Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atomaton (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 24 February 2011 (→‎Proposal (4): Oppose -- need objective crtiteria). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. August 2002 – March 2003
  2. April 2003 – April 2003 (1)
  3. April 2003 – April 2003 (2)
  4. April 2003 – April 2003 (3)
  5. May 2003 – December 2003
  6. January 2004 – July 2004
  7. July 2004 – August 2006
  8. September 2006 – December 2006
  9. January 2007 – September 2007
  10. October 2007 – December 2007
  11. January 2008 – January 2009
  12. February 2009 –
  13. 2010 –

Galleries

I have re-jigged WP:IG to clarify what was the clear intention of the lengthy discussions two years ago (also here) that led to the present wording, which has been pretty stable since then. The "rule of Thumb" only makes sense in terms of the old-style gallery-articles, not the one or two or more rows that are now well-accepted in articles on visual subjects. The question arose at Talk:William_Hogarth#fix_the_clutter. I also recently added "inappropriate" to the wording on Template:Cleanup-gallery, which now reads: "This section looks like an inappropriate image gallery. Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject; please improve or remove the section accordingly, moving freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons if not already hosted there." A recent check on a sample of articles (mostly on art) with this template showed over 50% that were imo fine, though also many that weren't. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS

I would like to add to the image use policy that any user created image which is likely to have it's origins challenged should be accompanied with an OTRS ticket. We have had a number of high quality images in music related articles at FAC, from the 1960 and 1970s, before digital cameras became common, which we cannot be sure of the origins of, the overwhelming majority have been fine and the WP:OTRS has been submitted but occasionally we do catch copyright violations. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Image Use

Inasmuch as this wikiproject directly relates to image use on wikipedia, people at it may perhaps have interest in the RfC relating to the use of images that is taking place at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups .--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Municipal police department photo

I know U.S. federal government photos are usually free. What about a photo by a city police department, such as this, in an article about the living individual shown? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a little late in response, but the answer is generally no. Some states have laws which place state works in the public domain but would not apply to municipal works (or contractors, etc.). There should be templates for individual states which have PD laws. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to reword Rule of thumb 9

Current rule: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."
Considering that the above rule is rather vague and it is not clear in what situation it would actually apply (other than obvious vandalism), I would like to replace it with the following:
"Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used in inappropriate contexts."
In other words, don't use SuicideGirls to illustrate girl or a photo of a severed head to illustrate head. Sexual or graphic images are fine in articles related to those topics, per WP:NOTCENSORED, but shouldn't be used indiscriminately to illustrate other subjects. This wording should make the intention and applicability of the rule more clear. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That strikes me as less vague but more broad. I'm not sure it is an improvement and I'm not sure the current rule results in us using a severed head to illustrate Head nor that the proposed rule would alone serve to prevent such an image from being used. Protonk (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The wording is fine as is, "bring attention to an article" is more direct in its meaning - "inappropriate" is not as it is too wide of an interpretation. Even in your suggestion I would say that using a model from SuicideGirls to show a "girl" is not at all "inappropriate" as the models are clearly females. However using an image such as this to illustrate Virginity would clearly be "used simply to bring attention to an article", and, yes, it would be seen by most as "inappropriate", but that is not that same as combining both an image *and* a name - using a person to illustrate Asshole would also be seen as "used simply to bring attention to an article", but, depending on who the person was, may not been seen as "inappropriate." Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using an explicitly sexualized image (SuicideGirls) would most certainly be inappropriate to illustrate a general topic like girl, as would the other examples you cite. And I don't think an editor would do this to "bring attention to an article". They would do this because they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from the telepathy needed to infer that motivation, that doesn't seem like a problem that needs to be resolved by editing the image use policy. Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article. If normal editing is insufficient than maybe dispute resolution can be tried or maybe the image isn't obviously inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't need telepathy to decide appropriateness, but you would need telepathy to know if someone was trying to "bring attention to an article". And you can't very well reach consensus without any useful guidelines to point to, especially when we have editors arguing in all seriousness that pornography (SuicideGirls) is appropriate for illustrating the article girl. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You need telepathy to determine " they don't care about exercising editorial judgement for audiences broader than 20-year-old heterosexual males". Protonk (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not proposing that that be part of the Rule. Please refer to my initial post. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine. I agree that the current wording is too vague. I just don't know how much the wording actually matters in practice (especially if we are trying to use the policy to effect change) and I don't know how I feel about just using the word "inappropriate". Protonk (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm, I'm open to suggestions. I'm afraid anything more specific would be seen as instruction creep. The nice thing about "inappropriate" is that it is open to case-by-case debate (as you suggest earlier in the thread). Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll give it some thought. I don't have any good suggestions off the top of my head. But I mean what I said about effectiveness. The overriding "policy" is always WP:COMMON (not really a policy, hence the scare quotes). Don't put pictures of dicks on articles that aren't really related to dicks, etc. If people aren't using their heads then I don't think rewording the image policy will change that too much--everything can be wikilawyered. But I do agree that the current wording kinda sucks. I think it was originally meant to match WP:NOTCENSORED but didn't really get it right. Heh. In fact WP:NOT basically says "don't include stuff that isn't appropriate for the article". >.> Protonk (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ah, if only common sense were a universal trait of Wikipedia editors! :) Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, I think my proposed wording actually matches the WP:NOTCENSORED policy about as closely as you can get: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well we kinda have to build rules around the presence of common sense otherwise we would end up with a bigger rats' nest of provisos and caveats. Would it be possible just to link to CENSORED with a bit about appropriateness for a given article? Also...and this is really nitpicky, but I think "appropriate" is a better word than inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We actually need more than NOTCENSORED as an editorial policy. For example, a year or so ago the community wasted umpteen kilobytes on whether it was "appropriate" to have the goatse image in the goatse article. One lot said, "Of course it is appropriate: the article is about the goatse image; how could the goatse image not be encyclopedically relevant and 'appropriate'?" The other lot said, "Of course it's not appropriate. It's a shock image, and it will make readers throw up." What we should have done is look at reliable sources: Do any reliable sources plonk the goatse image on their pages when they discuss it? Very quick answer: No. And if reliable sources don't do it, why should we? We present a link under External links, and if people still want to see it, after having read the article (which many actually may not bother to do if the image is there), then they can follow that link. --JN466 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images like these are actually not suitable for girl. Really. I think we are doing fine with the illustrations we currently have in that article. ;) --JN466 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • "that pornography" is "exactly" what I mean with "inappropriate." I don't see a nude model as being "pornography." I am sure File:PortraitGirl2005-1a.jpg is seen by some as "inappropriate" as well because it appears to be a very young "girl" in a modeling pose. Some might say she is a bit of a Lolita. But that is more of an opinion that can not truly be a policy. It is sometimes often obvious when a source is meant to "bring attention to an article" - ever watch reality TV? Or read gossip rags? The context of "inappropriate" is broad and varied - many feel The Biggest Loser is "inappropriate", while far more seem to not feel that given the success of the show. Want to draw attention to something? Than you "exploit" something - you use "sensationalism". Ever hear of the New York Post? (Headlines such as these were commonplace) How about The Sun? (typical front page) I take the line in question to be akin to that. An article whose title is "Naked girls!" and is an article about File:HaremPool.jpg or File:Danae painting.jpg is clearly meant to "bring attention to an article". Likewise an article entitled "pornography" which was an article about File:Bouguereau first kiss.jpg would be the same. That is what I meant about a title and an image that went hand in hand. For image use the same is true in the *context* of what this says - "Shocking or explicit pictures". In that context I, personally, don't feel SuicideGirls is either of those. Coprophagia on the other hand, if it used this image I would consider both - even if it isn't what is really gong one. (Again - a title *with* an image very much sets context many times). As Protonk has tried to explain "Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus to remove obviously inappropriate images for an article." Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So sites where you pay money to see young naked people in sexually alluring poses aren't "porn sites"? What would you prefer that we call them? "Nudity appreciation sites"? Come on. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SuicideGirls is definitely more than just nudity. It's obviously designed to be sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it, not for the compelling prose! If you think I'm proposing this wording change because I'm a "prude" and I want to remove all nudity from Wikipedia, you are completely wrong and have violated WP:AGF. I just think the current wording sucks and it should reflect our existing policies instead. Have you actually read WP:NOTCENSORED? It uses the word "appropriate", I didn't just make it up to suggest here so that I could go on a nudity deleting rampage. Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may surprise you but I have real most of the polices and guidelines that deal with files and copyright here at Wikipedia. My "work" here is akin to real world work where I deal with such matters. Real world =/= Wikiworld however and I spend a lot of time here trying to explain that to people as well. As I had suggested below Wikipedia is *not* an endeavor into exploitation films or Yellow Journalism, and that is is the context of the wording. "Inappropriate" is part of that, however is not *only* that. Your use of a modeling site that one must pay to use as an example of "inappropriate" is not a good one, and based on further discussion it opens up a lot of like discussions. A pay site =/= inappropriate for example. "sexually alluring and gratifying and that's why people pay money for it" is a subjective view, some people find image of feet "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean every image of a foot is "inappropriate." Some people find eating shit "sexually alluring and gratifying" but that does not mean Coprophagia is "inappropriate", even if it were on a website where one had to pay for it. Sexual fetishism is an article where images could be used to illustrate it and it would be hard to argue, in the context of Wikipedia not being censored, how an image that related to that topic would be "shocking" or "explicit" in the *context* of the subject, but certainly anyone could argue that such image were "inappropriate" on their own. I am going to respond more way down below as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. As an additional point, consider that all our basic content policies -- WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV -- are based on the premise that we should model our textual content on reliable sources. Images are article content, too, and the same principles should apply. While we usually substitute our own images for copyright and other reasons, the general style of our illustrations should mimic that of the illustrations commonly used in reliable sources covering the topic. --JN466 22:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could use those to illustrate nightmare. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no; the rule of thumb concerns surprise, content deals with sexual or other inappropriate subtexts. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If something has an inappropriate (sexual or other) subtext wouldn't that cause surprise? Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the rule of thumb is a restatement of the general principle that images should illustrate the subject of the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note - I got a chuckle out of this because of this thread: Eddie Cibrian's ex, Brandi Glanville, slams LeAnn Rimes on Twitter: Singer is 'highly inappropriate. I don't see the words "shocking or explicit" mentioned at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal

Per Protonk's suggestion, I have revised the proposal to more closely match the wording of our WP:NOTCENSORED policy:
"Shocking or explicit pictures should only be used in appropriate contexts."
Is this better? Kaldari (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're still talking about content; best addressed as that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. Should I say "Pictures with shocking or explicit content"? Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just moving the words around. Any image illustrates some subject. A image such as File:Petit Bullet.jpg should probably not be used to illustrate virgin, although the young woman illustrated may very well be one. File:Petit Bullet.jpg, however, is neither shocking or explicit. It would just be surprising to see it in that context with its strong subtext of sexuality. You might say is would be shocking in that context. I guess it doesn't hurt to say it twice, redundancy is always helpful. I was always told to say something at least three times if I expected to the message across. The rule of thumb is just shorthand for Images should illustrate the subject, not change it; Wikipedia is not a jack-in-the-box. However, the rule of thumb also seems to refer to not using images to draw attention to an article, advertise it so to speak. For example the article on the Rainbow Gathering could include images of nude gatherers but probably doesn't or shouldn't; simply saying that that sometimes that is a a part of a Gathering serves. Images should not be used simply to draw attention, they should illustrate the subject, not add a wow factor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, nudity certainly counts as "explicitness" by any measure. You are showing a human explicitly. I don't understand how you can claim otherwise. I understand your point about content now, and perhaps it can exist alongside the WP:NOTCENSORED point about context. We probably need both. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (3)

Lets reflect the meaning of the wording *and* reflect the policies.

Moral issues lays out some good groundwork, especially the section entitled Normally do require consent. Combine with the phrase in question and using wording to make it more clear what is being discussed my proposal is (new wording in green):

Wikipedia does not treat content as an exploitation film, it is not an endeavor in yellow journalism and it not a tabloid. As such shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article.

I think that would make it not only clear but also define, via the links, in what context "shocking or explicit" should be taken. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the top! User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The question is that "shocking or explicit" is not clearly defined in the context of what "bring attention to an article" means this clearly defines that. So how about this:
Wikipedia is not a tabloid and does not use yellow journalism. As such shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid sensationalism. (Hope that's not a red-link) User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out to be an informative article. Yes, I think that is the point of the rule of thumb. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do know in my proposal I had linked the phrase "simply to bring attention to an article" to Sensationalism right? My thought was keep the same wording, just add the link and than add the further explanation about Yellow journalism (...presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism) and Supermarket tabloid (specializing in celebrity news, gossip, astrology, and bizarre stories about ordinary people. Supermarket tabloids are notorious for the over-the-top sensationalizing of stories, the facts of which can be called into question.) as it would relate to Wikipedia (Think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - There is no mention of tabloid and/or yellow journalism but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought might serve the same purpose)
So just to clarify - are you suggesting we remove everything as it is worded now, and replace it with *only* "Avoid sensationalism"? If so I think that may be too short *if* this is only to apply to "shocking or explicit pictures", but the shorter version *would* apply to one of the ideas laid out further down at Moral issues - An identifiable child, titled "An obese girl". Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not notice that you had linked the phrase "simply to bring attention to an article" to Sensationalism. And while laconic phrases are elegant they are often misunderstood. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your proposal is fine, but it doesn't really address the points brought up by myself and JN about context (which is also the jist of the WP:NOTCENSORED wording). Kaldari (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that inappropriate, shocking and explicit are terms that have no definition and can be infinitely debated. Look for example (or don't, if you would like to retain your appetite) at the images at Gangrene#Gallery. These images go way beyond what reliable sources written for a general audience usually depict to illustrate gangrene (they typically show the onset of gangrene in a finger, toe etc.; the lead image in that article is within that scope). The images linked to were originally displayed much more prominently; it was all I could do to have them reduced in size and placed in a gallery. We have to bear in mind that Wikimedia community demographics are skewed in favour of single white young males; their predilections combined with NOTCENSORED do not always result in decisions that would pass muster in the real world. In my view, it is indispensable to introduce the notion that the imagery we display should not be completely out of line with what reliable sources would display. (I've made a similar argument in a current thread at the content noticeboard.)
The meanings of "inappropriate, shocking and explicit" are quite clear, what is often not clear is nature of the world-wide audience and to what degree universal taste should be accommodated. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To give a specific example, when the community discussed the goatse picture, some editors stated they could not see how, given NOTCENSORED, the image was inappropriate, as it was the subject of an article, while others made statements like the image "is not and never will be appropriate for display in Wikipedia". Similarly, to some editors, the gangrene pictures are (needlessly) shocking, to others they are merely educational. Without at least the principle of recourse to reliable sources, allowing editors to research image usage in the real world and bring arguments to the table that are based on real-world publishing standards, these discussions are more intractable than they need be, and our decisions at risk of reflecting community bias grounded in our demographics. --JN466 21:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are responsible for using good editorial judgment. What is appropriate is up for discussion and what other skilled editors do is relevant in evaluating choices. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth adding an explicit mention of the principle of least surprise as well. --JN466 19:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sound like valid points, although it would probably be difficult to get consensus for some of them here. I do think incorporating the principle of least surprise is a good idea though. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been mountains of discussions on topics, such as Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate where the focus was on content and Jimbo saw it another way: This was pretty clearly a case of trolling. [SNIP] This is an encyclopedia, not a free speech zone for trolls. Again, one needs to step back and look at the context for the statement being discussed, not exclusively the content. What would define the "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article" concept is the *context* of the articles subject. "inappropriate" is a subjective term about the content rather than the context. Would an image of someone squashing a bug or smoking a cigar be "inappropriate" in an article about Sexual fetishism? I don't think so. Would an image of a person eating shit in Coprophagia be "inappropriate"? Again, I don't think so because that is exactly what the topic is about. So to move beyond that there would be discussions on if the image is *needed* and that becomes the issue there. So now we are back to *context* vs the *content* - and *that* is what "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article" is about. The best way to try and explain that concept is to understand what Wikipedia is not and than read, and understand in the same context, that Wikipedia is not an Exploitation film (promoted by "exploiting" often lurid subject matte and/or relies heavily on sensationalist advertising and broad and lurid overstatement of the issues depicted, regardless of the intrinsic quality...), it is not an endeavor in Yellow journalism (presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines... and/or exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism), and it is not a supermarket tabloid (specializing in celebrity news, gossip, astrology, and bizarre stories about ordinary people... and Wikipedia is not, does not want to be, notorious for the over-the-top sensationalizing of stories, the facts of which can be called into question). Because of that "shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article. (...choose to report heavily on stories with shock value or attention-grabbing names or events, rather than reporting on more pressing issues to the general public. and/or ...without much regard for the factual accuracy or social relevance... and One presumed goal of sensational reporting is increased (or sustained) viewership or readership, which can be sold to advertisers, the result being a lesser focus on proper journalism and a greater focus on the "juicy" aspects of a story that pull in a larger share of audience.). If Loaded language were about "media files" it would work here - Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional overtones or connotations, and evoke strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning.
In short it is the context in which the images are used, not so much the content of the images. What they are on their own may indicate one thing but how they are used in an article sets the tone for a dialog to see if their use is simply for exploitative or sensationalistic reasons. If one wants to look at our Non-free content policy you will find one of the guiding concepts is that non-free material can only be used where there is critical commentary about the non-free material itself. The same could be implied for free images, but there are not any such restriction on their use. This is where, I believe, Protonk's statement that Normal editing should allow people to discuss images and reach a consensus comes into play. There is no requirement that free material (From below) "be used to illustrate the subject of an article", although common sense seemingly should apply. f there is a quesiton about free content that it can be discussed on an articles talk page or sent to FFD, where a discussion can be raised about the materiel being unencyclopedic. I firmly believe the context of this is more about how the image is used in an article "simply to bring attention to an article." Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in saying that "Wikipedia does not treat content as an exploitation film, it is not an endeavor in yellow journalism and it not a tabloid. As such shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." you are listing a number of inferior sources or media products, and are saying that Wikipedia is not, or should not be, like those. It implies that Wikipedia should be more like quality sources out there. That is similar to the argument I am making. If I have understood you correctly, then I'm beginning to like the direction of this proposal. --JN466 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense yes, that is the diea - Wikipedia is *not* those things and as such - again - "shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article." The wording as is, is fine provided there is an understanding about what Wikipedia isn't in that regards. I have no issue with leaving it as is, except provide a link to Sensationalism via that "simply to bring attention to an article" text. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (4)

After reviewing everyone's feedback, I think I've come up with a proposal that incorporates most of the ideas people have suggested and is neither too broad, nor too vague:
Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article, and should reflect the general context of the subject. Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article.
Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather wordy and long-winded. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be so that it is narrowly tailored and not too ambiguous. We have other rules of thumb that are significantly longer. Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clear and per policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's an improvement over what is there now. --JN466 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this as well. Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article, and should reflect the general context of the subject. is what I have a problem with. First is that we do not need to spell out common sense. Second is, again, it is trying to place a restriction of free images the same way we do with non-free content. Third is linking to an essay in a policy wording. Breaking it down just a little, as has been laid out by myself and some others, "reflect the general context of the subject" can include material that is "shocking" to some and "explicit" to some and both can, and often do, "illustrate the subject of an article." Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could I ask you to have another look at this? I see a useful purpose in the wording "used to illustrate the subject of an article and reflect the general context of the subject". E.g. in cardboard it would not make sense to include a picture of my cardboard factory (not the article subject), or an image of a cardboard placard saying "God hates homosexuals", to illustrate the uses cardboard can be put to (that would be a highly specific, not a general context).
    • I don't entirely share your concern about restricting the use of free images. An image of aluminium saucepans e.g. could still be used in aluminium, saucepan, cooking, and others, as long as it fits into the general, everyday context. A fair-use image would be far more restricted.
    • Your last concern is, I think, addressed by the wording "not simply to bring attention". Shocking or explicit images are fine, but should not be gratuitous and should not come as a surprise to the reader. I.e. don't use a close-up of a plastic sex toy in plastic, or a close-up of open-heart surgery to illustrate red. Thoughts? --JN466 10:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment first - using an image of open heart surgery would, indeed, be within the scope of the article - more so if it was used in the Sin, guilt, pain, passion, blood and anger section. More so because, even though not specifically mentioned in the article, the info box contains "Common connotations" which links to Injury and Valentine's Day. I am not saying the article should use images of injury or a real heart, just saying that I could see a valid reason for them. As for Plastic it isn't that the article could not use a "close-up of a plastic sex toy" anymore than it couldn't use File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG.
The non-free content criteria is far more strict than real world "fair use", and the idea rests a lot in the "critical commentary" of the image (or what the image if of). Look at the concept of album cover use - it is presumed the only way it can be used is if the article itself is about the album. The example wording given for such use is for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. Compare that to the proposal here - "Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article" - reads the same.
You have to also remember this is a policy change - and if wording is going to be added such as that it needs to go before a wider audience, not just the four or five editors here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of mentioning album covers in my previous response, because I can't see how the proposed wording actually imposes any restriction comparable to that which is in place on the use of album covers, on free image files. YMMV. --JN466 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you were saying with regard to sex toys and Barbie; if you are saying that a picture of a sex toy would be no better and no worse than a picture of Barbie in plastic, then I would disagree with you -- simply because reliable sources on plastic might show an image of a Barbie doll, but are unlikely to feature a sex toy. Was that what you meant? --JN466 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If any article discussed materials such as plastic and there were examples given of items made out of plastic there could well could be justification for using an image of any items made from it. For example Silicone, I feel, is "fair" all around as it really does not use a lot of images when it clearly could. But if one were to start adding images for every use it would get to be too much - and, again using common sense, most of the "uses" have their own articles anyway and that is where the wording of "Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article" could be debated greatly, much the exact same way discussions on use of cover art is. For non-free content you couldn't use File:FROZEN-CD.jpg in Compact Disc because of the policy, but you could use File:Roxanne2 for Wiki.jpg or File:Silicone gel-filled breast implants.jpeg in Silicone as free images are not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can lead ourselves down a garden path worrying about which "reliable source" used an image before we chose to use one ourselves. None of our sources write with the expectation that they will be made useful for wikipedia sometime in the future. Most of them don't include images (books, most newspaper articles, many articles in journals, etc.). And the ones that do have images (journals excluded...for the most part) don't necessarily include those images purely due to their relevance to the subject matter. A newspaper may need something to go over the fold. A magazine may need a cover image, etc. It is hard and messy but we need to treat images and image choice as our own editorial decision. Farming things out to what the secondary literature uses as images makes for an incoherent policy for a tertiary source. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to say that we should not add an image to any article until we have verified that an RS has used such an image before. That's obviously nonsense. I see it more as a reality check -- if we end up with three images of pumped up bosoms in silicone, then it might be worthwhile saying, Hang on ... do any illustrated sources out there about silicone generally actually have pictures of breasts? And if we find they don't then it is probably better to use the breast images in silicone gel, where they absolutely belong, and not in silicone. So, not as a guide to daily editing, but as a failsafe when it looks like the community process has gone a bit off-compass. --JN466 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silicone could probably do with (if it doesn't have already) a free image of an implant outside of a body. But that is neither here nor there. I still think that even without extending the argument to absurdity we should be worried about relying on sourcing to guide our image policy. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Soundvisions1: "we do not need to spell out common sense". Yes, we absolutely do need to spell out common sense. The majority of our policies are simply spelling out common sense for those who (purposefully or not) choose to go against it. Regarding you second point, the restriction to "reflect the general context of the subject" is nowhere near as strict as our non-free content restrictions. As you say, the restriction is basically common sense. For example, this would certainly allow images of breasts at Silicone gel (and possibly Silicone), but it wouldn't allow an animation of a porn star bouncing her breasts as this isn't the appropriate context for that image. Regarding the last sentence of your oppose statement, this sounds like an argument in favor of the wording. Yes, shocking and explicit images would certainly be allowed, just not in inappropriate contexts. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall - not at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There must be something I am missing here. "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article" is part of present policy wording, and part of your own proposal. Why do you object to it in this proposal? Do you feel that the preceding sentence, Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article, and should reflect the general context of the subject, somehow alters the meaning? --JN466 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We should leave explicit or sexually explicit out of any proposal. There is nothing at all wrong with a sexually explicit image in an article related to sexuality or sexology. The picture of the Penis in the penis article is sexually explicit. It is also directly on topic in that article. Also, any terms that are subjective, such as "surprising or shocking" are not useful. We need objective criteria.

Proposal (5)

How about: Images should illustrate the subject and should not surprise, shock, or titillate.
User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images should illustrate the subject without adding an inappropriate subtext and should not surprise, shock, or titillate.
User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good start for now. --JN466 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
surprise, shock, or titillate. can be a bit subjective (leading to more and more debate on case by case basis), depending on who is looking. The wordier language makes the policy clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about combining the two versions?
  • Oppose: See me reply above. This is basically adding a new policy requirement for free material. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - That contradicts. The image in Autofellatio illustrates the subject of the article and reflects the general context of the subject. But depending on who views the image, it can surprise, shock and or titillate the reader. Which is no reason to remove it. Garion96 (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Commons link for the autofellatio photograph would suffice, but YMMV. --JN466 22:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Milage does vary. :) Countless discussions, debates rfc etc have proven that consensus does not agree with you there. But despite this example, your latest proposal just won't work. There are always pictures which do "illustrate the subject of an article, and reflect the general context of the subject" but can be "surprising, shocking, or titillating". I find File:Lynching2.jpg really shocking, but it does illustrates the subject of the article Lynching quite well unfortunately. According to your proposal it should be removed and I don't think that is your intention. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, no, and this is where reliable sources come in again, a point which we neglect at our peril. If our readers have done prior reading on lynchings, they will have encountered images like the one you mention. Images like this reflect the general content of the article. They do not surprise. While the image is shocking, its presence on our page is not shocking. Readers' prior experience of real-world sources determines whether our featuring an image is shocking to them or not. I haven't done a literature search on autofellatio, and have not read many sources about it, but my sense is that images like the one we have are not commonly used to illustrate this topic. Hence its presence on our page is unexpected, shocking, and puts us out of the mainstream. --JN466 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, that's just your opinion. Wikipedia in that regard is not mainstream. We are a general and a specialist encyclopedia. If your goal is to change the rule so that images like the one used in Autofellatio would be removed then make mine a "strong" oppose. :) ~~
            • Note that it is not just my opinion that Wikipedia is not mainstream in that regard. It is yours too. We should be mainstream, to appeal to a wide demographic, just like we privilege mainstream sources in textual content, and give lesser weight to fringe views. Of course, if reputable specialist sources use images like the autofellatio one, then I don't have a problem with us using it either. However, to my knowledge that hasn't been demonstrated. --JN466 15:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can we separate proposals? Ones with surprise, titulate are different from the original called #4. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea. I don't know if I agree with proposal 4 or not. But I definitely don't agree with Jayen466's combination. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've separated them now. Please add some feedback to the original Proposal 4. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Perfectly appropriate images may surprise, shock or titillate. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We'll get even more complaints about perfectly normal (if disgusting-looking) medical images, e.g., "I almost threw up when I saw that picture of a bloody tumor. You're not supposed to have 'shocking' pictures, and that one shocked me so badly it turned my stomach." The wordier proposals above are clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The thing that everyone seems to agree on is the first part, "Images should be used to illustrate the subject of an article" The last part "and should not surprise, shock, or titillate. As those terms are all subjective. The editors of the article should determine if an image accurately depicts the topic. If accurately depicting the topic surprises, shocks or titillates some readers, that is unimportant. Some readers are easily surprised, or aroused, and that is their personal issue. If editors have a choice of several images that accurately depict the topic, they should chose the one that seems to depict the topic the best. As we have a disclaimer, readers should expect to find images that may surprises or offend them. Atom (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy&oldid=415622141"