User talk:Alasdair/NFCC

Since you closed the discussion saying the image does significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic, could you explain how it does so? It seems to me that no person at the discussion gave any explanation of how this image increases understanding in a way words cannot, or a reason why its omission is detrimental to a reader's understanding. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been expecting queries about that closure. The following two points in the rationale were the deciding factor around the keep:

• The image gives immediate identification for a reader of the section entitled "Controversy" in the article on intelligent design.
• This image adds explanatory power through the intended first visual impact for the intended audience of the magazine.

Your argument in the discussion was that "impact" does nothing to improve a reader's understanding. In my opinion it does. An editor may try his best to describe the controversy using text, but in the end, people are less likely to understand such complicated prose, if the image is replaced by a detailed description. With the presence of the picture, the impact alone could stimulate them, causing the idea should jump right into their heads. I understand that many smart people exist in this world that can visualize the message in their heads, but in reality, most others don't. Hence the closing statement.--Alasdair 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue with "identification" is that it is not a use that the NFCC permits; section titles are perfectly sufficient to identify sections. What exactly do you think the "impact" of this image explains to the reader? I don't understand what fact about intelligent design the image conveys to the reader, apart from the fact there was a story in Time about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The focus here is that identification alone is not used to justify the use of the image. The identification simply adds to reinforce the more important reason: That impact of a picture stimulates people to think deeper about the subject.--Alasdair 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm not phrasing my question correctly. What fact or information about the abstract concept of intelligent design does this image convey? Or are you saying that any image that encourages the reader to think deeper about the topic is acceptable? Our policies require minimal use of nonfree images, and just "encouraging thought" doesn't seem like a minimal use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, that one should have been handled by an admin who normally works with IFD - Howcheng, Nv8200p, Quadell, Mecu, etc. This is a highly contentious issue and your close looks more like you are injecting your own preference rather than applying the policies. IFD, unlike AFD, is less about consensus and more about policy. If an image violates policies, it goes - if it doesn't, it stays. --B 23:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job Alasdair. I'm glad someone around here has balls and doesn't kowtow to the right. Ignore the complaints. You have support from a strong contingent of admins and editors. Be brave, don't let certain admins who have their own agenda bully you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're a new admin, and a few mistakes are normal. The Intelligent design article is already unusual as one of a very few articles that has multiple nonfree cover images on it; this is mostly due to a large number of vocal editors there. But it's only a matter of time until the images are removed. So you don't need to worry about this close, since everything will work itself out in the end. My real point was that your closing comment wasn't particularly clear. You didn't really reference the areas of policy you were referring to, and your comments above seem to be a little unfamiliar with image policy. The image policy itself is somewhat subtle, and there are many users who seem to willfully ignore, or at least distort, our goal of producing an encyclopedia that is as free as possible. So a clear understanding of the policy is necessary when closing IFD discussions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand behind your decision, which clearly is supported by policy and consensus.--Filll 02:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair, welcome to the often interesting world of WP adminship ;-) ... OK, maybe mixed emotions (;-/) ______ First please let me say I obviously agree with User:Filll and User:Orangemarlin on the issue of keeping this image. Second I should say that User:CBM and myself have already argued repeatedly and extensively and that there are no points on which we agree here at the moment. Third, I should say I partially agree with User:B, in that the closure is based upon a reasoning that differs with the basis on which the nominator brought it, which intended to focus primarily on NFCC #8. The issue, as identified by the nominator, was that NFCC #8 is inherently a subjective measure that amounts to an editorial judgment call, and thus is left to WP:Consensus. While the nominator allowed some wiggle room for any possible evidence that the image was in clear violation of the somewhat more precise NFCCs (especially #2, # 4-7, and 9-10, with some subjective measures in #1 and #3 as well), these more precise criteria that would allow the use of a word like "obvious" (e.g., "If an image violates policies, it goes - if it doesn't, it stays") used by User:B in her/his arguments had already been decided that the image met those criteria. Thus it came down to #8, whether it "significantly increases readers' understanding...". At the very least there was no consensus to delete, as had happened already in the previous IfD of this image, which, far from being a consensus to delete, was overwhelmingly a preference to keep.

I should also mention that the notion that the particular administrators mentioned by administrator User:B as "should have been handled by an admin who normally works with IFD" include at least two admins who as a matter of well established practice already have over a 100-1 ratio of delete-to-keep, and the other two mentioned admins are not frequently involved in IfD closures. I apologize to User:B, but that's in fact the way it is. .... Kenosis 06:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Kenosis' ratio is at least approximately correct, this gives rise to two possibilities:

• the 'regular' admins themselves very rarely encounter contested IfDs -- meaning that they'd have little additional experience with them than Alasdair; or
• they close contested IfDs in favour of deletion far more frequently than in favour of keeping -- leading to at least a suspicion of regulatory capture of these administrators by IfD regulars.

Either way, I don't think the introduction of 'new blood' into administration of this forum is unwarranted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Hrafn, if you hadn't already responded I would alter that last brief paragraph of mine from late last night. The point was that those two admins are known to be a "slam dunk", a virtual sure bet to delete in a contested NFC proceeding such as this, and Quadell has already weighed in several times as being in favor of deletion of this particular image.

On the issue of the "over 100-1 ratio" I should have been much more precise or found another way of illustrating the point. But it may be interesting enough to mention a bit further as an aside. Some admins tend to be more oriented than others towards deletion than they are towards restoration, and by extension may be generally more inclined towards deleting rather than keeping an image. In this view of things, I'm referring to a general orientation, not the stance on NFC specifically. According to User:ST47's recent tally at User:ST47/Stats: (caution here, because these tallies are all deletions and restorations, including images and other media files, articles, etc., and also not necessarily limited to deletions and restorations involving an XfD, and also doesn't include XfD closures as "keep"): Quadell had 76281 deletions, 235 restorations (about a 300-1 ratio); Nv8200p had 45667 deletions, 96 restorations (about a 450-1 ratio). Other strong advocates of image deletion, for example, include ElinorD (5749 to 49, roughly 100-1 ratio) and Angr (31307 to 173, almost 200-1 ratio). And nobody beats Misza13's track record in terms of pure numbers (126217-to-232, about a 500-1 ratio of deletion to restoration, mostly for clear technical violations, and many under the CFSD). A more moderate balance by an admin who does not tend to take an aggressive deletion stance might be, say, WJBscribe with 6867 deletions, 161 restorations (roughly 40-1 ratio); Gurch 36,411 deletions, 1467 restorations (roughly 20-1 ratio), Tom Harrison (2800-to-57, a roughly 50-to-one ratio), RHaworth (31475-1951, a roughly 16-1 ratio), etc.

Again, I don't mean to make too much of this kind of stat, because it goes way beyond the issue of how the admin is disposed to treat contested NFC files such as this one and the stat doesn't specify what kind of deletion or restoration, nor does it include "keeps" per se. But the more direct point I intended to make is that Quadell and Nv8200p have 1) already shown themselves to be opposed to the use of NFC in the article on intelligent design, 2) they have a general predisposition to be more aggressive in deletion on the whole, and 3) both tend to have a very strict interpretation of the Board Resolution, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. ... Kenosis 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ... Oh, and incidentally, Quadell and I happen to have done some very productive things in tandem with one another, e.g. on the issue of public domain. So nothing against Quadell, or Nv8200p either, both of whom I have a great deal of respect for-- my point is just that from both an ideological and practical standpoint they're historically much more strongly disposed toward deletion of fair-use NFC than are many other admins. ... Kenosis 17:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair, I neglected to mention WP:DGFA, which guides the closing administrator that "when in doubt, don't delete". May I suggest the possibility of making a supplementary note to the closing comments, to the effect that this IfD clearly failed to achieve consensus to delete? While cogent arguments were made by both supporters and opponents of the image, there was a 12-7 majority preference to keep the image. The nominator, the closing admin of the DrV, had already observed that the prime focus of the IfD was whether this image satisfied NFCC #8, and a substantial majority agreed that it did satisfy this criterion, in addition to satisfying all other WP:NFCCs. ... Kenosis 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still focusing on counting numbers of votes; the counts simply aren't that important. My assessment of the situation is that several editors from the intelligent design article want to use the image and are willing to stretch their interpretation of NFCC extremely thin in order to justify it, ignoring the spirit of NFCC and our goal to use no nonfree images when possible, and as few nonfree images as possible when they absolutely must be used. But the overall trend on WP is towards a tighter interpretation of NFCC, so it's just a matter of time until the relatively few articles like Intelligent design that use large numbers of nonfree images are cleaned up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure sounds like an agenda to me -- as if to say "tough luck folks, it doesn't matter what the clear majority or the consensus thinks, because that's what the policy says". Well, it's not what the policy says, as has already been properly identified by several admins, but is an editorial judgment call per NFCC #8 once all the other NFCC are met (I suppose you could also throw in that it's not absolutely "necessary" per the also subjective NFCC#3, but this one had been reduced to NFCC#8). Moreover, the policy itself was written largely by the same anti-fair-use advocates that regularly delete images and regularly show up at WP:NFC, Wikipedia:Fair-use review and several related project pages, and at deletion proceedings such as the one at issue here.

Troubling to me is that the statement that "vote counts simply aren't that important" is only one little baby step away from saying "consensus simply isn't that important". It presumes that local consensus by participants in an article always gets overruled when advocates of a partucular interpretation of a policy seek to overrule the local consensus. As a practical matter that may work with editors of articles on comic books and recording artists, but it didn't work here because the willingness to dig into the polcy issues, participate in them and proceed to explain the reasoning was far greater and in depth than it is on topics that are arguably of less importance to the public. That alone should have been adequate to defer to the local consensus on a policy that is inherently a subjective interpretation once the more precise NFCCs were fulfilled.

Add to that the fact that even policy-oriented administrators were divided on the issue of whether it satisfied NFCC #8 in the proceedings regarding deletion, and the fact that no advocates of deletion had meaningfully participated in the article other than to advocate deletion, and what you end up with is the obvious scenario wherein a certain group of deletion advocates are going from article to article removing images, substantially weighting the policy far in excess of what the Board required, using whatever justification they can think up in the moment. In this instance, the fact is that the consensus was that it met #8, and in the three deletion proceedings the clear majority was that it met #8, with only regular opponents of NFC arguing otherwise on various grounds and forming a vocal minority that prevented any consensus from occurring. So when this minority seeks to overtake the majority view on a particular, very debatable use of policy, now all of a sudden votes simply aren't that important, despite WP:DGFA's directive that "when in doubt, don't delete". Yes, to be straightforward about it, I'd say the agenda is fairly clear. As has been observed by a number of participants, this agenda often conflicts directly with the goal of seeking the highest possible quality of encyclopedic value. Carl already knows my opinion on this, which is that I and many others think it's an unfortunate compromise of quality with no actual gain in safety from lawsuits or any other concern that has a real effect on the concept of a "free encyclopedia". The reason is that these types of images are not only free, they're actually freer than a lot of the free-licensed content available for use on the wiki. ... Kenosis 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alasdair. I didn't comment in the IfD, but I am bit perplexed by your closing rationale. I may, however, be misunderstanding it. It seems like you are saying that fair use imagery cannot regularly be deleted because you think that "Using pure text without the image would be difficult to express the situation" (while there was not a consensus formed on that issue during the discussion - many clearly disagreed and their concerns did not seem to me to be adequately addressed) and that "I respect the opinions of the people who commented delete, but just because a number of people disagree with the explaination doesn't mean everyone else in the world would too". That last part especially ... if we applied that logic, it seems as if any non-free image with a fair use rationale would pass. Anyways, clarification would be appreciated. --Iamunknown 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My rationale, is that any fair use image that has a had a convincing (this is the important bit) fair use rationale that asserts significance, it will be kept. This rationale is intended for people unfamiliar with the article to know what's so special about the image, that it increases understanding, etc.--Alasdair 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the fair use rationale on this image is written so that it sounds convincing when read quickly, but it doesn't actually address the policy concerns it is supposed to address. It mentions things like "section identification" that are completely irrelevant to NFCC, and uses undefined terms like "impact" that don't actually explain how the image is claimed to increase readers' understanding, or how the omission of the image would be detrimental. This isn't surprising, since it was written to try to justify an image that is being used for decoration (section identification and visual impact). Unfortunately, many of the images in Intelligent design are used for decoration (the book covers and pictures of people speaking), and have similar flawed fair use rationales. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed over and over. After presenting this information to deletionists over and over, I and others get tired of repeating ourselves. The basic truth is, they will ignore anything ever said and any evidence in support of this images, always, in favor of their own narrow interpretations and biases. It is hopeless to "debate" with them because they do not hear the other side at all.--Filll 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at the IFD was "Keep as argued above.--Filll 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)". I'm listening - can you explain how exactly this image helps someone understand the concept of intelligent design? The people above you also gave very vague comments, made unsupported claims the image is iconic, or (for example Kenosis) gave very general comments that could apply to any image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl, your demands amount to demands for concrete proof that the image significantly enhances readers' understanding. The statement that the assertions of advocates of keeping this image were vague comments is highly misleading if not outrightly false. No concrete proof can be provided for a subjective criterion such as NFCC #8 one way or the other, which is why it must be left to the consensus process to decide. Here, at the very least, the deletion advocates failed completely to achieve a consensus with the large majority disagreeing with the deletion advocates. Any "attempts" by the deletion advocates at achieving consensus amounted to saying "it's our way or the highway". ... Kenosis 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, I've always been under the opposite impression: that those opposing deletion of images amount to saying "it's our way or the highway". I especially am given that impression when mine or someone else's views are merely labeled, with disdain, as "deletionism". Maybe we - i.e. the people suggesting an image be deleted and the people suggesting an image be kept - need to give each other the benefit of the doubt and refrain from marginalizing each others' views as "deletionism" or "inclusionism". I for one would be willing to work on my language, and would be appreciate such a change. --Iamunknown 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the edit summary of this comment is marked "response to Kenosis", why is the word "deletionism" mentioned? I am certain I've never used either the word "deletionist" or "deletionism". If there is an issue with a word or characterization someone has used, I would recommend taking the issue up with such person(s). .... Kenosis 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ... Incidentally, it's simply not true that "those opposing deletion of images amount to saying 'it's our way or the highway' ". For instance, when it was brought up that the Board resolution was explicit about not using non-free-licensed images of living persons and the policy WP:NFCC was explicit about it, the participants in that article, including myself, recognized the merits of that argument and rapidly proceeded to find a free-licensed image for the application (in that case William Dembski). In fact I personally put in a request with a photographer and so now we have at least two free-licensed images of Dembski, neither of which are quite as good as the image we previously had-- but the article contains the free-licensed image because the participants including myself were genuinely persuaded that the policy is clear on the issue and that it is the correct way of doing it. ... Kenosis 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your right, I am unaware where you have used the specific words "deletionist" or "deletionism". I was not citing particular diffs, but my general impression, which is rather fallible. Perhaps I conflated "deletion advocate" with "deletionist", as they seem to me to have some of the same connotations. I apologize for misrepresenting your words. I was also unaware of the discussion you describe. I think that there are also, however, similar discussions where someone who was convinced an image should be deleted later was persuaded otherwise. I, for one, was persuaded in our discussion regarding a photograph of a Nobel prize winner. I am aware of one current discussion at the COM:L talk page (on Commons) where someone who would probably be characterized as a "deletion advocate" was convinced otherwise. Thus a general characterization of "deletion advocates" as maintaining an "our way or the highway approach" is also simply not true. I am beginning to think that editors involved in image deletion debates, myself included, have quite a few misconceptions. I know I do. --Iamunknown 05:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)