Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Amendment 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:59, 25 July 2006

Previous discussion

Previous discussion, albeit not about this specific amendment, can be found here:

east .718 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments to the amendment

Comment below... ed g2s • talk 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, who's going to fight out the hundred thousand battles it'll take to enforce this? --Carnildo 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this is the point of making it policy. ed g2s • talk 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be enforced by speedy deletion, there'll be a great deal of edit warring and arguing involved to convince each person that their pet article doesn't need all those decorative images, and yes, that image is indeed decorative under the Fair Use policy. --Carnildo 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo, i'll be ready to help. However, given the opposition below, I do not think this will be a good idea. I have face some opposition when I began to do exactly what is proposed here (not only with fair use, but non-commercial images), but sooner or later, something has to be addressed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much of our Wikipedia:Image use policy do we want to base around users who are not committed to making a maximally free and reusable encyclopedia? I think that it is the underlying question in all of these recent conversations and proposals. Jkelly 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Everybody here truthfully wants to improve Wikipedia, but we seem to disagree on which is the most important, Visual pleasedness or Freeness. --Abu Badali 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely issues about where to draw the line. At a certain point freeness gets in the way of quality content. But there is also a point where sacrificing the freeness becomes a problem. So really have to come to an agreement about where to draw the line in order to determine the final wording of this point (FUC#8). Jay32183 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, I would say that using images only when it's he subject of significant discussion and provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text is a good place to draw this line. --Abu Badali 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need a cleaner definition of cannot be conveyed by text before I can agree or disagree with that. Saying some one was on a magazine cover once and showing the magazine is definitely not something we should be doing. If we aren't careful with our phrasing some people may think that if you describe what something looks like you can't show an image. The article Bulbasaur uses four fair use claims, which I feel are all validated by the context of the article. But if the cannot be conveyed by text is too strictly applied then the lead image wouldn't qualify because there is a paragraph describing what a Bulbasaur looks like. I don't think it was your intent to remove images like that, but we should watch our words so other people don't. Jay32183 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, there is absolutely nothing stopping from someone using WP content to delete images. I have said this time after time after time: what others do is of no legal concern of us or the wikimedia foundation — we are no their lawyers. If someone copies Honus Wagner then it is their responsibility to ensure the content is used legally. From Wikipedia:Public domain:

For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries.

"Fair use" has no concept outside of the united states; "public domain" is questionable on where it applies. It is up to the reuser to ensure they are using the content as the laws applies to them (lex loci solutionis). If the law of their land forbids fair use then they can delete it. If the law of their land does not consider an image in public domain then they can delete it. If the law of their land forbids copyleft licenses then they can't use any content from WP. If they wish to ignore their laws then it is their issue to deal with. Remember: ignorantia juris non excusat. We can certainly try to avoid obvious legal issues and be as conscious as we want, but at the end of the day it is up to the reuser of the content to make sure they stay legal: not us. Cburnett 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are already building a free encyclopedia, not something to be forked into one. --Abu Badali 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say that if the image meets all the criteria on at least one page (including point 8), the image is safe to keep and use on any other page it may be useful without meeting all fair-use within the context of that page.--Will2k 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We will point to this policy when removing an image from some article. The image use must follow the policy, not the image itself. And of course, orphan fair use images will be eventually deleted. I can think of lot's of cases we will be using this to remove images from articles. Number one will be passages like "John Smith was once in the cover of So-so Magazine" being added to articles just to justify the presence of a magazine cover. The information that he was on a magazine cover (even if considered "essential") can be "easly conveyed with text".

But maybe we should add something more do discourage editors from changing the article to fit the image. I have seen this more than once, where, after some image use has been disputed, some text is added to the article as to increase the image's importance. Like, after removing some randommly added tv-screenshot used to illustrate a person (and not for critical commentary on the tv program), the image is readded toghether with a line like "Jonh Smith became even more famous after using his red jacket and blue jeans in Davine Lettergirl talk show...". --Abu Badali 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good idea. I think if the image improves the article we should strive to make that connection obvious and abundant. If the image is not clearly discussed in the article, we should first try to see if an improvement to the text of the article is warranted. If so, then improving the text to discuss the image is a much better solution than deleting the image. Here is an example:

Imagine Jo Bob is a baseball player who is ambidextrous and that his article carries a picture of his rookie baseball card, which is not mentioned in the article. One solution is to remove the image. A better option is to improve the article with: "Because Jo Bob is an ambidextrous and a switch hitter, he signed his rookie card (pictured) twice, once with each hand."

We should work to better integrate the content rather than defaulting to trying to remove it. Johntex\^talk 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of edition that I think hurts Wikipedia. I don't consider adding (or sometimes creating) a line of text information just to prettend some given random picture is important is "improving" an article. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Garion96 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should remind people that the existing policy, not the one up for discussion, requires the fair use justifications to be on the image page, not on the article page. The article page is supposed to have an invisible note saying "see image page for fair use rationale" or something similar. The reason behind this is to avoid bad writing by having to interrupt the flow of an article to justify an image. Also remember that decorative is not the key to the existing policy we are debating. We are not supposed to say "If it is decorative then remove it" but "If it does not contribute significantly to an article, such as indentifying the subject or illustrating a relevant point or section of the text then remove it." It is ok to be decorative if it makes a siginificant contribution. Jay32183 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this amendment does is exactly clarify ths point. What do you understand for "contribute significantly to an article"? For me, it means that the image "provides essential information that can't be conveyed with text". If we're going to understand "contribute significantly" as simply "indentifying the subject or illustrating a relevant point or section of the text", then we will be allowing any copyrighted image to be used wherever it fits. For instance, almost any image from Reuters or Associated Press would "indentify the subject" of some article or "illustrate a relevant point or section of the text" of some other article. But as long as the image do not provides essential information that can't be conveyed with text, we can't simply use them without violating the copyright owner's rights. This policy text must be changed to clarify this and this amendment does exactly that. --Abu Badali 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we aren't discussing whether or not this is legal. This is about the Wikipedia policy, which does impose more constraints than the US copyright act does. I'm trying to argue assuming all legal aspects and all the other points in Wikipedia policy are followed. The baseball card image on Honus Wagner would be forbidden under the amendment, yet it is currently given as an example of a valid fair use claim. The page contains no information describing the actual image, and the image does not provide new information. The relevant section of the article only discusses the historical and cultural significance, the image only serves to illustrate the card. Now how could this be the example of fair use if the intention of this guideline in the original text was not to make sure subjects could be visually identified, or relevant points or sections illustrated. If the amendment were only about clarification then all the currently list examples of proper fair use would still be proper fair use. We also could not make the amendment the other way and claim clarification, if we made a current example of an invalid fair use claim valid, such as using a baseball card to identify a player. I do disagree with a fellow objector to this amendment, that saying he signed the card is enough to show the card. The new text is trivial, and we can't illustrate trivia; the text would be frowned upon by FAC reviewers. But I do argue that it is the relevance of the text not the amount of text that matters. Amount of images per word, or words per image is a style issue, not a fair use issue. Jay32183 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball card image on Honus Wagner would not be forbidden under the amendment because it's a public domain image and this amendment only deals with fair use images. --Abu Badali 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is still being used to show what type of text would qualify as fair use should the baseball card still not be public domain. This amendment would not allow the type of text there to do so. Jay32183 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clarified to allow most of these fair use images. Something with an example, like List of Lost episodes is a justified use of fair use images on wikipedia. After the images have been restored to that page, of course. - Peregrinefisher 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not necessary to add the bit about free alternative to FUC#8, as it is already FUC#1. They appear on the same page and there is no need for the policy to be that redundant. Jay32183 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Remove "...or a free alternative" as it do not adds much. --Abu Badali 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having some confusion about what the proposed amendment says and what I think it means to say. The use of the word images is paricularly giving me issue. It seems like it would require elaborate discussion of a small part of something for images chosen to illustrate the whole of something. Perhaps we can change images to media. That way an article about a film can use a film screenshot without having to go a an artistic diatribe about the single frame that was chosen. The media specific requirements for screenshots ask for critical commentary and analysis about the program and its contents. A change from images to media would also prevent us from having to have this discussion again when people start "abusing" sound clips. Do people think this is a good idea or have I missed the intent of the amendment. Jay32183 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say change it to "content" as it should apply to text as well. User:Angr 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We can't be using text purely "decoratively" either. Jay32183 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the way it is phrased right now it forbids all fair use of text, because we would only allow a text that consists of information that can't be conveyed by text. --Abu Badali 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a problem. I thought can't be conveyed by text could use some cleaning up anyway, because debates will arise about whether an image can ever be conveyed by text, and "you have to see it to believe it". I'm pretty sure the entire point of the amendment is to prevent arguements from going in circles. Jay32183 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clear that it is the "esssential information" that needs to be impossible to be conveyed with text, and not the image itself. As in the example already used in the discussion, altough we can't convey all the information contained in a magazine cover only with text, when the essential information is simply "John Smith was on the cover of the Dada Magazine in December 2006", it can be conveyed with text. This would also be true for "John Smith played Hamlet in a 2005 adaption of the text for the big screen" or "John Smith hosts a talk show in channell 42". Maybe, it would be more correct to state that instead of "provide essential information", the media/content must be the essential information. The amendment could read instead "Specifically, content must be essential information that can't be conveyed with text, and itself subject of significant discussion". --Abu Badali 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot better. It makes it clear you can't stick magazine covers anywhere you want, but it let's you use the magazine cover when the magazine is the topic of the article or section of the article. I haven't found any good examples for placing a magazine cover in a biography yet, but it this phrasing would allow it for particularly notable instances that would warrant significant discussion. Jay32183 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the ammendment

I am strongly opposed to this ammendment. I think the existing wording is fine and the new wording is too restrictive. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amended wording is terrible. It can be interpreted to apply to almost every article on wikipedia, making almost every image invalid. Wikipedia is a website and an encyclopedia. Therefore, it must accomodate both requirements:

It must be visually pleasing (ie. using imagery to represent what the page is about)
It must convey accurate information on encyclopediac subjects

The original wording allows the image itself to be part of the discussion of the subject material, the proposed amendment denies the image the right to contribute to the discussion but forces the image to be THE subject of discussion. --Will2k 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image may contribute to the discussion if it conveys unique information. If it just illustrates the text information, it's not essential, and we should only use unfree images on an free-encyclopedia when it's really essential.

The fact that "it can be interpreted to apply to almost every article" is only a consequence of the rampant fair use abuse on wikipedia. Being relaxed in allowing unfree images discourage people from finding/producing free images, and I see the production and collection of free content as one of the most important requirements of Wikipedia (even more important than being a visually pleasing website) --Abu Badali 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where free images simply are not available. If every non public domain and non creative commons image is removed from Wikipedia, which seems to be the goal here, this place would barely have any images at all. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we have over 100,000 free use images. If there is no free use image around try makeing one.Geni 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make a free image of things in film, television, comics, or video games. Even if i drew a picture of Homer Simpson and said anyone can use it for anything, it is still not free use. Fox owns a trademark on Homer Simpson, so you have to claim fair use even with an original drawing. Jay32183 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well technicaly you could comission one. For live action you can use picuters of the actors for some stuff and very limted fair use for others. Wikipedia is not however short of images. It is certianly not short of images with questionable fair use claims.Geni 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One image of a character from The Simpsons (or any other cartoon or comics character) in the article dealing with the character itself is a good example of Fair Use of an image (imho). The image uniquely describes the character, and we can't expect to someone take a picture of homer in the streets and release it. I don't see how this policy or this amandment would forbid this use. About films in general, it's not always necessary to show how each character looks like. A few exception apart, all characters will look exactly like the ator/actress portraying them, and we can get free images of those people. As a rule of thumb, if the look of a given character is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, you don't need a image to show how he looks like. (and of course, adding some text to describe his look and justify the image presence will no "improve" the article). --Abu Badali 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Agree with Will2k, except I emphasize that this amendment would make almost every fair use image invalid. This is clearly an ideological goal of certain fringe wikipedians, to remove large numbers of fair use images by hook or by crook. The way in which this amendment was introduced, with no notice on a relevant RFC page, calls the good faith of certain anti-fair use dogmatists into question. - Mcasey666 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not goint to "make almost every fair use image invalid". It will make the fair use policy more explicity, which will help to avoid misinterpretations that make Wikipedia depart from it's original goal of being a source and colletion of free (relevant) content. --Abu Badali 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What it would actually do is to make Wikipedia less useful by forcing us to remove useful images that are being used legally. Johntex\^talk 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unfree images which contains only information that can be conveyed with text are only useful to demotivate editors from creating/finding free content. And to repeat the "de:" argument for the 100th time, the German Wikipedia do not seems "less usefull". --Abu Badali 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This ammendment is being introduced so the author of it can begin a mass deletion of images. The discussion here is going just fine. We don't need a new rule thrown in just so ed gets his way. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see this as a "new rule". I see this as an more explicit restatement of a frequently-circumventted existing rule. --Abu Badali 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely 100% oppose: Ed is acting in very bad faith by proposing this without mention on the RFC talk page. Ed can't get his way by argument so his alternative is to make his definition of "decorative" the definition in policy. Sorry, ed, this amendment is a very sad move on your part. Cburnett 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Decorative is not intended to be the operative word in that statement. People seem to be forgetting that the text is not supposed to discuss the images, the images are supposed to illustrate the text. This is ture of all writing that is not intended to be an in depth analysis of a particular image. This proposal is entirely a move to remove all fair use content from Wikipedia, which is a very bad idea. Providing in depth content is more important than remaining free in all forms, as it is impossible for the primary goal of anything to be free. If remaining free gets in the way of completing content, which includes visually representing an inherently visual medium, then we cannot and must not remain 100% free. Jay32183 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The text is supposed to disscuss the images in the case of fair use. If the article/section is not about some image, we shouldn't add a "fair use" image. Providing in depth content is not more important than remaining free in all forms. We are a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia, not a random cool website. It deeply saddens me to hear that you don't believe it's possible to build a 100% free encyclopedia. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of the primary function of anything cannot be to remain free, as freedom is not a function. I understand that this is not a random cool website, it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is the identifier, free is the qualifier. Using fair use to only discuss the image rather than using fair use images to illustrate discussion contradicts the purpose of fair use and of images in general. My point about providing content is actually what it says in the section describing why Wikipedia allows fair use images in the first place. Also this amendment would invalidate the fair use claims of things currently listed as acceptable fair use in the fair use policy, notably the use of baseball cards such as Honus Wagner. With any product, Wikipedia is a product, altering it to meet customer needs is more important than defending the existing product. Jay32183 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia as a product with the mission to please its costumers at whatever means. This project has a very clear goal and you seem to miss it. --Abu Badali 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does have a goal. A two point goal, however one is meaningless without the other. This is an encyclopedia the provides free content. Now removing the free you still have an encyclopedia, but remove the content and you're left with a free nothing. If free was the main point we might as well save the time and effort and do nothing at all. By the way, Wikipedia is a product by definition, so your feeling is actually irrelevant. It is also remarkably insulting to call my points sad, do not do that again. Jay32183 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should tell the guys at de.wiki how inferior their project is for only use free content. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if germany had the concept of fair use... Cburnett 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German wikipedia is hosted on the U.S. by a U.S. company, just like any other Wikipedia. Consider they may have decided on either to allow fair use images only based on the kind of encyclopedia they want to build, and not really felt constrained by German copyrigth laws. --Abu Badali 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose as per Johntex. I am also particularly concerned about this part: "images must... provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text." This can be used against almost every image on Wikipedia, which is obviously both unwanted and detrimental. east .718 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again, if this can invalidade almost every fair use claim on Wikipedia, it's because fair use abuse is already rampant. This amandment is inline with the original goals of Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no problem with curbing abuse of fair use, but we need to find some sort of middle ground, and this surely isn't it. Take for example, the lead image in ~~Vietnam War#Opposition to the war~~. This image does not contribute much to the article, and it certainly can be described using text. Does that mean we supercede the historical significance of this image for the sake of adhering to a higher standard of fair use than what the law calls for? east .718 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may be wrong, but I believe that this image is famous enough to deserve an article of it's own. If the image is discussed (really discussed, not just barely mentioned) in the Vietnam War article, I believe it's fair use to use a low resolution version of it. But if it's being used just to illustrate what napalm is, what terrible things wars can bring upon, etc... then it's not unique, and shouldn't be used. --Abu Badali 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image, by nature of its award status, does warrant an article on its own. However, its use in napalm is tangential at best (you won't catch me using it on that page unless the subject of the image can be intermixed in with napalm — but this is not what you're saying). Using Image:SouthPark101.gif in List of South Park episodes is not tangential since the episode is directly discussed and described. I would go so far to say that Image:TrangBang.jpg on napalm is no where near Image:SouthPark101.gif on list of South Park episodes. Cburnett 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies, I did mean to talk about its usage in napalm, but had the wrong link in my clipboard. east .718 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The images this amendmant is designed to illegalize are important in an internet encyclopedia, even a free one. - Peregrinefisher 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ammendment is silly (PS: A concensous has definitley been reached here; which is the ammendment is opposed and should be disqualified). Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Avoid declaring the disscussion over. You're not the only one here that wants to be heard. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Sir, but that was an opinion. I never made a declaration. If i did i ould of used a pretty font ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note that this is not at all a drive for a consensus, given that there's no generic "support" section at present. Anything that would restrict (or eliminate) fair use on Wikipedia is fine by me. --Improv 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noticed that the amendment causes the policy to contradict itself? The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Specifically, images must be the subject of significant discussion and provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text or a free alternative. Any other use is considered decorative. Thats how it will read if the amendment passes. For those who don't know "e.g." means for example. So identifying the subject or illustrating the text are examples of contributing significantly, yet if in image is being used in either of those manners it won't meet the second half of the criterion. If the image is identifying the subject of the article then it isnt the subject of the significant discussion. If the image is illustrating the text then it isn't providing information the text couldn't. By definition, illustrations clarify text, they do not add new information. Therefore the amendment cannot be passed without significant rewording. Jay32183 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The policy is for fair use in general, not just images. The second part clarifies the rules for images. ed g2s • talk 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... it still contradicts itself.. the first part is about text, images, sounds, etc, and the second part is about images only, right? -- Ned Scott 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose -- Ned Scott 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the motivation is good, to try to come up with clearer boundaries, but I don't think this quite captures our intuition. (Sorry, I don't have a better alternative.) Stan 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really is to soon for people to be "voting". The idea is to dicuss and fine tune the text of the amendment first. Of course if you object to the principle, by all means say so, but this is not a final version. ed g2s • talk 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely time for voting. You can't win the discussion elsewhere so you want to start another discussion here? Most of the opposition votes here read is opposition on principle in both the tune of the amendment (i.e., "fair use" == Bad Thing) and your sidestepping an existing discussion. Cburnett 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is often useful to start out with a poll to see what the starting point is. Johntex\^talk 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I concur with what's been said above; the proposed amendment is *far* too restrictive. —Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the ammendment

I would support this. Unless we can keep strict control over "fair use", we may have to eliminate it altogether. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) moved from project page to discussion Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. --Improv 00:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ //o s p 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to hear your rationale for supporting this amendment when I don't recall (I most certainly could be wrong on this point) any of you giving input at the discussion. Every oppose vote has an explanation and has at least some rebuttal by the support side. I would just like to hear some input on it. Cburnett 06:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That vote was indeed cast prematurely, though the policy in its current form does allow for a bit of interpretation and I think it would behoove us to clarify the terms of use for fair use imagery. I'm perfectly aware that part of this discussion originates from image use in lists, or information presented in list form rather. If I've read the {{tv-screenshot}} tag correctly (or any other fair use tag for that matter), it states that the individual screenshot may be used for identification and critical commentary (as in not one without the other, to put it bluntly) while item #8 of the criteria currently suggests that it may be used solely to identify the subject (as in no commentary or particular context required). Again, please, correct me if I'm mistaken. Combination 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (formerly "OSP")[reply]

So now the this issue depends on the definition of "and"? :) If a friend said to me: "you may use my gun for self-defense, hunting, and target practice." My friend could alternatively have said: "you may use my gun for self-defense and you may use my gun for hunting and you may use my gun for target practice." That doesn't mean I can only use the gun when target shooting game animals that are charinging me in a life threatening way? Naw. The list of three actions is additive not multiplicative. Meaning, my friend has granted me three permissions: self-defense, hunting, and target practice.

Conversely if I said, "to make cookies you need to mix suger, flour, and eggs", then it means you need all three to call the result a cookie (bear with me on that one!). Less than that is not a cookie.

If I was a linguist or an english buff then I could probably whip out a word that describes the difference of usage, but I'm not so I can't.

The words "identification" and "critical commentary" do not appear in the US code regarding fair use. They are made up by wikipedians for wikipedians. "Critical commentary" is just as vague as "decoration" and "and" (apparently :) and, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder — as the various discussions clearly demonstrate. Cburnett 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support. It doesn't really go far enough in restricting copyvio images, but it could work as a compromise. User:Angr 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering consensus

To be done once all amendments have been made.

Village pump

To invite more people to discuss this topic I posted a message in the Village pump about this proposal. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This amendment is out of process

Discussion was already ongoing at:

Posing this ammendment to the policy while active discussion is going on elsewhere is disruptive and confusing. Johntex\^talk 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge that further comment on this topic be made at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Johntex\^talk 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was going round in circles, as with all other discussions. The second discussion you mention had completely stopped, and was in the archive until I copied it onto the active page in order to link here... It also shows that this proposal has been on the table since before the RfC. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you did this shows you are sneaky and desperate to get your proposal passed, and if all discussions go around in circles. why create a new one? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why create a new one? He wasn't winning the discussion so his alternative was to subvert the discussion and propose an amendment that would nullify the discussion. Sneaky is word to describe what he did. Very bad faith on his part and he has yet to defend his action of doing so even once. Cburnett 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ed g2s, please don't take this as a personal attack—as it's not—but I noticed that you've been doing a lot of work on removing improperly used fair-use images, and some of your past removals have been disputed. This, combined with "subverting the discussion," as Cburnett put it, leads me to believe that you're acting with a bias, or in the worst case, in bad faith. east .718 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We should concentrate more on the arguments and on the Amendment itself. I have seen the ad hominem argument too many times on this discussion. --Abu Badali 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are new to this discussion, but the argument was and is being conducting elsewhere (to which you have never been apart of so please join in since you are intested in discussing). If you read the validity section on the ad hominem article you will find an example about perjury. This is a close parallel. I reject an amendment put forth by Ed on the grounds that his intentions were not honest and in good faith. Put into analogy: it doesn't matter if the witness said anything of truth if they also lied because their credibility is shot. Ed wasn't winning the discussion and his choice was to subvert it, which means to me that he was willing to forego any "truth" he may have said by "lying". Call it ad hominems if you want (though they are not fallacious) but that doesn't change the facts about Ed's actions. Ed has yet to once defend his actions so are you willing to do so for him? I would hope not...

I am not making personal attack but I am definitely calling his intentions and actions directly into question. I would give him more respect if he explained his actions than if he continues to ignore my questions. The only thing we have across the internet is credibility backed by actions and words. Without credibility how can you have trust and respect? If Ed's actions and words give way to acting in bad faith then how can I trust that this amendment has the best of wikipedia in mind? Ed has repeatedly stated that his belief against fair use is on behalf of WP. I believed him in good faith but his actions since have shot his credibility with me. This means creating this amendment almost solely rests on his motivations which seem to me quite so in Bad Faith and why I wholly oppose such an amendment. Cburnett 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we should not be considering any ammendment that is made seperate to ongoing discussion. To propose such an ammendment is misguided at best and bad faith at worst. Johntex\^talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal started weeks before the RfC, and is wider in it's coverage. It is also entirely your POV that you are "winning" the argument about lists. I don't see anything wrong with having both debates open simultaneously. It is hardly beyond Wikipedians to have two discussions at the same time just because they overlap. If you are accusing me of have "Bad Faith" motivations, what exactly are you saying my motivations are? ed g2s • talk 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You dont see anything wrong do you? How about clarity? Also to quote you partly: some people may not see anything wrong with fair use images. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like that. The proposal page and this talk page were created on July 21, 2006. There was discussion in the RfC well before that, you even made a comment on July 20, 2006. Maybe I'm missing a key piece of information, but it does appear that the RfC was going before this amendment was officially proposed. Although I disagree with the spirit of your proposal and I cannot allow factually incorrect information to sway the outcome, I do think the discussion here should not be about your actions. The proposal is on the table, we all have to deal with it. If anyone wishes to seek diciplinary actions against some one for "bad faith" it should be done through the proper channels and not interfer with other discussions. Jay32183 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're looking in the wrong place. On Wikipedia talk:Fair use there is a discussion of amending FUC#8 which predates the RfC. ed g2s • talk 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the discussion, and that the discussion started prior to the RfC. This proposal, even is a direct result of that discussion, was started after the RfC, and it would have been polite to invite contributers from all other relevant discussions. I will assume you merely forgot to mention it. I still maintain that our time would be better spent discussing the actual proposed amendment, than who did what or who said what. I have suggested an amendment to the amendment, which hasn't been discussed at all. It's at least worth a look, and does not have any effect on the spirit of the original proposal. Jay32183 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone else wishes to as well as me i would be willing to seek diciplinary actions. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I see. On Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists#What a joke ([1]):

Stop analysisng the letter of the law, and appreciate the spirit of our policy instead. ed g2s • talk 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 created on ([2]):

...that it should be clarified by appending: ... ed g2s • talk 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So you went from "stop analyzing the letter of the law" to "changing the letter of the law" in 19 minutes. And furthermore you didn't given even a mention on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists that you proposed it when you recognize in that same posting at 13:05 that the definition of decoration is key to this discussion because YOU DEFINED "DECORATIVE". I haven't seen you give a cohesive argument (it's always "I say so" arguments), you don't acknowledge any points by the opposing side, and you create an amendment that is the key pin to the lists discussion. So, yeah, you tell me how that's not questionable and/or bad faith editting (honestly, I've called you out several times on it). Cburnett 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created an amendment. I have proposed an amendment and opened a discussion on it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with starting a discussion on such a matter. ed g2s • talk 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Whatever word you want to call your action (I will continue to use "create"), you created Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. You created it in mid-discussion in full knowledge that this conversation is hinging upon the definition of "decorative". How can I believe you did it in good faith when you didn't notify this discussion? Your actions speak louder and more truthful than your words. Cburnett 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think I'm stupid enough to think that its creation would go unnoticed by anyone in that discussion? Some of the people seem to be watching my every contribution. Such an accusation is bad faith in itself. I provided a link on WP:FU which is where I was branching the discussion from. ed g2s • talk 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone would enjoy it if the discussion about blaming people for things would stop so we can focus on the actual issue, clarifying FUC#8. Sure Ed didn't say anything about this at the RfC, but it may have just slipped his mind. There's no way to prove that he intentionally tried to leave everyone else out of the discussion. Even if it were intentional, which I am not claiming it was, then getting Ed blocked would not stop this proposal, he just wouldn't be able to discuss it. That would be really unfair since he was key to getting it tabled, we should let him speak, and not just to defend himself. I'm also pretty sure that CBurnett would not have gotten so aggressive if the responces he got were oops, it slipped my mind. I'm sorry to have excluded you guys. Now I hope we can put this personal spat aside and get back onto the real discussion. Jay32183 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I would also like to point out that after creating this page (~14:00 21/7) I went out (see contribs) until ~19:00 by which time a link had already been posted on the RfC, followed by accusations of acting in bad faith. Also talk of blocking me is quite frankly absurd, seeing as I have done absolutely nothing wrong, "out of process" (whichever process is being referred to?) or contrary to any policy. ed g2s • talk 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot twice? You should of notified users when you got back both times. Simply bad faith you didnt. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ::::That could be a problem. I thought ''can't be conveyed by text'' could use some cleaning up anyway, because debates will arise about whether an image can ever be conveyed by text, and "you have to see it to believe it". I'm pretty sure the entire point of the amendment is to prevent arguements from going in circles. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 :::::It should be clear that it is the "''esssential information''" that needs to be impossible to be conveyed with text, and not the image itself. As in the example already used in the discussion, altough we can't convey all the information contained in a magazine cover only with text, when the ''essential information'' is simply "''John Smith was on the cover of the Dada Magazine in December 2006''", it <u>can</u> be conveyed with text. This would also be true for "''John  Smith played Hamlet in a 2005 adaption of the text for the big screen''" or "''John Smith hosts a talk show in channell 42''". Maybe, it would be more correct to state that instead of "''<u>provide</u> essential information''", the media/content must <u>be</u> the essential information. The amendment could read instead "''Specifically, content must be essential information that can't be conveyed with text, and itself subject of significant discussion''". --[[User:Abu badali|Abu Badali]] 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
+::::::That is a lot better. It makes it clear you can't stick magazine covers anywhere you want, but it let's you use the magazine cover when the magazine is the topic of the article or section of the article. I haven't found any good examples for placing a magazine cover in a biography yet, but it this phrasing would allow it for particularly notable instances that would warrant significant discussion. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 ==Opposition to the ammendment==
 I am '''strongly opposed''' to this ammendment.  I think the existing wording is fine and the new wording is too restrictive.  [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)