User talk:Holly Cheng/MerkinPOTD

Objection[edit]

I don't think promotional, ex-commercial images should be featured on the main page. Featured, sure, but by giving them space on the main page we're going to see a flood of corporate interests releasing images to us solely for the purpose of getting a POTD spot. While this might at first seem okay - "who cares what they're motivations are, they're helping out regardless" - it would nevertheless be a loss for the non-profit nature of Wikipedia. We haven't had this issue before because did you know articles, featured articles, and news stories can't be released to us for our use - but images can, and once we place one ex-commercial image on the main page, we will get a lot more, and the door will be too wide open to close again. Any mid-size or large corporation which sells products related to something that a picture can be taken of can easily pony up the money for a professional photographer to come take a spectacular picture, and from there it's just a skip, hop and step over to Wikipedia's main page. We shouldn't let that happen. You can't (or at least, aren't supposed to be able to) buy an spot in a Wikipedia article, even though a few people have tried, and even less a spot on the main page. In conclusion, this image and images like it should not be featured as pictures of the day. Is there a better place to state this objection? Picaroon (t) 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this objection. The images would still be free. They'd still be evaluated by editors like any other photograph. What is the potential downside to this? Why do we care if an image has a commercial purpose or not? Our only concern should be whether or not it improves the encyclopedia. -Chunky Rice 17:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Blatantly self-promotional, commercially produced image. The picture nomination was not impressive and passed largely as a result of the sheer number of sophomoric support comments from teenage fanboys. Soft pr0n finally makes the front page. Not exactly one of our finer moments, IMO - Alison ^❤ 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no reason this has to be actually selected to be POTD. That certainly is a viable option. howcheng {chat} 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue reminds me that Raul654 once said he would be hesitant to put the FA Jenna Jameson, the porn star, on the main page. I am trying to remember the exact diff, but iirc he had some concerns about the subject being a little risqué. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the comment about the picture being featured because of "sophomoric support comments." Yes, there are a few of those on the page, but if I had closed that nomination, I would have ignored them anyway. Many of the support voters expressed their view that the picture fulfills all the requirements, especially the one in dispute, #8, concerning neutrality. Several of those voters then stayed to defend their positions with well-reasoned arguments. I'm not saying that the oppose voters' arguments were any less well-reasoned, but saying that the picture is an FP because of a supermajority of fanboys is simply incorrect. --Herald Alberich 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think that there should be any bar for "self-promotional" images on POTD. The purpose of Wikimedia is to encourage the creation of free content, and if we manage to get corporate interests to release their intellectual property as free content, it's a win for us. We are in no way compromising our principles by featuring encyclopedic free content on the front page. Of course, this statement is predicated on the fact that Michelle Merkin is an encyclopedic subject (and since she has an article, I don't find that a problem).Borisblue 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. We should be encouraging professionals and corporations to release their content under a free license. If Annie Leibovitz decided to release all of her images under an appropriate license, would we deny them main page status? I'm getting the impression, even if I'm wrong, that the objection is more about the nudity in the photo than the photo's source. I simply do not see this as "blatantly self-promotional" content. - auburnpilot talk 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression may be correct in Alison's case, but grouping all of us together as objecting to the content is inaccurate, and indicates you either didn't read what I wrote or don't believe me - I find both rather concerning. My objection is a combination of the source and what would happen if more such sources attempted to get GFDL-released images of theirs on POTD. I don't care if it's an attractive model in an immodest pose or a loaf of bread. Picaroon (t) 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the source has made no effort to get the picture onto PotD. They simply agreed to a request to have the image released under a free licence, and someone independently thought that the image was of a high enough quality to put through the Featuring process. And would you seriously object if I managed to convince a few of the people I know in the Land Rover marketing department to release some high quality shots of the Solihull plant, or the new Freelander model with the hope of perhaps at some distant point in the future appearing on the Main Page for one day as an illustration of a valid encyclopedic topic? I just fail to see the practical difference between some random person taking a decent photograph and submitting it and a company doing the same thing. Who cares why they did it. We're not here to judge anyone. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a tangent, let's suppose a professional photographer released several images, all of which are later featured. The week before the first of the series is due to appear on the Main Page, the guy admits that the only reason he did it was to drum up some publicity for his website, which sells prints and a number of commercial shots he hasn't released. Would you suggest we then ban his images from ever appearing on the Main Page on the basis that it's free advertising for this photographer? How is the image any different than it was the day before his announcement? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nothing to do with nudity. I've no issues with that whatsoever (hey, I supported keeping Image:NRT6 2001.jpg), and certainly made no reference to nudity in my comments - Alison ^❤ 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional quality[edit]

I disagree with one of the few professional quality photographs available under a free content license. This is an insult to out content. I think nearly all featured pictures are "professional quality". I think the intention of the statement was to say that this is one of the few examples of an image that was taken by a paid, professional photographer for commercial purposes, but was subsequently released under a free license. Any ideas how to reword?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've captioned it perfectly. Just replace it with this: this is one of the few examples of an image that was taken by a paid, professional photographer for commercial purposes, but was subsequently released under a free license. It's only 15 words longer and it is much more precise than the original one. hbdragon88 06:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uploader[edit]

Wow, I had no idea this photo would be so controversial...good thing I never nominated the photos I got from Keeani Lei. (Don't use a work computer to look at that Commons gallery!) Anyway, the article on Michele Merkin needs some work before this photo goes on the front page (if it does), and there's an inaccuracy in the caption (Red Eye is actually a Fox News program, not VH1.) I'll do some work on the article tomorrow - Ms. Merkin actually passed along some references with the photos, but I never got around to incorporating and updating the info. Will get it done as soon as possible. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from passer-by[edit]

As I said on the main page's talk page:

100% Support. Something like this is exactly what would prompt me to finally register an account -- just so I could vote support! (I'm serious). It is so, so rare to get a professionally shot photo of a model released of copyright for public use. I bet there are only a dozen or so in this entire encyclopedia, and even fewer of this quality (texture, composition, and lighting are perfect; note her head blocking just enough sun light for the chromatics of the photo to still come through but also place an aurora around the top portion of the body. Also, once again, this is a professional, where the copy right holder, very graciously, released. Because of the quality of the photo (obvious), and the fact that this would inadvertently be almost a reward for releasing some of the best quality work one could hope for (professional quality), it simply makes sense to feature this as POTD. Oh, yeah, and think of this all you "is it valuable to the project" people: How many people would spread the word of 'Wikipedia's featured picture', in turn driving people to the site, in turn exposing this additional traffic to the "donate now" button. Win/win all around. 68.143.88.2 20:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to the idea but ...[edit]

Per the no self references policy, I wonder if we should mention wikipedia in this way. Perhaps an exception is in order but then again, is it really necessary? Does it matter who she donated it to? Or isn't all that matters really that it's a free professional glamour photo. Maybe emphasise that it was released under a GFDL license by her instead? Nil Einne 14:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very long time later (despite what some may think I'm not desperate to get this featured, it was a semi joke suggestion to feature it on the wikipedia anniversary which got me thinking of this so I thought I might as well mention it). It occurs to me one thing which may partially allay some of the concerns would be if we could do like we did for the US election day in 2008 and have a similar photo of a male, even better if it's someone 'non-white'. Of course a blurb would be needed for these, glamour photography doesn't mention males (in that way) at all. I guess two blurb would be an option although you'd still need to make sure they fitted together (for example a blurb on glamour photography and a blurb on say physical fitness would be strange, a blurb on each person would be better although would lead to even more complaints about being free advertising). It's a moot point until such a FP exists anyway... Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]