not refer to calculations directly! However, we could argue that a derivation is an "argument". We should probably note this discussion on the talk page for WP:NOR and ask that the policy be clarified regarding the derivation of equations or the calculation of numbers in the future. Dr. Submillimeter22:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot object to what Tom Peters has written - I don't know enough about the topic or about WP:NOR. FrankB said what I wanted to say much more clearly. -sthomson22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Peters's derivations of astronomical ephemerises is not the first to cause problems in Wikipedia. Last month, a user had derived an ephemeris for Halley's Comet and had posted it on the Halley's Comet page. He later removed it when he learned about the original research policy. (The user was unhappy about many things in Wikipedia. He seemed particularly upset that most people did not want to use Comet Halley in the title of the article on the comet.)
This leads to a particular problem. At the moment, we only have the assertion of Tom Peters and his collaborators that their derivation is valid. The same could be said about other people who place such derivations on Wikipedia. What if someone (not necessarily Peters) has made a mistake but refuses to admit it (or does not recognize it)? Worse yet, what if someone intentionally falsifies an ephemeris. This could be problematic. It makes Wikipedia look like it is directly disseminating bad information. On the other hand, if a primary or secondary reference contains the error, then Wikipedia is not directly responsible for disseminating the bad informaton. Moreover, it is more likely that the reference will have been reviewed before publication, so it is more likely that the material will be accurate.
I do not think that Tom Peters should take this personally. It sounds like he has put a lot of work into his calculations. Nonetheless, the "original research" policy is intended as protection against the people who lie or make egregious mistakes. Unfortunately, it means that some good original research cannot be placed on Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, alas, I'm concerned that Tom Peters now seems to be arguing that he has introduced new factors into the periodicity of the relations (or do I misapprehend? I was aware of the Julian bases, et. al. when writing above—we may be just coming at this from different viewpoints, as I'm not trained in astronomy convention, but can parse an equation, have some knowledge of navigation and spherical trig, and as an engineer, calculus is a familiar friend). Speaking mathematically, casting a set of equations into a new form to establish an equivilent more differentiable, or integrable form is for example one technique for dealing with anomalies about a given data point. In many models, equations are what the mathematicians refer to as piecewise continuous. So I would infer your derivation is merely a different set with techniques to remove an odd removable singularity as is quite common with dealing with solutions involving periodic functions. (We're in big trouble if a year or month isn't periodic! <g>)
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Normalizing a basis year should not be affecting a periodicity driven factor in the equation set. Granted that several adjustments would have to be made amongst the terms, most should just be a change to a constant or the addition or subtraction of a constant within the particular term of the equation so as to normalize it's part of the whole. Generally, any constant in a general solution is itself a tell-tale of an given initial condition, in the overall general solution. So, Tom Peters, have you messed with the General solution, or are the derivatives of the equations the same. If the derivative is different, then we're in murky waters as we have lost the fig-leaf of other authority. If not, if they are the same equation, then they are merely an adjustment into the current millenium time epoch, a resetting of the zero points as I understood when writing the above.
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
A good corrallary question would be to know how many test dates you verified such that you get equivilent results with your authorities equations. If the answer is less than 5-10, some deliberately selected to stress a given sub-term singularity, then I must raise me eyebrows.
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
OTOH, I just caught up with your rejoiner to User:Lunokhod on Talk:New_moon#Numerical_formulae_and_sources, and I think it important to note here that we are discussing equations on articles which have been in place for a lengthy time, on your behalf, and that I agree in general with what your comment had to say on derivations to Lunokhod. Having seen your attitude and response therein, let me add kudos for your patience, willingness to re-derive and explain the equations which have been in place for so long. I'm sure it's an imposition, especially given the season. IMHO, your obvious self-confidence and measured response to the 'new perturbations' of User:Lunokhod are more than sufficient to give me a great deal of confidence in your formula.
This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this project page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this project page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Bearing in mind the demands of the season, I would advise you and ask all here participating as well as User:Lunokhod to be patient on a presentation of your derivations. I'm quite comfortable suggesting we can wait until the new year, so I suggest Jan 10th as a quasi-unofficial deadline. I'd much rather some effort be put into the presentation verbiage and organization (i.e. the English text explaining them and their use) vice having you rush to present any additional math at this time. Even if the math has apparent unjustifiable new factors, such that the derivatives of the equations differ, I think we can cut you that much slack as a courtesy. Since it is now evident the articles were 'stale' from your perspective, perhaps we can team up and adjust the presentation to a junior high level reader. Best regards to all. // FrankB00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx for the moral support, but now I am confused. Are we still talking about Full moon cycle, and possibly New moon (on which you commented) here? What I have been describing in New moon is a solution for almost exactly this secondary-school-exam-type question: "The distance between Forrest and Kalgoorlie in Southern Australia is 700 km. A car drives from F to K with a constant speed of 50 miles per hour. At the same time a pedestrian starts to walk from K to F at 1.5 meters per second. After how many minutes do they meet, and at what distance from K in km?". Chapront provided expressions for the position of the car and the pedestrian as a function of time, and I worked that around to a formula to when they meet, every time they traveled around the world. It is somewhat more complicated because the expression is a polynomial, and I expect not many people can actually derive such an equation (which is why I did it and put it on a public spot): but it is not calculus and can easily be checked by people with just good arithmetical skills. Tom Peters23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I am talking about anyone who wants to calculate astronomical data using equations or methods that they have developed themselves. Full moon cycle was not the first place where an amateur astronomer posted a complicated calculation related to predicting the location of a celestial body, nor will it be the last place. Regardless of whether we can trust Tom Peters's ephemerises, we need to ask whether we can trust other people's calculations as well. For example, suppose someone derives formulae to predict the right ascension and declination of Halley's Comet as seen from Mars? Do we trust that calculation, even if it is derived from a series of more basic equations that are referenced? Dr. Submillimeter00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Let's say that I wanted to use these formulae in a scientific article, and I gave as a justification of the new adjusted ephemerides a reference to Wikipedia. Would this be acceptable for a peer reviewed scientific journal? I would say No. While what Tom Peters did might be considered "simple" (by some), it is not "trivial" (as in the above example of the area of a circle for an arbitrary radius). I object to his claim that this is too simple to be published, as there are a large number of "reputable" (in the words of wikipedia) possibilities that range from journals for teachers to technical reports published by amateur astronomical societies. In some cases, a reputable source might not even be peer reviewed (as in the case of online or supplementary documentation of, say, the DE405 ephemerides). "Reputable" should not be confused with "hard-core" astronomical journals. I do not doubt the accuracy of what he wrote, but the important point is: the ONLY way that this material can be verified is for the reader to rederive the equations himself. I think Dr. Submillimeter's point that Wikipedia is a tertiary source is important. We are only allowed to summarize what has been previously published. As much as we might like to, this forbids us from "improving" upon previously published material in the process. This is too bad in some cases, but that is the consequence of the NOR policy. Lunokhod16:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soon after Mwanner removed both links and completely deleted the External links section, on the basis that no External links section existed before I added one, so there is no reason to add one now. Their reason for deleting the links was that both the sites "engage in retail", which is very misleading; both sites are registered charities. The Vegetarian Society is the oldest vegetarian organization in the world, their front page has over 40 links, one of which leads to their website store. I didn't even know it was there until I tried to find anything commercial on that site just now.
The only guidelines I can find related to the "engage in retail" reason that Mwanner gave are "sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" and "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". Neither of the sites I added come anywhere near those guidlines.
Looking at the sites in question, I can understand why you added them in good faith, but please also understand that it appears they were removed in good faith. External links should really be about linking to sites that talk about the subject, not ones that take a one sided view of the subject. I make no judegments about the "goodness" of these websites, merely to note that they only present one side of an issue, and as charities, they are about promoting vegetarianism, and not just talking about it. Including them as external links could be seen as a violation of wikipedia's policy on neutral points of view. --Jayron3204:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect a Wikipedia article on "Political parties in the United States" (or wherever) to include external links to the various parties' websites, not just the Democrats and Republicans, but also the Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, on down the line, including recent single-candidate parties like Ross Perot's. Impartially giving access to all points of view, by way of such a list of links, is being an "honest broker" of ideas, which is my idea of neutrality. – SAJordantalkcontribs20:16, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).
The relevant guideline is WP:EL. There's no particular requirement that linked-to sites be neutral that I know of. The article on cancer has a link to the American Cancer Society, an anti-cancer organization that opposes smoking and advises people how to quit [5] to the likely dissatisfaction of the cigarette industry. I don't think there's any good reason to remove that link. Basically whether to include a particular link is a matter of editorial judgement. We are, I think, trying to get rid of "external links" sections in general, since they attract spam. There's also no particular dispensation from spam guidelines for sites that are operated by nonprofit entities such as charities. I haven't looked at the vegetarian links in question but maybe one of them could be in an "further reading" section. I suggest bringing it up on the article discussion page. 67.117.130.18109:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is a bad analogy. Cancer is a disease. There is not an issue where two sides say "we should cure it" and "we should not cure it". The ACS is trying to fund research to cure a disease. Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choise with benefits and costs and meat-eating is not a disease. Promoting research to cure cancer is not the same as promoting advertising to stop people from eating meat. There are many legitimate objections to vegitarianism. I know of know legitimate objections to curing cancer. --Jayron3222:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, sometimes find the demands for citations, etc, to be dull, and sometimes I even carp about it. Here is a cautionary tale.
In 1926 Maurice Maeterlinck, a Nobel Prize winner, published La Vie des Termites (The Life of the White Ant) plagiarising "The Soul of the White Ant" researched and written by the South African poet and scientist Eugene Marais (1871 - 1936). Marais's later suicide has been attributed to this act of plagiarism by some. Maeterlinck's own words in La Vie de Termites indicate that the possible discovery or accusation of plagiarism worried him:
It would have been easy, in regard to every statement, to allow the text to bristle with footnotes and references. In some chapters there is not a sentence but would have clamoured for these; and the letterpress would have been swallowed up by vast masses of comment, like one of those deadful books we hated so much at school. There is a short bibliography at the end of the volume which will no doubt serve the same purpose.
I think cites and refs are very important - but I do rail at the liberal scattering of little blue bracketed numbers all over the text. It's ugly as all hell and it doesn't help 99.999% of readers who will get the information they need and never even look at the references. For those who do need to check a fact or read further, I feel it would suffice to move all of the annoying little tags to the end of the section they show up in. Right now, I'm unilaterally moving all of mine to the ends of paragraphs so they don't litter the interior of the paragraph. Since a paragraph is supposed to be about one subject - there shouldn't be a serious problem with doing that. I really wish that more editorial effort went into finding references than moaning about the lack of them. SteveBaker20:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't really agree with you. In a short paragraph ok, put them at the end; but quite often a paragraph contains two or three essential facts, and we need to know to which datum the footnote refers to. What we should do, of course, is to exercise restraint in the number of footnotes we use.--Anthony.bradbury22:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Anthony, unless the paragraph is really small then the footnotes should be located in the paragraph after the particular sentence(s) it refers to so as to avoid confusion as to which fact came from which source. This is how any academic paper is written and for good reason. Aesthetic concerns should not override academic/factual ones. --The Way22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On allowing unregistered users to edit
I think it is not wise for Wikipedia to allow un-registered users to freely edit. I must revert at least 5 pages a day that have been vandalized by an anonymous user. Since registration is free and simple, and does not really reveal your identity, then what would be the argument against only allowing registered users to edit Wikipedia? You might still have revert wars, but not wholesale vandalism. Dullfig22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of arguments over the merits of permanently semiprotecting high-risk templates, so I'm not sure that we'll disable anonymous contributions anytime soon. I believe the canned answer is that vandalism is easy to spot and trivial to revert (if you didn't fix it, the next reader would), and that Wikipedia faces much less obvious problems from registered users in the form of POV-pushing and the like. --Interiot22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally like all pages to be routinely sem-protected; it is, after all, only necessary to create an account, at no cost, and wait I think three days. I feel that this would stop casual users from finding the encyclopedia and mauling it. But I do recognise that this has been discussed many times before, and the consensus has always been that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia open for all to edit. Basic Policy.--Anthony.bradbury22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not let unregistered users edit? It makes no difference whether the people editing are IPs or registered users. What really matters is the contributions one provides. A registered user could vandalize a page just as easily as an IP and an IP can make as good a contribution as a registered user. Even though I am an IP, I revert vandalism just like most other users here. Just check out my contributions and you'll notice that there isn't a single bad edit among them. Granted, it is harder to find out exactly which pages of your interest have been edited without a watchlist, but I still think that IPs should be able edit. The only reason I continue to edit under an IP account is to prove that not all IPs are as bad as people make them seem. Simply ridding the site from IPs will not get rid of vandalism. There are still users out there who will make an account, vandalize pages mercilessly, be blocked, and simply come back with a sockpuppet and start all over. I'm sure plenty of other editors will agree with me on this one. 68.57.97.15222:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said most other editors do. The only vandals we might discourage are the single-edit IPs, of whom, as you know, we get quite a lot. But I'm not arguing, because it was decided long ago.--Anthony.bradbury23:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do recommend people to create accounts versus editing from IP's because it has been said in the past that anonymity is actually greater when using a named account than when using an IP ... the IP provides a varying degree of information depending on the subnet and the nature of the ISP, which anyone can access, while it takes special privileges to uncover the IP address and associated ISP information for a registered user — and I don't think there is any limit (over the practical availability limits) as to how many registered accounts a person might make over time; they would be socks by definition, but that would not be an issue if the conduct of the editing was well behaved and constructive. At any rate, the majority of IP-associated editors are constructive and help us; it just so happens that a majority (I think) of the hit-and-run vandals are IP-associated editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today an athlete, Shane Warne, decided to retire. This is apparently of enough importance to be placed in In the News. Warne follows Ian Thorpe, Michael Schumacher and others. There was a bit of controversy when Thorpe's retirement was included but Milton Friedman's death wasn't (see Template talk:In the news/Archive 10#Please add Friedman). Now, I'm willing to accept that if a famous person dies of natural causes, it isn't important enough for ITN. But not if athletes' retirements are added. I don't care if it's the world's highest-paid athlete or a x-times gold olympic swimmer. It's simply retirement. Retirement from sports also occur because of natural causes! Some athletes come out of retirement. Would that be ITN-worthy? Michael Jordan would have certainly been an ITN-Allstar if Wikipedia had been around during his retirement from basketball, retirement from baseball, recall of retirement from basketball, and final retirement from basketball! Anyway, I bring this up here because doing so was suggested to me back during the Friedman controversy last month, and since this topic really needs some additional debate. For the current debate regarding Shane Warne, see Template talk:In the news#Shane Warne. -newkait-c07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page in a nutshell: In an article about a school, any person on a list of "notable alumni" should qualify for their own Wikipedia article, and the inclusion of any such person in such a list should be considered appropriate.
Redlinks among lists of "Notable anybody" should be deleted anyway: half the time it's a prankster's buddy. Guidelines never substitute for missing common sense: instead they get rigorously enforced by people from authoritarian cultural backgrounds. --Wetman06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this should be its own guideline - we have too many separate and overlapping guidelines already. The nutshell version, however, should definitely be policy SOMEWHERE.. it would be good to have it clarified front and center. Perel06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barret_2002.jpg){kind=link}
