User talk:Lisa Longhi (BEIC)

Image relevance

Hallo, Lisa! I have just deleted most of the images you have added to English Wikipedia as contravening the guidance on image relevance. In every case they do not relate to any work mentioned in the articles concerned. I would remind you, too, that a translation of their Italian title is necessary where they are relevant. It concerns me that you appear to be an employee of the library that holds these works. If you are being paid for this work, that would represent a conflict of interest that might make you liable to be reported to WP's Adminstrators. Please seek guidance from your employers and study the guidelines before adding any more images. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Sweetpool50:, I'm working inside a GLAM-Wiki initiative (Wikipedia:GLAM/BEIC) which has been working for 5 years with a Wikipedian in residence (@Marco Chemello (BEIC):). The work we are doing has always been carried out according to the guidelines of Wikipedia and in agreement with the community and with WP: COI; in all this time we have never received complaints from other users for inserting the title pages, but only thanks. We are very surprised that you are deleting encyclopedic contents, such as the front pages images from 17th century books. The relevance within the voices is, in fact, quite evident: these are books written by the same author who is the subject of the article. The fact that they are or not already mentioned in the voice is not a decisive factor for their relevance: you are free to add such references, of course, but not to delete valid contents. In many cases it is the only available image. For these reasons, we kindly ask you to restore the deleted contents, in accordance with WP: AGF--Lisa Longhi (BEIC) (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not reply to me in the voice of the organisation for which you are working. I addressed myself to the person who began making edits at the beginning of this month and I complained about a specific issue - disregard of MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE in your edits. You do not discuss that guideline in your reply and I shall certainly not restore the contents that transgress it until you show that you have read and understood it. I give my respects to Marco Chemello and suggest you get him to comment on this issue and your reply. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sweetpool50:, no need to be aggressive. Lisa correctly gave you the context of our project and rightfully explained we already comply WP:COI. I don't see anything in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE that suggests not to use those images, as their relevance is clear. However in the future, as you suggested, we will add bibliographical sources about the related books, in the articles, the same we are doing in it.wiki. I finally suggest to use a more collaborative and kind tone in conversations - we are all working with the objective to enrich Wikipedia, so we need to help each other. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Marco. Obviously our understanding of what constitutes relevance differs. My reading of the guidelines is that an image should relate to the article's content as well as its context and I'm happy that you now suggest including references within the article that clarify the accompanying illustration. In view of the fact that this best practice already exists in it.wiki, and fully agreeing with you that "we are all working with the objective to enrich Wikipedia", perhaps it is not a good idea to interpret criticism as aggression. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The reinsertion of the image at Sebastian Brant still contravened MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, approaching in relevance the deprecated "image of a white-tailed eagle [which] is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky" mentioned in that article. In addition, simply adding the title of the work illustrated to a seperate section, again without translation, is not helpful without some explanation of what it is about and its importance. The proper place for such an insertion, in any case, is in the Editions section lower down. And it needs a format that does not bring up a Potential Security Risk warning, as it has done on my computer. Unsatisfactory work on this scale has now reached the point where a complaint at administrative level is called for. The scheme seems no longer to be serving the best interests of Wikipedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sweetpool50: You removed a completely legit content, such as a reference to a work of the author (with a link to a free online version of the whole ancient book), and a related image where there are no other relevent images available. The relevance, as we already explained to you and the simple logic suggests, is self-explained because it's a work of the author that is the subject of the article. The "Works" section does not require more "context" in a bio of a writer, as it is widely accepted as useful. I'm sorry because those questionable rollbacks are completely out of the scopes and guidelines of GLAM projects. I hope we will not see such destructive manners anymore, very rare and without community consensus in my experience. --Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)