This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geni(talk | contribs) at 00:21, 26 April 2008(hey hey lets have some consistancy here people. You've moved my comments repeatly now you object to the same process being apllied to yours?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:21, 26 April 2008 by Geni(talk | contribs)(hey hey lets have some consistancy here people. You've moved my comments repeatly now you object to the same process being apllied to yours?)
The female version of the placeholder box. It is hyperlinked to an image upload form targeted to new users.The male version of the placeholder box.
Replace this image female and Replace this image male are the latest versions of placeholder boxes that have been systematically added to 50,789 living biography articles lacking photos of their central subjects. The boxes link to a specialized upload form and license template system soliciting pertinent photos or illustrations from readers.
Some of these placeholder boxes have been removed from articles, and concerns and objections have been put forward. These include:
The addition of these boxes violates the WP:SELF guideline, which argues that reference to Wikipedia's editable nature should generally not take place within articles.
Most readers would not be able or willing to help; the box detracts from the article for the vast majority of readers, while being useful for only a very few.
By appealing specifically to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia's approach to copyright, the system will lead to an inordinate number of copyright violations; the fact that most uploaders are presently experienced editors is a good thing.
The system is redundant; there are already initiatives and sidebar links to encourage the uploading of photos.
The boxes are unsightly, resembling advertisements found on commercial websites with for-profit motives.
The boxes suggest the article is inadequate; Wikipedia is always a work-in-progress, but an article without a photo should not be considered inadequate (as an article that lacks references is).
Proponents of the system have stated that the system is already effective at soliciting new photos. They are in the process of documenting this claim. They state:
The simplified upload form is more user-friendly than Wikipedia's existing system (at least for new users).
The form has a system built in that eases filtering of resulting photos and illustrations for copyvios.
Concerns regarding appearance could be addressed by an understated redesign.
Placeholders are consistent with the philosophy of Wikipedia that encourages everyone to participate, new users especially.
Should the addition of this box be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?
How We Got Here
Prior discussion has taken place in various corners: user talk pages, image talk pages, article talk pages, and at some wikiprojects.
On April 9-11, 2008 there was a "Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages pending a centralized discussion" (archived here) at Image talk:Replace this image female.svg. The proposal passed with 18 editors in agreement, 12 editors in disagreement, and 2 abstentions.
User:Kleinzach closed the previous discussion on April 11 and provided a thorough summary in the section Summing up. (The summary is recommended reading; it's nice and succinct.) We then began this centralized discussion. Pending the outcome of this discussion, some editors have agreed to suspend their addition or removal of this placeholder box as we look toward a broader consensus.
We already have a lot of text here, so can I make a plea here for making the discussion as structured as possible? That way newcomers/late joiners will be able to find their way more easily into the debate and not be put off by rambling, off topic threads. The more focused we are, the more likely we are to progress towards an effective consensus. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I would suggest newcomers start with the overview at the top of this page, which includes a link to this helpful summary of the previous discussion. Further discussion on specific points is proceeding below, and at the bottom of this page I've added a Proposals section where editors can express their opinion on concrete actions we could take.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Participation
I'm concerned by the lack of participation. Do those who participated in the earlier, more procedural decision (whether to interrupt image placement pending discussion) feel that they've already had their say? We should be sure that those who are interested express their views here. Also, have we done enough outreach to broaden the discussion? I think contacting the Footballers and Opera singers and Oregon WikiProjects (which discussed the issue) would be worthwhile, also the Free Images WikiProject, and possibly writing something up for the Wikipedia Sign Post. (Something that has affected 50k articles, and stands to affect many more, seems worthy of a Signpost mention to me.) Thoughts? Should I do some of this outreach? Is anybody else doing it, or interested in doing it? (I think our conclusion, whatever it is, should reflect the views of as broad a group as possible.) -Pete (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the initial heat and urgency may have gone out of the debate, but this may be a good thing if we are going to work for a rational solution. This more detailed second stage of the discussion may develop slowly. I've already notified Free images and the Classical music projects (Classical music, Contemporary music and Opera) about the centralized discussion here. Northwesterner1 has covered the Biography project. If you like to add something to the Wikipedia Sign Post - or anything else you thing is worthwhile - that will be great. --Kleinzach (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think many people feel like they've already "voted." It's a shame to see low participation here, since the outcome of that discussion was split right down the middle. Would it be appropriate to post a link to this discussion on the talk page of everyone who commented in the prior discussion?Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be overruled, but in my opinion it's not necessary to post directly to all previous participants. Putting something in the Signpost will complete our notification process. Having more people involved does not necessarily help in forming our conclusions. (BTW the result of the vote was 18:12 which is not exactly "split right down the middle".) --Kleinzach (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a broad consensus will be needed, given that this issue affects so many articles. Pete, I think you should run with the signpost notification if you're willing. We may also want to consider setting a defined time limit or some other method by which we might know when this discussion is complete.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow reasonable time for people to learn that the issue has been raised. For example, I've been online quite a bit in last two days, but just chanced on a mention of the matter a few minutes ago. Wanderer57 (talk)
<outdent>Signpost article: I pitched it here, it's technically past the deadline but I haven't gotten any response about whether that's a problem, and it seems that the content is still under discussion. On that page you will find a link to my draft. I think if a couple other people endorse the draft (with some editing if you like, feel free), I think that would enhance the chances of it getting published. Just a hunch. -Pete (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. I find there is sorely only a few people involved in this when there are many more players regarding the outcome. Make note on your WikiProjects. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was briefly mentioned on the most recent (episode 46, I think) Wikipedia Weekly podcast. One person said she was unsure, one said the placeholders were ugly but then the discussion moved over to discussing other image-related issues. --Cherry blossom tree10:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'd say yes, you did. We had a discussion about how and when to end it, and determined the 23rd was a good date. I'd encourage you to look over the summaries (nearly all of which are complete) and, if you have something to contribute that hasn't been covered, say it; my general understanding of the "decision" is that the use of placeholders is not approved, but there are a number of ways in which the system could be improved, that would make the system more acceptable to some participants. So I think that leaves some room for important ongoing work. Hope that helps, -Pete (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to my understanding of Proposal 1, which was supported by 35 people and opposed by 17, yes. I will confess I'm not entirely clear on the technicalities of all this. There may be a semi-automated way to remove them, or some kind of further discussion about how to implement something like that, for all I know. But I believe you would be on solid ground in removing any instance of the placeholders discussed here. -Pete (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably of note here that User:Wizardmanremoved approximately 100 placeholders between 22:55 and 23:48 24 April citing this discussion. I reiterate what was said afterwards that this discussion has not concluded and should not be cited as a reason for doing anything. Removal of individual instances with a rationale related to the article itself is, as always, the way to deal with individual, inappropriate instances of the placeholder. DoubleBlue (Talk)16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any event, the principle of be bold would permit Wizardman to do whatever he feels is appropriate (especially considering he was not involved in the discussion about temporarily suspending the addition/removal of the placeholder.)
Cherry blossom tree, what do you feel is the best thing to do? I would guess that the following quote from WP:Consensus identifies the crux of our disagreement: "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome."
It would seem that we're at a point where that condition has not been met. No deadline can force agreement, so the fact that we've passed an arbitrary deadline does not really matter in that respect. What would you propose we do to move things forward? (I think the deadline was useful, regardless, because it gave us a reason to pause and summarize discussion; even if we have to continue, we're probably in a better position to do so than we would be without that deadline.) -Pete (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously User:Wizardman is free to remove any instance of this template he wishes, just as he was before this discussion took place. I am not comfortable with any suggestion this discussion currently represents a consensus that all placeholders should be removed (I realise this isn't what you said.) Essentially, consensus means finding a position that everyone can agree with or at least accept. In this case, that means finding a position that reconciles "we need free images" and "a lot of people think placeholders are ugly" - two statements that I think more or less everyone can agree to. I think the next stage is to attempt to find such a solution (which may or may not involve placeholders in some capacity.) I could say more on this subject, but not until tomorrow. --Cherry blossom tree23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could people please stop calling them templates? While there would be some advantages to turning them into templates the resulting usability issues would probably outweigh them.Genisock2 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, you have not missed the discussion; it is only about to begin. The first part was a gauging of people's opinions through votes. The next step should be a developing discussion considering and altering proposals to achieve the greatest consensus and good. DoubleBlue (Talk)01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd urge everybody to exercise restraint. If Wizardman wants to add any comments to any pages under a Comment after the discussion closed heading that should be fine. We've already had one of them. (I think we'll soon be archiving them so it should be soon.) The actual number of votes in the proposals is not significant so there is no reason why Wizardman shouldn't take part in the discussion. (Welcome!)
As DoubleBlue says the most important part of the discussion is about to begin. First we have to approve the summaries. Then we have to look at the consensus, the so-called 'rough consensus'. that has emerged through the discussion. IMO our objective will be to meet the concerns of the majority while offering a new point of departure to the minority, though each of us may think about this in a different way. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see the user has been blocked. How should we handle noting this in the discussion above? (And especially in the proposals section, where s/he seems to have voted twice. Strikeout? Delete entirely?) Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked very closely at this, but since both appear to be indefinitely blocked I'd be tempted to strike out any votes either has made but leave any contributions to the discussion (with a note, perhaps.) The basis for this is that if their arguments are worthwhile, they are still worthwhile even if the source is questionable. --Cherry blossom tree10:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would consider any valid discussion points they made are still valid, just made by one person rather than two. If there are "votes" to be counted, you could either count one or none, although if there was any issue where one vote arguably made the difference in the outcome, then there is probably no real consensus anyway. Thatcher11:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given both are newly created, I would suspect that they are both socks of a longer-standing user who has already voted. Therefor my inclination is to diregard the votes of both.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your original proposal (in the archived discussion) was on April 9, 2008. I would suggest a two week window of discussion which would meen a closing on April 23, 2008. That is five days from now but it still gives plenty of time for former participants in the old discussion to contribute their opinions and for other editors to participate.Nrswanson (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support April 23 (mid-day GMT/UTC). I think that's reasonable. We've had over 40 participants now - that's not bad. Based on the last few days I can't see much happening between now and the 23rd. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:POLLS page talks about polls not being a substitute for discussion -- clearly, the majority of interest here has been on the discussion, but the polls have allowed us to more easily see the viewpoints of contributors. From WP:PRACTICAL: Consensus is not unanimity. Looking around at WP:AfD for a bit will show that of the discussions which are not "No consensus," the vast majority have a minority opinion which is not convinced at the end; this can still be consensus. Genisock2's view that "It's over when it's over" seems to imply that no change in status quo can occur until unanimity is reached--if this were the case, nothing could get done on this encyclopedia. -- Myke Cuthbert(talk)22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I don't see how a deadline fits into this. We should continue to discuss and work toward greater consensus. I will abide by a solution that gets developed through a process even if I'm still not satisfied but to cut off debate at an arbitrary date is not working toward consensus. As you know, AfDs with no consensus result in status quo. DoubleBlue (Talk)23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I am not sure broader consensus is going to be possible. I think the majority of people are pretty anti-image placeholder. Although wikipedia is not a democracy, upholding the status quo is sometimes in the best interest of wikipedia. Compromise and change are not necessarily always good things. I personally think that without an ending date set this debate will go on forever with no lasting resolutions.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's spoken of "seeking a broader consensus" several times, let me clarify: I was never saying we should seek unanimity, but rather that we should broaden the number of voices in the discussion, to be sure all points of view had been heard, that we fully understood the history of the system, etc. I am now satisfied that has occurred. I am just back from 2+ days away, and see that nothing substantially new has been added to the discussion. I think it's time to set a date for conclusion. -Pete (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Three editors (including myself) have supported April 23 as the date (see above). Is that too early? My understanding that the end date is the time when we close comments and start archiving the discussion section by section. Northwesterner1 suggested summarizing each section. I don't know if he is still up for that? I don't know whether anybody else is willing to volunteer? --Kleinzach (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will support April 23. I like the idea of summarizing the discussion, I'm not sure if "section-by-section" is best -- it could work, but my thought would be to start a little fresher than that, and try to summarize the discussion as a whole. My outline would look roughly like this:
Background on where the placeholder came from (the consensus that was its starting point)
Description of the placeholder system and its strengths
Description of primary objections to placeholder system
Note strong opposition to semi-automated insertion of the placeholder
Note strong support for the solicitation of free images from readers
Note the things that some editors said might make the system more acceptable (even if technically difficult)
Recommend a one-time removal of all instances of the placeholder that were inserted by automated process. (Or maybe all instances, if it's not possible to differentiate how they were placed?)
That's my general sense of the discussion. I'd rather see something of that format, than a summary of each section. -Pete (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see a two stage process. First close down the sections adding implicitly neutral summaries. Question 1 would be put to bed, then Question 2 etc. Having done that we can get to the final stage of interpreting the rough consensus of the forum.
I feel your bulleted list above is a judgement rather than a summary. It lists a number of controversial points, risking rejection from both sides. For example, in my case, while I agree with most of your points, I don't agree with all of them. (I'm not going into details because this is the obviously the wrong place.) --Kleinzach (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a April 23 date for closing the discussion. No new directions have emerged in the discussion. I have no preference as to "section" summaries or an overall summary as Pete proposes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree now that it may be nearing time to draw this portion of the discussion to a close. I really think the next thing to do is to summarise the concerns and work toward means to address those concerns and leave most sides satisfied. DoubleBlue (Talk)21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best method of summarizing the discussion?
We need to adopt a way of summarizing the discussion that is rigorously accurate, fair and neutral. IMO the simplest way to do this is to do separate summaries for each section (Questions, Proposals and miscellaneous). What do people think? Is this OK, or is there a better method available that will win more general acceptance? (See also Pete's suggestion above) --Kleinzach (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing by section seems a reasonable thing to do in any event. I think it may be worth also making a more general summary, and some recommendations, based on the section summaries. (Most significantly, the history provided by Genisock wound up buried in the discussion, but its proper place is in the introduction. Correcting that would be a good thing.) So -- can the summarizing begin now, or do we need to wait until the 23rd? -Pete (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I certainly agree with doing section summaries first and then moving to a general summary/conclusion. Doing objective, accurate section summaries first will help with the end process. My suggestion would be to wait until the deadline and then firmly close all the Questions and Proposals, then do the summaries, however perhaps we can decide who will do which section now? For example who will do 'Question 1. WP:SELF: Are placeholders compatible?' ? I would be willing to do do Question 2 and/or Proposal 1 and/or Proposal 3 (depending on how many volunteers we get) as I feel I understand those sections better than some of the others. (Re. the history you refer to: why not simply move it now to an appropriate place? BTW I'd be grateful if you could copyedit it so I can understand it!) --Kleinzach (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'd also recommend moving all the existing sections to subpages and putting all the summaries on the main page. Is that acceptable? --Kleinzach (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving all the content currently on this page to subpages and creating some form of summary of the discussion here. I'm also happy to pitch in with the summarising, where necessary. --Cherry blossom tree11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two I've done have landed in at about 300-350 words. They were fairly lengthy sections, but I suspect that proposal 1, for example, might require more. --Cherry blossom tree15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signing up for the summaries
Seems like there is general agreement on methods. I guess we should aim to write the summaries over the next 24 to 36 hours or so. Sign-ups below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 - Pete / done (510 words)
Q2 - Kleinzach / done (291 words)
Q3 - Northwesterner1 / done (368 words)
Q4 - Drhoehl / done (hope you hadn't already started, Kleinzach - No, thanks very much K.) (177 words)
Q5 - Myke Cuthbert(done -- was a short, easy one) (149 words)
Q6 - Northwesterner1 / done (245 words)
Q7 - Jaksmata (done) (104 words)
Q8 - Cherry Blossom Tree (Done) (376 words)
History? - DoubleBlue will have a go in a day but welcomes others participation
I hope we can spread this around. (I've written to DoubleBlue asking if he will help.) I suggest the summaries go on this page under their headings and followed by the links to the subpages. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The summaries look good! (Obviously a talented group of editors here!) Maybe we should check them now? if anyone has any suggestions/criticisms/objections about the summaries they should make them known here as soon as possible. (Pete: Is the Q1 summary a bit on the long side at 510 words?) Meanwhile I am getting on with Q2 (sorry for the delay). Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have no validity do the heavy involvement of their authors in the pseudo debate. Purely out of interest how many times does one have to disagree with a proposal for it to count? And since when was no consensus counted as agreement with a proposal?Genisock2 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach: I dunno -- is it too long? If so, fix it! I figured, better to err on the side of too long than too short. Feel free to whittle it down. -Pete (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genisock, you had -- and still have -- as much opportunity as anyone else to write or edit the summaries. If you choose not to engage in that, I have a hard time seeing how that differs from opting out of the process. I do think there may be a legitimate question about whether or not we've reached consensus -- but if you are committed to a resolution, I am confident you will contribute to finding a way to move forward, rather than simply stating that we haven't reached consensus. As far as I'm concerned, you can't in good faith hold your own vote "hostage" -- you need to work with the rest of us to find something that will be acceptable to everyone. If you should choose not to, the importance of your opinion diminishes greatly in my view. -Pete (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voteing has nothing to do with finding something that is acceptable to everyone. I have tried to debate. Others have tried to vote and enforce a pure voting process (uninformed voting at that).Genisock2 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of us have tried to debate. If I understand you correctly, you believe we have no consensus yet. Once again: what do you propose to do about that? How can we reach consensus? -Pete (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you can't. there will aways be to many kneejerk object to any change to "their" article(s) to prevent that. Making the image more aesthetically pleasing would probably reduce the complaints somewhat. If we could find a way to get people to actually educate themselves about the system that would probably help but since it include a few features that I don't expect anyone below the level of advanced admin to know about that would be problematical (plus a background that requires a reasonable knowledge of copyright and free content philosophy to make sense of). Still even with those barriers it would be nice to find a way to get people to make an effortGenisock2 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there has been a true discussion yet. There were votes and any attempts to discuss were sent to "Side comments" as they were outside the main focus. I mentioned in a previous section that discussion toward consensus should be the next step. Oh and I'm not sure a vote count is terribly productive but Geni's views were pretty clear whether they were preceded by a bolded vote or not. DoubleBlue (Talk)01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear about this. We have been at pains to keep a large discussion coherent. For that reason we encouraged participation in in-depth consideration of the issues in the 'Question' sections and discouraged distracting, diverging arguments in the proposals (because they would neither be seen or found there by interested readers).
What we've been doing so far is guage opinions. We now have to interpret the consensus which has emerged - it is undoubtedly and clearly there) - and make the necessary decisions. Perhaps you'll regard that as the "true discussion"? --Kleinzach (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we will be soon talking about 'consensus' and how WP policies apply to this discussion, but let's approve the summaries first, OK? --Kleinzach (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach, I think that's what we're doing. Genisock questioned the legitimacy of the summaries, but has not yet provided any specific concerns about them. The summaries will only be useful if those fully participating in the process feel they are fair. So, from where I sit, Genisock needs to make it clear whether he intends to participate, and if so, needs to be more specific about what problems the summaries have.
DoubleBlue, I can't speak for the others, but in the section I summarized, I counted !votes whether or not they were made "boldly at the beginning of a line." When someone's position was clear from their rhetoric, I counted that as a !vote. (I discounted Broadweighbabe's since she said elsewhere she wanted to recuse herself.) There were two borderline cases, which I noted in the summary.
If you suspect other summarizers were less diligent, why not just ask them -- or if you don't feel you can trust them, double-check their work? -Pete (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I misunderstood your comments above on my first reading that you meant that Geni had not made her views known; now I see you were only speaking about not participating in writing summaries. I have read over some of the summaries and they seemed fair. DoubleBlue (Talk)02:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am working on the history section. It is just taking a little longer than I expected and I have had a busy RL week. DoubleBlue (Talk)
Disruptions
The summary of Proposal 1 was blanked here and reverted by Johnbod. Is a warning appropriate or should further action be taken? We have come to (potentially) the most difficult part of the discussion - it's essential that the opinions of all participants are respected. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, my position is that though your edit was disruptive, I don't see the need to take the matter further if there are no similar edits. I am glad to see youy have joined the discussion here, as I suggested. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Geni and anyone else with concerns... Do you believe the summaries are an objective and accurate record of the discussion that transpired on each question and proposal? If not, could you please propose alternative summaries for any section that you believe is unfair? We're not asking "Do you think consensus says we should remove the placeholders?" or "Do you think the straw polls were fair?" or anything else. The discussion will continue, and you'll have plenty of opportunity to continue to state your opinion. We're just trying to get the summaries approved as a neutral record of events, the same way people on a committee might ratify the minutes of the previous meeting before beginning the next meeting.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely, positively think the summaries sections should be editable by anyone to improve the wording and/or sense of the archived discussion. I have not compared them all myself yet but they appear well-done and fair at first reading. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100% agreed. I think Kleinzach and others are just asking for this editing to occur now rather than later. If Geni or anyone believes the edit summaries are unfair as a record of the archived discussion, I think it would be useful to have the perceived inaccuracies corrected as soon as possible. Geni appears intent on casting doubt on the process by defining summaries as "simply opinions." I think a more useful definition of summaries is, well, summaries.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm no. It was Kleinzach who defined the summeries as opinions (or at least adopted a position with that as a logical endpoint).Geni20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not accurate because they fail to consider how informed the various people involved were and how much logical thought and investigation went into that opinion. They are not records of any discussion due to the constant efforts to prevent discussion occurring. Within those limits they are good enough that at this stage it is unlikely to be worthwhile investing further resources in them.Geni20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline generally cautions against making reference to Wikipedia, or to the editable nature of Wikipedia, in main article space.
There was a fair amount of discussion about what specific part(s) of the guideline would apply to the placeholders, and a fair amount of comparison to {{stub}} tags, {{expand}} tags, and other tags such as {{refimprove}}, {{cleanup}}, which are similar in at least some respects to the placeholders, and are in widespread use.
Points raised in arguing for compatibility
It was noted that {{stub}} tags and numerous other widely-used tags make reference to Wikipedia's editable nature, and are widely used.
Placeholders do not refer to "Wikipedia" by name.
Image placeholders encourage significant one-off contributions from people who will never become Wikipedians - contributions we would otherwise have little chance of getting.
Photos are essential parts of articles, in order to become featured, when it's expected they are available.
Points raised in arguing against compatibility
Stubs and expand templates are explicitly allowed by the guideline, in the section "Community and website feature references". The exemption refers to articles in their "initial development."
If that explicit allowance is in error, that is not necessarily a reason to allow placeholders. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Stubs are designed to draw attention to a deficiency in essential information; photos are not essential information. (Not required for good article status.)
Many of the tags mentioned serve a dual role, both inviting editors to improve artices, and warning the reader of a deficiency. The placeholders have no purpose as a warning, as it's plainly apparent when a photo is absent.
Stubs are relatively unobtrusive; small, and at the bottom of an article. Placeholders, by contrast, are large and in the most prominent part of the article (top right.)
Stubs and similar tags don't make appeals like "Do you have the ability to fix this?, Do you own one?"
Placeholders "look like advertisements."
Many readers are capable of expanding an article, improving neutral point of view, cleaning up an article, etc.; relatively few own a photo, or are in a position to take one.
Talk page template requesting photos {{reqphoto}} already exists. Talk page is more appropriate for appeals to expand an article.
Since the placeholders are objectionable and therefore distracting to a significant number of readers, “avoid unless compelling reasons unique to a particular article counsel otherwise.”
Placeholders, unlike stub tags and other tags, appear in printouts of Wikipedia articles. Technical difficulties have prevented the inclusion of the {{image class}} template, which would suppress printout. (It was suggested it might be possible to overcome the technical difficulties.)
Nine editors felt the placeholders are compatible with WP:SELF guideline; eleven felt they are not. One editor said he "didn't care"; additionally, two other editors (one "voting" each way) had significant qualifications attached to their positions.
Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?
Basic statistics: 50,789 articles placeholders were used to upload 462 images (figure provided by Genisock2) for a success rate of less than 1 percent.
Kleinzach asked: (1) Is it really worth the effort involved in inserting the placeholder in so many pages when there is so little to be gained? and (2) Is it reasonable to display a distracting graphic on 100 pages for the sake of (perhaps) getting a picture on only one of them?
This led to a wide-ranging discussion, much of it aimed at getting more information about how the system was working.
Those who believed the system ineffective argued that placeholders:
Others pointed out that statistics not been collected effectively and it was difficult to know whether the placeholder system led to more images being uploaded. (Gimmetrow, BrownHairedGirl, PC78)
Jmabel suggested starting a specialized WikiProject for acquiring images.
Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?
Summary & Conclusions
Northwesterner1 posed the question: Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate? Wikipedia consensus suggests that templates can be used on the main page of articles that have certain types of inadequacies -- POV bias, lack of references, etc. Is a biography without a photo inadequate in the same way?
Eight editors agreed that the answer is generally no: Northwesterner1, Broadweighbabe, Nrswanson, Kleinzach, Pete, Fishal, jaksmata, Guroadrunner. Jaksmata observed that many articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica have no images, and Broadweighbabe and Pete noted that many good articles on Wikipedia don't have photos of their subjects. Two editors disagreed: Phil Sandifer and Geni. They argued that GA/FA reviews require or strongly encourage photos, and that this requirement constitutes evidence that articles without photos are inadequate. Northwester1 countered that articles don't have to be GA-class to meet a baseline Wikipedia standard of adequate and acceptable content.
Two editors, Cherry blossom tree and DoubleBlue, sought to reframe the question. As Cherry blossom tree said, the real questions should be "Are image placeholders inherently pointing to an article's inadequacy?" and "Is this an acceptable side effect?"
So Northwesterner1 posed the subquestions:
Do the placeholder boxes suggest that articles are inadequate? Six editors said yes ("they broadcast a message that there is something wrong with the article"), one said no ("it says it can be improved in the same way edit buttons say it").
Is the suggestion of inadequacy an acceptable side effect? Here the response was mixed: Two maybe’s, two no’s.
An additional question asked whether past discussion about fair use vs. free images indicates consensus that images are necessary. Editors agreed that past discussions were not directly related to the matter at hand.
Overall, the consensus in this section appears clear: Biographies lacking photos of their central subjects are acceptable on Wikipedia. They are incomplete, and they can be improved. But they are not inadequate. The current placeholders do suggest that articles are inadequate. Whether this is an acceptable side effect depends on how we weigh the larger questions at stake in this debate.
Question 4. Placeholders and Wikipedia 'style': are they compatible?
Summary & Conclusions
In posing this question, Kleinzach observed that it had engendered heated, polarized debate in the original discussion, with the “pro-box” camp viewing boxes as emphasizing Wikipedia’s function as a storehouse for free content and its status a work in progress and the “anti-box” camp’s concerns as being that the boxes are unattractive and evocative of commercial advertising. As a point of departure for further debate, he asked whether these viewpoints admit of any middle ground and whether perhaps, in this instance, Wikipedia might do well to adopt an ad hoc approach rather than universal rules. The response, while again polarized, was light: Nrswanson responded in opposition to abandoning universal rules, while Jmabel found that concept to embody desirable flexibility. The sole other response came from Guroadrunner, who commented that the greyscale images are offensive and that plain text with a border would be preferable. Thus, while the discussion overall did not favor placeholders in their present form, neither did it evoke a clear consensus.
Question 5: What would the ideal system look like (leaving aside practical and technical limitations)?
Summary & Conclusions
User:Peteforsyth asked what the ideal system would look like if there were no limitations imposed by the MediaWiki software. The discussion solicited 18 comments by 10 different users. There were few differences with the proposals solicited above, either by those generally in favor of image placeholders or by those against, suggesting that technical limitations are not among the main constraints in the discussion.
Even if technical limitations against moving the location of the placeholder were removed, some users preferred the current location at the top of the page. However, a hypothetical move of the request for image (with a small image link) to the bottom of the page was considered an acceptable compromise by four users. Whether shrinking the size of the image placeholder would be a good thing (if possible) was debated, with accessibility issues being raised; the matter was unresolved.
Question 6: Do placeholders help discourage editors from uploading non-free (i.e. fair use) images?
Summary
Hammersoft provided an anecdote about how the image placeholder works in practice. S/he patrols biographies of living persons, removing fair-use images (which are against Wikipedia's policies on BLPs) and replacing them with placeholders. Hammersoft reported that when s/he replaces a fair-use image with a placeholder, the chance that someone will put another fair-use image up on the article is greatly reduced. Hammersoft suggested that this reduced recidivism rate was an overlooked benefit of the placeholders that had not been discussed.
Nrswanson, Northwesterner1, and Broadweighbabe (in the side comments) agreed that there could be some benefit to this use if the trend indeed holds across Wikipedia; however, they said the additional benefit did not outweigh the existing negatives.
Northwesterner1 and Carcharoth (in the side comments) raised the additional question of whether image placeholders do a disservice by discouraging editors from adding fair-use images to dead person bios. Proponents of the placeholders say that the guidelines suggest limiting their use to BLPs only; however, Northwesterner1 found that 20% of a small sample of articles linked to the female placeholder were dead person bios.
GregManninLB suggested using template: Images needed instead of placeholders as currently implemented. The reasoning is that there are other expansion requests acceptable for use in the article namespace in addition to those used in talk namespace. One user (Jaksmata) said it was “better” but not “acceptable”. Three users (DoubleBlue, Kleinzach and Guroadrunner) said that it would be better to improve the existing placeholder rather than replace it with the template. DoubleBlue suggested that the template could be used in cases where an image is needed to illustrate some particular aspect of the article outside the infobox. – jaksmata14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder?
Summary
This section somewhat overlaps with Question 5 and Proposals 2 and 3.
Some users objected to the separate male and female silhouettes and requested a gender neutral image. Others countered that gender neutral images tend to favour male looking images. User:Nrswanson suggested using an image of a camera rather than a person as a way to avoid this issue and received some support. User:Jaksmata suggested using a blank background.
The text on the image was also discussed. User:Padraic objected to the phrase "click here". Others felt it was necessary, though attempting to replicate a 'clickable link' within the image was also discussed. User:Jaksmata suggested using simply "upload an image". User:DoubleBlue felt that this was not sufficiently specific with regard to the copyright status of the image.
A number of users felt that the current placeholder was too large, arguing that it was overshadowing the article. User:Geni said that any image in an infobox is automatically scaled to 220px in width, and this could not be readily altered. User:Cherry blossom tree suggested a wide but shallow image, which would take up less space. There were also concerns that, whatever the size of the image, the text needed to be readable since most browsers could not scale it. There was general support for the images being 'not bigger than required', though little discussion on what this limit was.
Side note: This section of the discussion became somewhat bogged down over whether the size of the image could be altered. I'll try and explain, if anyone is still unclear. The image is an SVG, so the dimensions of the uploaded image don't matter. The image can be resized when it is inserted into the article without any loss of clarity.
The location of the placeholder was also discussed, with placing it either lower down the page or on the talk page suggested. These steps would somewhat satisfy those who felt the top right corner was too prominent. It was also argued that either of these options would reduce the effectiveness of the placeholder. User:Geni also said that the simplified image upload form requires the uploaded image to replace the placeholder, so the bottom of the page and the talk page would not work.
An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system
The upload system was originally developed towards the end of the fair use conflicts and in direct response to editors complaints about the lack of images (see late 2006 early 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/archive toc). The original proof of concept (see first edits in the history) was then heavily developed through IRC discussion.
It was not however the first placeholder on Wikipedia, that distinction is held by Image:Nocover.png (although it doesn't have the backend built in. This demonstrates that the placeholders have a long history of acceptance in Wikipedia.
A full description of the system can be found at Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images. The system likely has more tricks up its sleeve than you think. Also please click on the image to see what any uploader would see.
The system has in some form or another since been adopted by other language wikipedia's including no.wikipedia. A significant number of free images have been uploaded as a result both directly through the system indirectly via things like OTRS and indirectly due to regular editors being reminded of the need for images. The exact appearance of the images has been adapted a number of times in response to various concerns. Further development is always welcome. As well bringing reader's attention to the fact they can help the project it also simplifies the means by which they can do so. The need for this is clearly shown by de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Usability/Test Februar 2006.
As the system grew out of the fair use debates the initial approach was that the image would appear only on articles that would not qualify for a fair use image (living people who made public appearances at least from time to time)
I am adding this section to allow editors who have formulated an opinion about the issues above to comment on concrete solutions. The discussion in the sections above should continue, of course; but I want to make sure we have a space to capture the "vote" of editors who have read through the question statement and the discussion and have an opinion about a concrete course of action. Keep your opinions in this section succinct. If Proposal 1 passes, Proposals 2 and 3 are void. If all proposals fail, then the placeholders images will be retained as is. If you believe the placeholders should be retained as is, just note "disagree" under each proposal.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 1: Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles
If this proposal passes, we edit style guidelines to explicitly disapprove the use of these images on article pages. We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place and/or move them to talk pages.
Those who agreed with the proposal referred back to the initial discussion (6 editors), regarded the placeholders as intrusive, ugly, amateurish, in the wrong place, cluttering, distracting and disruptive (12), thought the placeholders overemphasized the importance of including pictures in articles (3), thought the solicitation should be on the talk page (4), self-referencing (2), thought them ineffective (3) and objected to their semi-automated, systematic dispersal (2).
Those who disagreed with the proposal made the following points: the placeholders were useful and effective (10 editors), had not been used long enough to assess (1), useful for deterring non-free images (1), similar to other maintenance tags (1). Their use should be discretionary but not prohibited (1). It was "ludicrous to allow style guidelines to trump an effective way of building the encyclopedia" (1). WP "must promote free content" (1).
In side comments, it was clarified that the discussion applied to the image placeholders ad variants listed in the archive (section). Further discussions were largely procedural.
See Proposal 1 for the full response to this proposal.
Proposal 2: If placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance
If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about the nature of any modifications.
Straw poll results
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
22 (81%)
1 (4%)
4 (15%)
Summary
There is clear consensus that if placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance. Discussion on those changes has begun under Question 8. The reasons given for wanting the placeholder images modified are:
They are "ugly" and inherently distract from the article.
The issue of how/if gender should be depicted in a silhouette is controversial.
The "Click here" message is unprofessional.
The definition of "Free image" is not well-known to casual Wikipedia readers.
They take up too much space.
They self-reference Wikipedia.
They imply that Wikipedia is incomplete.
The text is the wrong size/color.
A graphic is not needed.
The images are in the wrong place (i.e., they should be at the bottom of the page).
See Proposal 2 for the full response to this proposal.
Proposal 3: If placeholder images are retained, the method by which they are applied should be modified
If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 3 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about how the methods should change.
Straw poll results
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
16 (57%)
12 (43%)
0 (0%)
Summary
This discussion was divided with a small majority of those taking part arguing in favour of the proposition. This is a somewhat simplistic description, however, as there was significant common ground between between some of the supporters and some of the opposers and also significant differences between some of the people nominally in the same category.
One issue raised repeatedly was that of the use of semi-automated tools such as Auto Wiki Browser to add the placeholders. Some people objected in principle to automation. User:Peteforsyth felt that automated placement implied that the placeholders could not be removed. Everyone who addressed the issue, whether supporting or opposing the proposal, agreed that fully automatic use should not be attempted because placeholders are not suitable for every article. Some users pointed to errors that had been made in the past.
The second major issue discussed was whether or not placeholders should be optional. Again, there was widespread consensus with no-one arguing that they should not be. Many editors advised users who did not think that placeholders were appropriate for a particular article or set of articles simply to remove them and User:Geni maintained that the use of placeholders had always been optional. On the other hand, some users pointed to occasions when a removed placeholder had been re-added. User:Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser) suggested replacing the placeholder with something to indicate that it should not be added again. One unresolved issue was whether to leave the adding of the placeholder to an article's regular editors (per User:Northwesterner1) or whether to allow it to be added by other editors where there had been no opt-out (per current practice.)
User:Northwesterner1 also argued that placeholders should be removed if unsuccessful after a period of time. This was supported by two users but User:Mangostar argued that chance of someone with an image seeing the placeholder remains and User:Jobjörn argued that it should remain until the issue is addressed.
See Proposal 3 for the full response to this proposal.
Proposal 4: If placeholder images are retained, they should be extended to a wider range of articles
If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 4 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about extending the placeholders to a wider range of articles. Other areas where a free photo could reasonably be created (say weaponry likely to appear in museums) should also have placeholder systems built for them. (proposal added by Genisock2, modified by Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Proposal 6.If the use of placeholder images in article space is retained, then code should be added to each placeholder at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders to warn that its use is restricted to be inside an infobox template.
Neither proposal received significant discussion. They were supported only by the proposer, GregManninLB. They received a few comments and questions by editors who seemed inclined to oppose the proposals but did not explicitly provide a !vote.
It’s true that we haven’t reached a consensus yet, but it ain’t over yet. The straw-polls on the proposals were good in that they gave us a sense of where we stand, and how close to a consensus we are. Two-thirds of editors don’t want image placeholders at all. Even though one-third think that the placeholders should stay, less than 5% of editors think that they should stay as-is, although reasons vary.
Although I (and others who share my opinion) could continue to argue for deletion of the whole system, I think there’s a more productive route: Given the types of arguments given against the placeholders, I believe it’s possible to modify them in a way that would swing the majority to a “keep” opinion. Under Question 8, I’ve given a suggestion that I think would satisfy almost everyone on both sides (although I’ve only received feedback from one editor – thanks DoubleBlue). Some others have made suggestions too, and to be fair, I don’t think any suggestion has received adequate discussion.
I say we move forward and begin the discussion about the nature of any modifications as agreed to in Proposal 2. I would particularly like to hear modification suggestions from those who have been most vocal in support of the current system.
Please make suggestions in sections below, and discuss each suggestion in its section. I’m going to make the first, and I encourage others to comment on it and/or add their own suggestion section.comment added by Jaksmata 14:34, 25 April 2008
KISS solution
First alternate KISS placeholder imageSecond alternate KISS placeholder image
To kick it off, I’m going to re-suggest what I’m going to call the KISS solution. I propose we use one of the images at right (I prefer the “short” one). I’ve also made a mockup in my userspace of how a biographical article would look using these images to help visualization.
The benefits of this solution include:
A blank white area isn't usually considered “ugly” and it doesn’t distract from the article
It uses a neutral, medium-sized font colored “clickable blue”
There's no gender issue
There's no unprofessional “click here” message
There's no implication of Wikipedia's incompleteness, there's not even a reference to Wikipedia
Thank you Jaksmata. I think this is definitely the way forward. I have some thoughts and a concern about this particular solution but I think that can be addressed.
I think simple and clean is good
I like not using the words "click here" which is frowned upon
I like that this image could be used as a placeholder for any kind of image
I like that the uploader can still use the simple instructions to "replace this image" when adding it to the article
I think it is weak in that it does not say what kind of image we need; i.e., free-use.
Here is why: To the potential uploader who sees this image, the first step is likely to look to see if they can find a photo of the subject, then click the "upload" image. By then, finally seeing that we need a image they own themselves, they have already invested some time and energy that will likely be wasted and they will either abandon uploading feeling frustrated or, still in frustration, upload it anyway. It was also noted in the previous discussion that a side benefit to the placeholder is that it seems to reduce the placement of copyrighted images on articles and that may be because it says that "no free image" is currently available.
Can we think of a different phrasing that will make it clearer what is needed? Perhaps "Upload an image you own" or "Upload a copyright-free image" (though technically not precisely what's needed, it works).
DoubleBlue (Talk)16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The focus would probably be better put on ownership since the rest of the system is built on that basis.Geni17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, I'm not sure I understand your comment. What exactly do you think needs to be changed to set the appropriate focus? – jaksmata18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I support this line of discussion, but this solution won't convince me that placeholders should stay. 1) That is not a medium-sized font. It's huge. A medium-sized font would be the same as the body text. 2) Like DoubleBlue, I think the wording will invite more copyvios than the current placeholder, as it seems to be inviting users to upload ANY image. 3) I think the placement of this large box in the top right corner does not address graphic design (aesthetic) concerns and still detracts from the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubleblue, I think everyone understands that, but the big words on the image itself are likely to receive much more attention than the list of instructions on the linked page. I think this general approach is promising, but would still prefer something less obtrusive, like the proposals below. If we stick with this approach, I still think that using a PNG might be a better option, as its size would be consistent when used outside infoboxes. I like the wording, nice and simple. Genisock, I don't see any attempt at voting. If you're talking about NW1's "oppose," I think that's better understood as a brief summary of his opinion, meant to help future participants in skimming the comments. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image with DoubleBlue's textI'm not opposed to either of DoubleBlue's rephrasing suggestions, and I can easily reduce the font size - it is bigger than I expected that it would be. (I just got an SVG editor yesterday, and I'm still figuring it out.) My intention was for one of these images to be used linking to Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image. The image itself could even be named "Replace this image.svg" or something to that effect. How does this one look? – jaksmata18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something I just thought of: this solution would be the easiest to implement, because all you'd have to do is replace a few existing images. Other solutions would involve editing 50k+ articles (personally, I don't have the time or the bot!). – jaksmata19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. These are still placeholders and placeholders have already been overwhelmingly rejected by participants. We should not be discussing them at this stage. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KISS Solution modified
This is one example of what a truly medium-sized font would look like: same as the body font. I prefer the stub and footnote solutions outlined below; however, if we need to have a true "placeholder," then I could support something like this if used in infoboxes only. The problem is that something this size would have to be used as a jpeg and not an svg, meaning that we would need different images for different size infoboxes (placeholder200px.jpg, placeholder220px.jpg, etc.), and/or the image would have to be designed to float centered in infoboxes. Maybe someone else could come up with a better technical solution.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that no matter what format the file is in, it will be scaled (up or down) by the containing infobox to fit the width alloted for it. The SVG format just assures that the resulting scaled image will not look blocky, which would happen with PNG, or have JPG-like artifacts around the text. – jaksmata18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that we need something that keeps the text small, i.e., the same size as the body text, i.e., something that is not scaled up or down. Not only the same size, but also the same font and appearance as the body text. This would help address aesthetic concerns; as any graphic designer will tell you, consistency in text styles is the best way to have a page look nice. There may be a way to accomplish this through text coding of the infobox. Otherwise we need jpeg/pngs of various sizes to fit various infoboxes OR a jpeg/png that floats centered in the infobox. I agree it's a clunky solution, and I much prefer the stub template solution below.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a workable solution as well. I like that it specifies why we don't have a photo already. (i.e., no free image available) but suppose it isn't necessary, just informative. Jaksmata's comments about image formats is a consideration but could be done for this version as well, I believe. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems my idea doesn't work very well. I believe that for the placeholder to stay in the template, it needs to be the same font and size as the body text in all applications. I think bold is okay. In other words, it needs to look more like an "infobox header" than an image. I tried to achieve this with a jpeg, but I see that it is not possible. Neither is it possible with an svg or any other image. Techies out there: Is there a text-only solution that would work with recoding of the infoboxes?Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my view the example above by Northwesterner1 is not a placeholder as it does not occupy a space for a future image. This is important. IMO a non-placeholder solution should be acceptable to most participants. For my own part, this solution if used in infoboxes only and at the foot of the article page, is indeed acceptable.
However this is a centralized discussion about image placeholders, not about alternatives. We should decide what to do with the placeholders now while encouraging the group concerned to come up with alternatives - after the discussion has ended. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub template solution
I would support a stub template at the bottom of the page, based on Template:Stub. It would have a VERY small picture of a camera. The text would say "This article lacks a free image. If you own one, you can help Wikipedia by uploading it." The text Uploading it would link to an upload page specially designed for new users. The photos would go into a category, and more experienced editors would check for copyvios AND place the image in the appropriate article. As this solution would not be a "placeholder," we would need a wikiproject or a group of volunteers to manually place the images in articles. Seems manageable with the number of images we're talking about.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users would be instructed to add appropriate information about the photo that could be used to identify it and place it in an appropriate article. They should be doing that anyway, as many of these photos are not used in infoboxes and thus need captions.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I said "many are not," which is demonstrably true. Regardless, it's irrelevant. Uploaded images should have full captions in the description on the image page. It doesn't seem difficult to modify the image instructions to ask users to include this info when uploading a new photo.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We go through all this and you still haven't actualy bothered to pay much attention to the existing system. What does the last line of step 2 on the Upload file page say?Geni20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says, provide a caption and include the name of the article it should be used in. So that would seem to negate Double Blue's comment "How would we know which article the image belongs in?" I apologize for missing this. Double Blue knows the system better than I do, so I thought s/he had raised a point that needed to be addressed. So basically there is no problem with management in this system.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You think people always follow that instruction? The current system has at least 3 ways built into in to find out what the article the image should be in. People generaly manage one of them.Geni20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this approach. A possible modification: this could include the "placeholder" approach, as well -- the uploaded image could replace the picture of the camera, and the instructions could include a line or two about how to move the image to the proper part of the article. Even if uploaders get that bit wrong, it's easy for other editors to move the image up; the hard part, getting a free use image, will have been taken care of. -Pete (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against this solution - I think it would work ok and it would look ok. However, I'm going to give stronger support to the placeholder image that says "upload a copyright-free image" because I think it will be easier to get a consensus if the placeholder stays where it currently is (in the infobox). – jaksmata19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. It sounds like you're using "easier to get consensus" in a way that means "easier to appease the minority of editors who support the placeholder." Given that 2/3 of participants in this discussion would like to see the placeholder images off the main page of the article entirely, it seems to me that a stub-like template at the bottom of the page should be seen as a step toward compromise and consensus...Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have worded that better. What I meant was, it seems like some users really want the placeholder to stay in the infobox, and if the placeholder can be modified to look ok to most users, I don't think it needs to be moved to the bottom. I am among the 2/3 who would rather it gone completely, but yes, I'm trying to appease the other third with a comprise that I think appeals to the most people. Certainly, if the Stub solution gains the most support, I'm for it. Like I said, I have nothing against this solution. I think both solutions are steps towards consensus, and I'll support either. – jaksmata20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand how Pete's solution would work. I am against just putting the images in an image bank for others to add to the article at a later date. The wiki principle is to allow ordinary people to change the article themselves on the fly and see the change immediately. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: I'm not saying it should go in a bank somewhere, but that it could replace the camera image, much as it now replaces the infobox image. If the uploader fails to follow the last steps in the instructions, the image would end up at the bottom of the article. Not ideal, but a very easy and obvious fix for a more experienced editor; just move it, within the same article, up to the top or the infobox. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, it sounds like you're confused about "automatic replacement," as I was. (See Double Blue's explanation below.) The images are not replaced automatically. The new users who upload the photo actually take an active step in putting it somewhere on the page. Currently, they are instructed to copy and paste over the placeholder image. So your suggestion to have two steps in the instructions, (i.e. "Please place the image in the top right corner, but if you're not quite clear how to do that, then just replace the camera in the stub template.") seems unnecessarily confusing. A better solution: instead of instructions that tell new users to replace the image placeholder with image code, we would just need to give them clear instructions on how to place a photo on the page. We could teach them how to put image code in an infobox, or we could just instruct them how to copy and paste a line of image code at the top of the page. If there is no infobox, it would lay out correctly. If there is an infobox, then other editors who are watching the page or the category of uploaded images can quickly step into move the photo and improve layout.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know from the useability study that attempts to provide simple instructions for adding an image to a page have failed. And that was before your average page had 30 feet of markup on it.Geni20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Northwesterner, you're right. I just ran a test of the system, and found that I had a fundamental misunderstanding about how it works. (I've struck my ill-informed comments above.) I will have to do a lot of thinking now; I had thought the system's proponents were saying it needed to be in the infobox, because that's where the image gets replaced. If it doesn't get replaced, all the technical concerns seem ill-founded. In short, the system now seems a lot less valuable to me than it did initially. I regret not running the test all the way through before; I'd probably recommend others run a test, too. (And I'm off to speedy-delete a crappy photo of me!) -Pete (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I like the "template at the bottom" approach, and I like Northwesterner1's phrasing. My ignorance of bots is even greater than my ignorance of image procedures, so please forgive me if this is a silly question, but could a bot be designed to move freshly-imported but inappropriately located images to their appropriate locations atop articles? Drhoehl (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technicaly yes but it would make a complete mess of infoboxes. Problem is that infoboxes lack standardisation havening been built by various people of the course of years in various ways. The upshot of this is that unless you accept thumbnails placed above infoboxes and people won't you have to try and place them in the infoboxes and until we get some standardisation this is going to continue to be a problem.Genisock2 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this all goes beyond the present discussion. It should be looked into later. Having said that I personally agree with Northwesterner1 sensible (stub template based) idea. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact footnote
I would support an in-line template similar to Template:Fact. It could be used in the lead of the article, like this: "John Doe (born 1952 in Low Pass, Oregon) is a mysterious man.[citation needed]" Except instead of saying "citation needed" the note would say "image needed." It would link to an article explaining the upload process for new users, etc. Again, as this is not a placeholder, we would need other editors to manually place the images in articles.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the stub-like template, I think this would be difficult to manage. We also don't need more management activities for Wikipedians to do, taking them away from editing articles. It is possible through placeholders to allow rookie editors to easily accomplish it themselves and learn more about image adding in the process. DoubleBlue (Talk)17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... (1) This is not a significant management activity above and beyond checking for copyvios, which already happens. (2) If the image automatically replaces the placeholder under the current system, how are rookie editors "accomplishing it themselves" or "learning more about image adding"? Yes, they learn how to upload a file. But they don't learn how to place the image in an article under either the current system or my proposed solution. If you think we should be allowing them to accomplish it themselves -- and I agree -- then we would need to modify the current system OR modify my proposed system in the same way: provide more step-by-step instructions on how to do this. The downside is that more instructions make them less likely to upload an image in the first place or to do everything correctly. However, as far as rookie editors learning the ropes, I don't see what the difference is between the old system and my proposal.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be getting into this when I finish summarising the history section but part of the background of the development of this system is usability studies that show the image adding process is very confusing for many first-timers. The "from-owner" placeholder system was designed to make this more simple and streamlined. The placeholder is not automatically replaced; the uploader is given the instruction to replace the "Replace this image.svg" text with the name of their newly uploaded image. DoubleBlue (Talk)17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this. I misunderstood the replacement process. Given the emerging consensus against the placeholders, which is not entirely based on aesthetic concerns, I think proponents of the system need to be willing to re-evaluate the entire system if we are going to be able to salvage any piece of it. Some may be satisfied by a different image used as a placeholder that would address some aesthetic concerns. I am not.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should separate the two goals here: (1) Get more free content for Wikipedia, and (2) Bring more users into the Wikifamily by teaching them how to participate in the image upload system. The rationale for placeholders in this discussion centered almost exclusively around (#1). So my proposals are intended to address that. (#2) is also a worthy goal. However, there seems to be a strong majority opinion (if not yet consensus) against the current system which attempts to accomplish both goals at once. Can we find consensus for any system that accomplishes both goals? Time will tell. Should we also think about alternatives that accomplish (#1) or (#2) separately. I think, yes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The point of learning about adding images is definitely an aside to this discussion. The main point I wished to make is that it allows new users to easily add an image they own to an article. DoubleBlue (Talk)18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an interesting approach, but I'm concerned about cluttering the lead sentence in an article (strikes me as nearly as obtrusive as placing a fake "image"), and I'm not sure if it's possible to suppress a tag like this from printout? Also, I don't think this would work with the placeholder system. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to agree with Pete that this would not look good in the opening sentence of an article, and it's too small to be noticed elsewhere. – jaksmata19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
side comments redux
Objection! We do have a consensus. It's been expressed in the discussion. Our job is now to interpret it and write a conclusion. We can't expect 50-odd people who have given their opinions to return and give them again. This section effectively reopens Question 8 which was closed down after full discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of issues on which there is not yet consensus (nor will there be if you keep trying to shut down debate). Disscussion of modifications to the placeholder image predate question 8 and will postdate it. Attempting to prevent such a debate rather goes against wikipedia principles.Geni00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: that Insearchofintelligentlife (talk · contribs) and Divinediscourse (talk · contribs) are the same person. Thatcher 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
