Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-10-14/In the media

← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

• As a thought exercise, it would be interesting to know what Special:PredictFuture returns when you put in a question (how does one format it?) about future Wikipedia events. Pity that the software does not exist yet, it sure would make RfA and other processes somewhat easier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Re Gene Weingarten, anyone working at a major newspaper can get a professionally taken photo (new, done as a favour) up on WP in about 15 minutes. Once a better photo is up, it will stay there. But then you have to find something else to write your column about.... My favourite dreadful photo willfully allowed to remain at the top of the article for years by a subject in the media is the great Greg Dyke, former Director-General of the BBC (article versions up to about 2011). But then afaik he never moaned about it, and the student-wolfman-at-breakfast remains lower down. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  ...where it will be deleted as a copyright violation, because the photo was taken by someone else and we'd have no evidence that a free license or work for hire apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly. And then the subject either a) gets to devote personal time to a self-taught crash course in copyright law and Wikipedia policies in hopes of eventually getting their desired picture up b) keeps reverting/reuploading, eventually being told off and/or blocked, wasting their and others' time and leaving them with a bad impression, or c) just gives up. What y'all need to realize is the average person doesn't know the first thing about copyright law, and assumes everything online is a free-for-all. After all, Facebook doesn't care what license your images are under. When the article says "Weingarten had suggested that many other public domain photos were out there", I'm virtually certain that what he meant was there are lots of photos of him online, because this is what most people think "public domain" means. If you don't believe me, ask some random people. While you're at it, ask them if something needs a visible copyright notice to be copyrighted. The average person doesn't pay close attention to most things, especially if they're things they perceive as not personally important, a category I think Wikipedia policy gobbledygook falls under for most. I think I can confidently say those long template messages left on talk pages go unread by most recipients. Something I think might be helpful is a chat widget like the ones found on many online stores. Even my bank's website has one. Integrate it with the existing IRC help channels. Put it on project-space pages (i.e., not articles). Half the time, one of the issues for non-editors is they don't know where to go for help. A prominent thing that says "Click here for assistance" reduces the cognitive load involved in finding help. Also I think living persons should be allowed to veto use of an image of them. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a picture can easily create a bad impression for readers. I'm a little surprised no one has tried to smear someone they don't like by getting unflattering pictures of them into Wikipedia. (Or maybe they have, and no one has figured it out yet!) If they don't have an image in their article, all you need to do is obtain and upload your desired image, taking care of course to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s in the file and licensing information. If it isn't an image you took, just lie. You'll only not get away with it if the actual photographer finds out and cares enough to send a takedown request. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

What nonsense! Obviously the photographer has to upload it. We are not talking about "average people" here, but media professionals. Trust me, newspaper photographers have perfectly adequate understanding of copyright law for this, at least as it relates to their own work. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Do they also know that this applies to Wikipedia? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course they will. And the notices, fiddly though they are, all make this at least entirely clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This supposes the photographer is kept in the loop about the intended use of the photo and the copyright requirements. Certainly possible, but I suspect a much more common scenario is the subject just asking the photographer to take a picture and give it to them. I also wonder whether internal policies would cause headaches. The company probably doesn't want random employees using their staff photographers as free labor on demand, so it's quite possible the person wanting the photograph might need to submit paperwork. And they might require a formal copyright release, and possibly approval from a higher-up to release the photo under a CC license, because they of course don't want their photographers to make a habit of releasing all their work under free licenses. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• As it seems to me, both the "old" and the "new" photo are quite good. I've never heard of Gene Weingarten before (I'm from Switzerland), these are the first photos of him I've ever seen (I think), and I can't really understand why the first one would seem particularly unflattering. Because he's wearing a t-shirt? Because the photo's crop is not very good? Because of the way he looks into the camera? Both photos may have advantages and disadvantages. But actually, isn't the second one less suited as a portrait? There are elements that may be seen as distracting from this purpose (the microphone, the man in the background). But it's certainly an acceptable photo as well, and if he's happier with it, no need for a big fuss, yes. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)