Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Minimum of five supports for featured pictured candidates?

Recently (Nov. 2009) it was decided among contributors at featured pictures that new candidates should have to receive a minimum of five "supports" to be promoted. See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 25#Changing to Minimum of 5 Supports for the original discussion. To me, this seems to be extremely problematic, for the following reasons;

  1. Firstly, it goes against the principle that wikipedia is run based on consensus, consensus weighs support and opposition to a proposal/idea based on the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion, and the number of people who support or oppose a certain matter should not affect the outcome. Also, this "minimum of five supports" rule is going against the grain of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
  2. Secondly, FPC isn't a particularly crowded project (it seems to be more of a core of dedicated users); I recently nominated a piece of artwork, which subsequently collected one comment on the lack of sourcing and information on the original size, the sourcing was fixed, and the image went on to accumulate two supports, coming to a total of three in support, and no one in oppose, the most important thing to note here though is that the image had only been commented on by four users (including nom), so how on earth can it be expected to get five supports? Even if it was the best image on wikipedia it wouldn't have got five supports because five users did not comment on it.

It seems that before this change was implemented the rule was that images had to have a minimum of four supports, if there is not a consensus here to abolish the minimum support rule altogether then can we at least revert back to the original four support minimum rule?
Kind regards,SpitfireTally-ho! 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the general feeling has been that a lack of votes implies the image is neither compelling nor eye-catching. The image would, therefore, not meet criterion 3. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Makeemlighter. I know that I often choose to skip past an image that I would not support, but don't feel strongly enough to oppose either. If I were forced to choose, I'd usually oppose. So in a sense, I think a lack of votes is often indicative of apathetic opposition. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Having said that, it's probably only fair that those who do vote are the ones that determine whether it meets criteron 3, rather than assuming that it doesn't, based on the lack of votes. Technically I suppose we're not using the concept of quorum correctly though, since quorum is based on the number of votes in total, not just the number of support votes. Still, whatever the discussion on the academics of quorum, the minimum of 5 votes is something that has been agreed upon and I don't see the problem with keeping it as-is due to the reasoning behind non-voting mentioned by myself above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Unanimous support is now indicative of apathy? If an image is not aesthetically pleasing enough (criteria three) to support it, then oppose it, don't just put in place an automatic system that opposes it for one, because this system has three major flaws: Firstly, in that if only three users, excluding the nominator, actually review the image, then it will fail by default, regardless of whether it would have gained an unanimous support with a review by 30 users. Secondly, the automatic opposition put in place by default fails to provide constructive feedback, I would hope that if there is a slight blur on the image that prevents one from supporting, then I would hope that that user would oppose the image, and mention the blur, because there is then an opportunity for it to be fixed, whereas with the current system, there is no such chance of a suggestion, due to the apathetic nature of said system. Thirdly, the current situation, as I have mentioned, goes against the principal of consensus, consensus is not “if 75% support then that's consensus”, what consensus is, is a fair consideration of everyone's opinions, in which those opinions are weighed by the strength of their argument, not by the number of people standing behind it. By placing a benchmark on an image based on the number of users who support the argument one immediately. Hope this all makes sense. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • PS, that was my 20,000th edit, epic win, 718smiley.svg SpitfireTally-ho! 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I was referring to the second bullet point of criterion 3: "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." If nobody is reviewing an image, it probably isn't very compelling. Anyway, the only real alternative to our current system would be something like what they have at Featured Sounds. Rather than require a minimum number of support votes, they require a minimum number of votes. Their minimum is 3, so a sound with 2 supports and 1 oppose could pass. If we changed to that, you could pass with 3 supports and 2 opposes, 4 supports and 1 oppose, or 5 supports. But you'd still need to hit that minimum number. The nomination in question would not achieve that minimum number of votes, so you're still out of luck. Sorry. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • One more quick point: you are welcome to re-nominate that image at any time. Usually it's a good idea to wait a few weeks, though, so you don't get comments like "this just failed; why nominate it again?" Makeemlighter (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Okay, one more quick point. We've had quite a few discussions here at FPC about consensus. As it stands, we do not promote/fail images based solely upon vote counts. You can scroll up this page for proof of that. The requirement for a minimum number of supports isn't about making sure a lot of people like an image; rather, it's about ensuring that enough people review an image to catch any problems or issues with it. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
          • No, if no one is reviewing an image it is either because they, a) haven't seen it, or b) don't feel strongly either way. If they don't feel strongly either way then that apathy should not be metamorphosed into opposition. It would seem to me that the best solution is to just get rid of the minimum votes requirement altogether, but introduce a system whereby if the closing editor feels that not enough users have participated they can relist the candidate. Also, this is not some push to get “god speed” promoted, if that were the case I would just have waited a while, and then re-nominated it as suggested. Finally you say that FP does “not promote/fail images based solely upon vote counts.”, however, it would seem that it does fail images if they have a lack of support, and therefore really, it does fail images based purely upon numbers, rather than on the strength of comments. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Collapsing irrelevant drama

It's worth pointing out that one of the arguments raising the minimum from 4 to 5 explicitly counted on the participation of two editors who were very active at that time, even though both of those editors opposed raising the minimum. I was one of the two names that were invoked that way; the other individual hasn't done a review in five months. Neither of us volunteered to become the quota-makers--quite the opposite--and I considered that whole line of argumentation to be rather rude. Perhaps it's not a matter of Durova412 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova, (and any others of a similar mind); my sincere apologies if you felt that I was somehow designating you as a self appointed quota maker, this was not my intention at all, and I made a specific point in my previous comment to make us of the word “one” as opposed to “you”. I have also not at any point suggested that anyone here is some kind of quota maker. I am very sorry if I have come across as rude. I merely disagree with this system, however, I mean no offence to any of the people involved in FP and I fully appreciated the work you all do here, kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Durova, can you point out the argument that "explicitly counted" on your participation? I couldn't find it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I don't recall any mention of it either. Certainly not explicitly. It was a decision based on the general level of participation AFAIK, nothing to do with the participation of individual editors. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Just whinge for !votes here if you aren't getting any. Someone will whinge about the whinge but it usually works. I'd suggest a renomination of the image mentioned above with the sourcing in hand. I've noticed that there would appear to be a trend towards not !voting rather than opposing nominations, presumably to avoid drama. My assessment would be that activity was probably a little higher when five supports was moved in. However, I haven't had trouble achieving the minimum votes with most of my nominations. This was not true during a period of unrest last year when the minimum was four. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • We should be careful not to give criterion 3b too much weight - some people inherently don't find some subjects interesting and wow doesn't really have an impact on encyclopaedic value. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Only two people were boycotting the process at the time this was posted, so the statement is equivalent to an explicit expectation that Shoemaker's Holiday and myself would be the factor in when to require five supports.

IMO, the change to 5 supports should be made after the boycotts have ended. At least two users who enthusiastically reviewed my images have dropped out. -Muhammad(talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[1]

Noting in passing that since retrieving that quote, I no longer suffer twinges of regret for not having reviewed recently. Durova412 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova, I have difficulty comprehending how you interpreted a single comment, by a single user, to represent the motivation behind our decision as a community. While respecting Muhammad, his comment does come across as somewhat self-serving, certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us, and I'd hardly say that your name was invoked, and nor were you appointed a quota-maker. Discussion stalled because . . . well, that's what happens around here, and when the 5-support minimum was brought up again, there was no mention of it being based on the participation of a select few; as Jjron summed it here, "when participation is more brisk".
I wouldn't normally comment, but I feel that you've maligned all of us by stating that we rudely volunteered you for a role that you didn't want but felt pressured into performing. Maedin\talk 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
My comment at that time was intended to show that participation to the project had dropped and that increasing consensus at such a time would certainly hamper future FPCs. After participation picked up, I agreed changing the minimum supports to 5 and stand by that choice. --Muhammad(talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not the way it looked at all. And my patience has worn very thin for the game where people demand more examples and then ignore/redefine/deny each example that comes forward, making insults as they go. Forget it. This is an encyclopedia. There are other things to do. Durova412 01:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Durova, in this case, I think your example is being rejected because it didn't mean what you seem to think it meant. Obviously you're a valued contributor, but nobody is irreplacable and it is very unlikely that we would decide on rules that relied on the contributions of specific individuals such as yourself. After all, the initial trigger for the enormous debate was the idea that one person should not have so much control over the outcome of a nomination! We only wanted a process that resulted in fair decisions, and at the time, a lack of traffic in the project (of which your boycott contributed to, but was by no means the root cause of) meant that we were routinely not getting enough votes for a clear result. Once the participation increased (and it seems to have), we all largely supported a minimum of five supports. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want your bad faith assumptions about everyone at FPC to be questioned, then I suggest that you don't bring it up in the future. An apology saying you had misunderstood would have sufficed; no moral machinations necessary. Maedin\talk 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Roll back the calendar a year, Maedin. People complained about FPC closers manipulating the outcomes of candidacies. The response was denial, then when the first examples came forward the examples were disregarded as flukes and the people who brought them forward were belittled and accused of bad faith. Finally when there were enough examples (it had indeed happened quite a few times and was blatant) an RfC happened. Wash, rinse, repeat. Same attitude. For months over various discussions I put up with that pattern out of good faith, in the hope that it wasn't what it seemed to be. Every time Valued Pictures comes up I go through the same routine of fetching example after example and getting the brush-off (often in decidedly uncivil terms). I have always reviewed more candidacies than I've submitted, and tolerated too much shabby treatment in return. Know what? You don't get to talk to me that way unless you sign a paycheck on Friday. Condescending demands for apologies don't wash. Durova412 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, Durova: when you say people complained, you mean you complained about so-called 'manipulating', an argument which is still awaiting a legitimate example to prove its existence. Your main example was the Tunis nomination, one which did not meet the minimum vote requirements (funny this section is entitled the same) in double the amount of time of a typical nom. You assumed bad faith and completely out of nowhere accused me of manipulating the system, which I never did while I was closing. From that point on, you proved yourself as someone who does not assume good faith of users and as a user who cannot have good faith assumed of because your methods of dealing with people is subversive of and detrimental to this program. I have taken less part in this process since then; you've offered a disincentive for me to be here as often. You're now alienating a much larger group of this community. upstateNYer 00:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion on manipulated outcomes or on Valued Pictures, and I'm not sure why you've brought it up. I'm sorry if my comments seemed more general, but I was genuinely referring only to the accusation boldly made that you had been "rudely" volunteered as our trump reviewer and therefore felt obligated to review, no matter what your other priorities might be. In my opinion and the opinions of others here, it was a misunderstanding, and my intention was only to clear it up, though admittedly I bristled and was probably more forthright than I should have been. Maedin\talk 00:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if anyone submitted more candidates than they reviewed. We're all primarily reviewers here and the project simply wouldn't work if it were any other way. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing yourself in any way with that comment. Anyway, instead of getting riled up by the language used, it's probably better if you concentrate on what they're actually saying. In summary, if I understand the situation correctly: You're mistaken if you believe that you alone were and are needed to review in order for us to reach a quorum of five supports. We will likely get on just fine if you choose not to. Having said that, we welcome your contributions. We'd just prefer if it didn't include the self-important attitude that was demonstrated above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Above, Durova writes: "It's worth pointing out that one of the arguments raising the minimum from 4 to 5 explicitly counted on the participation of two editors who were very active at that time, even though both of those editors opposed raising the minimum. I was one of the two names that were invoked that way; the other individual hasn't done a review in five months."

I believe I am that person. Durova knows very well <redacted by Rlevse> [why I haven't done a review in five months], and I'd ask her, of all people, to not to put words in my mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

see comments by me at ANI and Shoe's talk. RlevseTalk 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why the link needs to be redacted? Shoe is actually acting more rational now than he has, replacing the slander on his user page with a link that is not slanderous. And if the content of the link is indeed verbatim, then quoting is not slander either, because it was actually said, in writing. Either way, you've removed a link that you only need to press the "History" button to see, essentially increasing the intrigue in viewing the link. If your goal was to have fewer people click it, you've probably done the opposite. upstateNYer 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There is established precedent for suppressing links publishing personal conversations/emails, etc. You can confirm this with Cary Bass, WMF Volunteer Coordinator if you wish. RlevseTalk 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not arguing that it may be policy or precedent, only that doing so would actually garner more clicks than if it were dealt with... well... any other way. As far as I'm concerned, the logic is severely lacking in this situation. upstateNYer 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to click anymore though - SH's edits that involved the link have been wiped from the page history. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, as you presumably know, that is in violation of oversight policy as stated in WP:OVERSIGHT. Furthermore, a short section from the totality of all my conversations with her, for purposes of commentary, is covered under fair use. If I'm ever going to return, it's important that the harassment is known, so that I have basic protection from my harasser. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, check with Cary Bass like I did if you like. There is established precedent for suppressing links publishing personal conversations/emails, etc, such as the EEML case. RlevseTalk 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that WP:OVERSIGHT is the relevant policy here? There are five permitted criteria. Please state which one your action comes under:

  1. Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses.
  2. Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
  3. Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
  4. Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone.
  5. Removal of vandalism. Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism that can not be removed by normal administrative measures. Such cases should be handled with suppression, rather than with the Oversight tool, so that they may be reversed if needed, and should be discussed in advance on the Oversight mailing list unless they are urgent or time-sensitive, in which case they should be discussed on the mailing list afterward. (Note: This criterion is an interim measure, due to limitations of present-day administrator tools.[1])

Note that even #3 requires Wikipedia counsel, and that's even if a fair-use discussion, hosted off-site, counts as such. Oversight is not a blanket "delete anything you want" right. It is bound by explicitly numerated policy.

This is a clear violation of policy by you. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

@Rlevse, If the conversation was directly related to Wikipedia, if no personal information was disclosed, I'd say let it stay. Shoemaker's Holiday posted the link, that means he's OK with it. I am sure Durova has no reason to keep it off either. So, if the only two people, who were involved, agreed to release their personal conversation, which is directly related to Wikipedia, let it be. I hope everybody would agree that we need to find some kind of resolution to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to both Wikipedia and Commons. I am sure Durova wants him back! So, if the releasing of this conversation will help to achieve the goal, it will be a step in the right direction. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the five-vote minimum is a good policy. In my view, it is a good way to ensure that images have a minimum wow. If five people can't be bothered to support, when 350-400 people that see this site each day, I think it is a good indication that the photo is not our best work. I think the photos that fail for lack of quorum generally are not deserving photos. If a photo slips through the cracks, it can be renominated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lately, it's been closer to 250 [2]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse hits with unique visitors either. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Recently Closed Noms section

This section says not to add comments to the noms but doesn't say how to raise an issue. Since people bring these to the talk page anyway, I figured I'd explicitly state that's how it should be done. See [3]. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good addition, thank you for adding it. Maedin\talk 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So Quiet

Why is there so little activity/voting going on at the moment? I'm just curious, I haven't been around much the past year so I'm a bit out of touch. I know Fir left, have other users been drifting away aswell or is it just a short term lull? --Benjamint 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems to be a bit of a temporary lull at the moment. I don't think Fir's leaving had a big impact on things (although I suppose any individual leaving does have an effect). There is always a cycling of contributors though. Roughly speaking, for every person who leaves or is busy IRL, there tends to be another who joins or increases their activity here. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose part of the problem is the serial nominator(s) that never (or rarely) vote?  ;-) Maedin\talk 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
    • And there are those who are afraid to oppose --Muhammad(talk) 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I have the same impression as Muhammad, that many prefer to not formaly oppose if they see that a candidate will not get enough support anyway. Since now 5 supports are required, it is easier to estimate such a chance. I personally got a bit tired of bugs, birds and lizards - not that I don't like them, but I miss cultural topics... --Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I'm guilty of nearly all of those :P. I will only ever be able to serial nominate; it's all I can find time for during term. Probably be around for another 2 weeks or so, Just until I start getting assignments and then it'll probably be December before I make any significant contributions again. I'm afraid I've got a few more birds to get through, bear with me Elekhh and I've got a few cultural shots toward the end :) --Benjamint
      • As having sort of an outside view after a longer period of absence I can only confirm Muhammad impression. It certainly cannot and should not be generalized, but my very subjective impression is that some users who have a pony in the race tend to be rather easy on the other candidates. Unfortunately opposes and criticism of other peoples images can create somewhat of a tense atmosphere. It really shouldn't, it should be constructive and not be taken personally, but the reality is a bit different. Not everyone here has the temper of a Buddhist monk (certainly not me, that's for sure). But I'd love to see FPC become a little more critical. So sorry in advance, but i won't be holding back anymore ;-) (like I ever have..). I don't have ponies anyways. --Dschwen 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, it's good to have you back. And as long as constructive criticism is passed, I see no objection. I personally prefer a nomination shot down and destroyed rather than one left not promoted with only 2 supports --Muhammad(talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Personally I'm fairly busy IRL with uni atm. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Santa Fe nomination

Please see my talk. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress website revamps, links broken

Today the Library of Congress rolled out a new website design. Apparently they haven't gotten the kinks out and most or all of the source links from Wikipedia are currently broken. Found out about this shortly after the close of the business day in Washington, D.C. So if anything needs verification from that site in the short term, please be patient. Durova412 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a few examples from your talk I can make a search query which finds the unique image (eg1, eg2) using the data in the old link. You will soon learn from the LOC if direct linking is possible with the old identifier. A smart bot might be able to take the new link from the search if not. I'd really suggest replacing the raw links with a source template - it makes changes a bit easier to handle. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's premature to suggest any direct fixes and troubleshooting right now. LoC suddenly rolled out this new thing today and when the first Wikimedians field tested it we found this problem. Durova412 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The links are now working, looks like they fixed it. I was the one that perhaps raised the issue with Durova too early, probably I was just hysterical after Wikipedia was down for hours on Wednesday :) Jujutacular T · C 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Discussion at the Commons admin board indicates that more of the links are working now, but not all of them. Seems to be worth mentioning here in case it comes up in candidacy discussions: not a sourcing or Wikimedian editor error, just something they're ironing out at LoC. Durova412 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sophie Germain

Would anyone happen to know of a good-quality image of Sophie Germain? I would happily do a restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If we could find this image in a high resolution, it would be a decent candidate. Here you can see it zoomed in a bit, but with a watermark unfortunately. Jujutacular T · C 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, we'd want the original painting, not the engraving based off of it. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
True, but it was the most decent image I could find. Sorry :-\ tough luck. Jujutacular T · C 02:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, well. I'll see if I can find anything in the local libraries and antiquarian bookstores. Never know: Scotland has strong historical ties with France. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Raven delist nomination

Please see this discussion at my talk page. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? That guy does have a point. This whole raven story, which I only watched from a distance, was a bit embarrassing for WP:FP. --Dschwen 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations Viewer for WP:FAC, WP:FARC, WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, and WP:FPC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates with Nominations Viewer enabled

Here's a tool I made for myself that others might find useful. You can go to the script's documentation to learn more about it, including how to install it and configure it, but basically what it does is it collapses all nominations by default. You can expand the ones you want to read, and even click on "view nomination" to go directly to the nomination instead of having to click on the "edit" link first. This script will probably not be useful for those who like to just scroll through the nominations pages to find something they like, but personally I like to scroll through the article titles and when I find something interesting, I expand it to read it so that I don't have to first sift through some particularly long nominations.

This was just an idea that I had floating around a while back and finally got around to doing it. Feedback is welcome, but I may move slowly on adding new features if I've done enough coding for that day. One thing in particular that I might add is the {{la}} template, so that there are more links available to click on. It can, of course, be enabled/disabled on a per-user basis. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So.... this is essentially a table of contents on steroids? ;-) --Dschwen 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics Category

I've noticed that mathematics images are thrown all over the place in WP:FP. Some are in diagrams and some are in science, others. Personally I don't believe that mathematics is a science, but that is up for debate. I therefore propose that a new subcategory of science be created for Maths. Any thoughts? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed. upstateNYer 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably a good idea. Can't see why not. I don't really see it as a major problem to lump it in with science either though, as long as we're consistent. Sounds like the bigger problem is the design - only being able to choose a single category when the image applies to multiple categories. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Some images might actually be in more than one category. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I've been thinking about this ever since I started closing. There are a few others I'd like to add too, but I can't think of them right now. As long as there are no objections to the idea, I'm willing to make the changes. BTW, I'm busy for the next 8 hours or so, but I'll close all the old noms (I think there are 4 or 5) later tonight if they're still open. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just make one. I think quite a few images are going to fit in much better there. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I put the ones I thought fit in there. A few others could have gone in, but I left them out. I also might have missed a few. Take a look and let me know what you think. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good. upstateNYer 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Should I rename Astronomy as Physics? A lot of things in Sciences/Others are actually physics images and astronomy is a subset of physics. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I like Astronomy as a category. I think it's useful for people looking for high quality images of stars, galaxies, etc. Adding all the other physics images would just clutter that category. Physics could probably be its own category, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
          • How about a new top-level category, "space imagery and maps" to contain "Views of Earth from space and satellites", astronomy, and maps? Science and physics categories could then have a "see also" pointing to the astronomy category. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

More about mathematics and categories

  • I'm not sure what Noodle snacks was referring to by "all over the place", but I found a few at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Diagrams#By_Wikipedians that might fall under physics, computer science, or mathematics - beauty in the eye if anyone wants to have an opinion on that. I moved Anscombe's Quartet because I believe I'm not alone in recognising statistics as a sub-discipline of mathematics. I also think we should eliminate Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams entirely because it's just a "miscellany" bucket for things that would be better classified elsewhere. If that means borrowing a categorisation scheme from Commons or some other wiki, then so be it - ours sucks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I was lazy about moving Anscombe's Quartet. You were right to add it. Maybe the diagrams and drawings could be eliminated, but there definitely needs to be a maps category. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, maps are fine as a category, but I think diagrams are more usefully put in the existing subject-based categories, and you're right to suggest the same for Drawings (which btw contains a lot of things that aren't drawings at all). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And culture contains a lot of artwork, and a vehicles category is needed, and planetary science seems oddly dissociated from space. I've been thinking for ages that the categorisation and categories need to be improved and streamlined, but it's such a big job it needs more than just my head, though I'll pitch in when and where I can. Maedin\talk 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Power in numbers. I'm sure we'll be busy for a while just implementing what's been suggested up to this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly Wing close-up.jpg

Hi, PLW and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding some issues. I would appreciate your views on the matter here --Muhammad(talk) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


What did I do wrong? Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think you just need to try again (having the page already created screws up the template somehow). If I delete it and provide you with the text, would you like to create it a second time? Alternatively, just create another one with a slightly different title and I'll clean up the "broken" one. Let me know either way, :) Maedin\talk 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed [[Aerial [[Surveillance aircraft|Reconnaissance]][[Surveillance aircraft|Reconnaissance]] which seems to have corrected the problem. Thanks for offering. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Figures it would be something so tiny, :) Glad you fixed it okay. Maedin\talk 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

From promoted to not promoted

This had a clear promotion with 7 supp vs 2 opp at the end of 7 days. While other images I had nominated with it were closed on time, this was left open for a longer time until it accumulated enough opposes for a not promoted close. Less than 24 hrs after getting those opposes, the nomination was closed. Isn't' that just plain WRONG? --Muhammad(talk) 14:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • After the long and hard discussion we had some months ago, things didn't change much in terms of clarity of the rules and transparency of the promotion process. The guidelines (still) read: For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Although I very much sympathize with Muhammad's problem (and agree that the picture should have been promoted in due time) we are just picking what we have sowed: ambiguity. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a clear promotion after 7 days. That's why it was left open. There were concerns which none of the supporters addressed. At best it was a "no consensus" result and after a few more days, it became a clear non-promotion. Sorry if it looks like I waited to close it until it got oppose votes. That's just when I happened to notice it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I sympathise with your frustration, Muhammad, but I can only agree with Alvesgaspar. The seeds of the majority of our conflicts lie in our ambiguous "rules", our lack of definition on multiple points, and the fluid nature of our end-of-nomination process. It's tough, but nothing about that closure, by our current practices, was "wrong", per se. The only point for complaint here is on how we run the process as a whole, and that is never going to change as long as we only take issue with the handful of specific cases where the loopholes in the system most clearly show their fault. I don't mean to be rude, but caring only when it happens to you (you as in anyone reading this) and then letting the problem fade from consciousness shortly afterwards is a good way to ensure that a) it happens again, to you or someone else and b) nothing changes for the positive. Maedin\talk 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't just care when it happens to me. I have raised numerous closures in the past, and all of them have received the same response. Sympathy, a shrug of the shoulders and we move on. --Muhammad(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The "you" wasn't aimed directly at you, and my comment was more along the lines of, "we only care when it turns out negatively, and we're even fickle about that". When there aren't any controversial closures, we should still care, because the ambiguity isn't going to go away on its own. As you can see, no one else is willing to do anything about that. Your two sympathetic, "shoulder-shrugging" responders here, Alvesgaspar and myself, pushed for, collaborated on, and started the review last June that was meant to address some of these issues. Would someone else like to be pro-active and try to drag some consensus out of the FPC crowd?  :) Maedin\talk 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I would suggest you start something up. You seem to be good at that and everybody here appreciates that of you. --Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I would say 'finish' instead of 'start'. We don't need a new discussion. To me knowledge the results of the last mega-discussion were not fully reflected in the guidelines. Am I right?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Wellllll, from memory, there wasn't much in the way of "results". We found we were split on the majority of issues and couldn't establish any meaningful consensus; plus too many choices, to suit every whim, and any one thing was dependent on another. Lots of "I support this, but only IF that", ad infinitum. That's why it died, as far as I could tell. We weren't getting anywhere and everyone got bored with it. I think a revival could attempt to pick up where we left off though. Perhaps having had the time to reflect on our polar differences and see how poorly they serve us, participants will be willing to move a little closer to the middle and find common ground. Maedin\talk 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
              • The truth is nobody seems to care. WP:FPC is slowly dying. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
                • Haha, this is just likle the BSD is dying meme from slashdot. Trust me, it won't. Not that I'd shed too many tears about the backwards standards that reward downscaled crippleware pictures and the abuse of FPC as a self-promotion platform, but FPC is bigger than that. All it might need is a cleansing thunderstorm. --Dschwen 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
                • But we already had the cleansing thunderstorm (I don't rememer you participating, did you?)! The problem is the mountain gave birth to a mouse and nobody dared to write new guidelines full reflecting the results (I don't agree with you, Maedin). In the meantime some old farts died and the remaining (us?) resumed their interrupted naps in the club's leathery chairs. Like you, I'm not very sympathetic with the use of FPC as a self-promotional platform (though I consider the ego-feeding component necessary). But the fact is the place was much better attended when that kind of participation prevailed, for example, when Fir and all the other creators from the "other-side-of-the-world" were more active. If self-nominations stop we'll be left with historical pictures and restorations of old engravings (while they last). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • Are you telling me there was epic drama and i missed it?! Oh noes! :-) Yeah, I guess that was during my absence from FPC. Ego-feeding is ok, self nominations are not inherently bad. But let me spell it out: I do not miss Fir's downsampled demo-versions of pictures one bit. And in fact we can thank him for setting a bad example that people like Muhammad, BenjaminTT and NoodleSnacks etc. are now unfortunately following. FPC guidelines are outdated and favor technically substandard low resolution pictures. Unfortunately those guys have too much of a fanblock, and too much of a monetary interest to ever tolerate or even agree an update of FPC standards. This might eventually choke this page to death. And it hurts the project (but just a little bit, as FPC is a rather small speckle on the big painting that is Wikipedia). --Dschwen 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
                    • Blatant trolling is far more damaging. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhm what? Muhammad, you asked for more input here. And you got it. Be a good sport, deal with it. Actually not just deal with it, but mabe even listen to the points that were brought forward. Those go way beyond whether you get one more little gold star or not. --Dschwen 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • That was meant to question whether it was right to remove an image from an article after one saw it at FPC. --Muhammad(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • And again it boils down to the same putting the cart in front of the ox that sparked the whole discussion. FPC is completely insignificant when comparing it to the main mission of this site: building an encyclopedia. An editorial decision should be completely unaffected by little photo-hobby-groups like FPC. --Dschwen 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Let's assume for now that Muhammad's motivation on that issue was simply to improve the article and had little to do with collecting gold stars. I don't see the problem with how Muhammad handled the removal of his image in the article. He and PLW disagreed so he raised the issue for the attention of a third party. Granted, as you alluded to, it would have been better to raise it on the article talk page than FPC's talk page, but aside from that... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
          • I completely agree, it was the correct procedure to ask for further input. But now he is essentially complaining that the input he got did not agree with him. --Dschwen 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Swell in closings by occasionals

I noticed that since about the beginning of the year, all of the following editors contributed towards promoting images: Makeemlighter, Maedin, jjron, Papa, Jujutacular, J Milburn, Staxringold, Lampman, Shoemaker's Holiday, Noodle snacks, Elekhh, and Abecedare. Many also contributed to non-promote closures, including upstateNYer.

At the same time, it's my impression that in the first quarter of 2010, we had fewer complaints about closures, nominations got closed more or less on time, and there was greater acceptance of renominations for quorum reasons. Additionally and in my subjective experience, use of Template:FPC urgents always resulted in reaching quorum for an underattended nomination.

Overall, I believe transparency has been increased, with fewer discussions referencing dictatorship or cabal. I also believe that in order to carry forward this sense of égalité, it is important that as many people as possible participate in closures, including promotions, and in questioning them when they don't seem right. We're currently in good shape to continue doing this - if we keep at it.

I'll close with offering a vote of thanks to Maedin, who started Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which no doubt was a major contribution to the positive change we've seen. I'm sure that as we continue to meet challenges to the FPC process, we'll continue to need focused discussion of positive change like the above.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Without trying to be cynical, we've had fewer complaints etc, but we've also had fewer nominations too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't thank me; it's those who contributed constructively to the discussion who earned any praise. I only wish it had gone further and reached some positive and concrete conclusions. I agree that the feeling here seems eased and the conflicts are less frequent and less vociferous, but we do clearly still have some areas that, as Alvesgaspar says one section up, are too ambiguous. But the wider participation of users in closing is an encouraging step and I hope it keeps up, too. Maedin\talk 10:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Major update for Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer

I released Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer two weeks ago. Today, I added new features to the script in response to suggestions made by some users. The script now shows more information when viewing nominations, including how many images are in the nomination, when the nomination was submitted, how many people are involved in the nomination, how much support it has received, and how many co-nominators there are. If you hover over each piece of information, it will give you some extra details as well. The information shown can be re-arranged as you please, or removed completely, by using the settings as shown in the documentation. If you already have the script installed, you may need to bypass your cache to get the new features. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominations Viewer at WP:FPC

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/

This nomination was recently transcluded onto the queue. I have removed it. It's malformed, and the external link points to a non-free image, which isn't eligible to be featured. Could a watching admin delete that page? Jujutacular T · C 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for leaving a note at DieBuche's talk page. Maedin\talk 05:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FPC discussion: implementation of consensus

Last June we had a long discussion on the FPC closure process. Browsing through the thread I realize that the existing guidelines do not reflect the opinion of the majority. Two points: a 2/3 majority of supporting votes should be enough for promotion (9 in favour, 4 against); and the voting period should be 7 days exactly (7 in favour, 4 against). Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not being intentionally difficult, but isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to suggest a 2/3 supermajority along with another change that didn't have that same majority in favour? We do adhere (95% of the time or greater) to the supermajority definition for closures; if 7–4 doesn't even pass a nomination now, I don't see how it could be logically defended as passing a fixed seven-day term. Maedin\talk 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, until we agree what consensus is we'll have to count votes. Keeping the '7 day's flexible' option is equivalent to adopting the opinion of the minority. Is there a way out? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not as clear cut as that; there was another straw poll later, after discussion developed, and there were only two supporters for a fixed 7-day period, with the other votes falling for some form of flexibility. The other options, I have to admit, seem a little silly and impractical now; I'd change my mind if I had to choose again, ;) Personally, I think a fixed time period is best but that 7 days is not long enough. I can't fathom why Commons, with its swarm of voters, has 9 days and we only have 7. I do realise that they also have more nominations open at any given time, but ours also take longer to review (except for the obvious ones). 7 fixed days may be the preferred option now, but I am sure it was not at the "end" (lol :p) of the review. We could take a quick vote, Joaquim; 9 days fixed, 7 days fixed, keep as is (noms closed anytime after seven days), and one of the 7-day "fixed and flexible" options (you'll have to peek at the review to see the three main ideas we came up with in that regard). By the way, the adoption of a 2/3 supermajority was not really in question; isn't the 9–4 whether it falls to 66% or 67%? Maedin\talk 18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe there was some discussion of the minimum threshold being anything greater than 2/3 support. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@Maedin -- I agree with (almost) everything you say. Yes, go ahead and launch a poll to decide the voting period (you have much better English than me...). But if we do not keep it simple we risk to go over the same mess again. I also agree that 9 days (fixed) is better than 7. As for the supermajority, 2/3 is 2/3 is 2/3 (0.6666...). Meaning that 6 sup/3 op. is ok. That was the result of the initial poll. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I also think a straw poll would be a good idea. And I agree let's keep it as simple as possible. Jujutacular T · C 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm drafting it as I write this. Should be uploaded shortly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

New poll - please participate

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2. Any comments on formatting and structure? (not content please - see below) There are instructions at the top, which I encourage people to read. Please participate, because while this is an early stage at which we're trying to understand what the main issues and alignments are, it will (as is the nature with straw polls on WP) probably be used retrospectively to justify changing, or not changing, the way the project works. I've done my best to allow people to express dissent even with the questionnaire itself, hope it works out for you. The current idea is that open discussion will be restricted to the second round, which will also include a set of "contributed questions" if there are any (contributeds are divided into two groups mostly to accommodate early and late questions). Please let's not discuss poll content here - you can add further questions and/or reply options to the poll itself. Best regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are not allowed to comment on content then I guess there is not much to discuss (i.e. structure looks fine to me). --Dschwen 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The structure is excellent, and it's clear and user-friendly. Thanks very much! Maedin\talk 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent PLW! I like this model, it enforces discipline and organization. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all your kind comments. @Dschwen: I hope you can participate nonetheless - please do use the opportunities for creating new reply options for each question, and/or new questions (the latter at the bottom of the poll). Try to follow the format if possible, and try to ask simple questions that are geared towards understanding what people want, rather than tailored towards particular proposals. Also a reminder to everyone that discussion should be avoided altogether if possible on the poll. Rather than discuss, you can propose new parts to the poll, as outlined above. There will also be lots of discussion at the second stage, but not at this one. If you have questions about the procedure, layout, etc., put them here for now. If there's lots to discuss, we can open a talk page for the poll itself, but let's keep it here for now. Final reminder (I'll shut up after this) that unless it's to clarify weakness of wording in the poll (which I should have said I'm happy to hear about), your preferences for change in FPC should be expressed as new reply options, and if your areas of concern are not addressed in the poll, this should inspire you to formulate one or several poll question(s) to determine what others think about the same aspect.
As is inevitable with a first draft, there were a few areas that I didn't cover. To fill these gaps, I added 7 new questions. These are at the bottom of the poll under "contributed" - to give weight to the fact they were added after the start of the poll. Apologies for the late additions, and thanks for the participation so far. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing, just cast my !votes :-). One tiny detail: the example signature should be removed, leaving only the bullet, that should make the poll a bit less cluttered, and by now we have enough real signature to serve as examples. --Dschwen 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Structure is okay, I guess, but I do have one criticism. I don't like the notes and criticisms that some choices have. It's unfair to list the criticisms of some of the choices but not of the others. For the nomination period, for example, you have a positive note for fixed duration (no hassle) and a criticism for the roughly on time closing. Why not add that fixed duration limits discussion or that people might not see the nom until it's nearly closed? And why not say that accepting late votes contributes to consensus building and ensures that everyone's voice is heard? It seems odd that you only want us to vote at this stage, holding discussion for later, but you insert your own comments on the options. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I missed your comment before, but I've just made the changes (which I think you would have been fine to do yourself). PLW did tweak it after your comment: [4] I'll guess that you hadn't seen that, and the extent of change you were looking for was possibly misunderstood. Maedin\talk 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this poll still open? NauticaShades 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is, :) Maedin\talk 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC on POTD credits

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits. howcheng {chat} 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

License violations... anywhere to report them?

After all these years, I still don't know my way around the labyrinthine bureaucratic processes of Wikipedia/Commons as well as I should, but I've just spotted a fairly blatant and serious misuse of Wikipedia's photos, and I'm not sure if there's a team who would be interested in investigating further. Here's the source of the issue: A number of the photos have been ripped from Commons without citing any sources, giving attribution or providing the license details. For example:

I'm really just scratching the surface with above. I haven't checked all 50 states but I'd say a quarter to a third of the states I had a look at were taken from Commons. It's just so blatant. And the worst part is the photoshop work. So tacky! So low budget. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, unless you yourself are the copyright owner of the image, there's not much you can do. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess notifying the authors of the images would be a good idea (I can do this if you want). And yeah, those are pathetically blatant. Jujutacular T · C 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
A great number of my images have also been misused and sending a letter does nothing. That's one of the drawbacks of wiki and yet photographers are expected to release highest resolutions. --Muhammad(talk) 04:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
*squeeze* Yes, they are expected to release highest resolutions. What difference does it make to you whether a high or low resolution picture gets infringed? --Dschwen 13:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
With lower res, we can minimize the infringement to internet only. Higher res would allow the prints to me easily made as well --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So you are essentially providing a less useful version. That amounts to punishing the entire project Wikipedia and all legitimate users to avoid a few cases of infringement. Cannons to sparrows. --Dschwen 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles do not essentially require very high resolution images. Open any physical encyclopedia and you will hardly ever find a large picture, so Wikipedia does not lose out a lot. I am open to changing my practice of course if Wikipedia guarantees that my work will not be misused. --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Physical encyclopedias are completely irrelevant here, and you have no idea what the potential educational uses for your images could become (classroom posters for developing countries maybe, who knows). Your comment is just a red herring, as you very well know that Wikimedia cannot possibly guarantee that. I stand by it, you are exercising collective punishment which hurts legitimate use with absolutely zero upside to it. --Dschwen 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be appreciative of the contributions which are being made instead of whinging about wanting more. We're all volunteers and Muhammad doesn't have to release anything at all. We know you want more resolution. We're all greedy for something. Please climb off the hobby-horse now. Maedin\talk 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
hobby-horse?! I can really do without such condescending language. And I don't really need the whining about misuse. I don't need people who upload downscaled version nominate them as the best wikipedia has to offer, because it just isn't, even if a bunch of hobby photographers on FPC thinks so. Anyhow, this isn't leading anywhere. --Dschwen 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No condescension intended, I was going on the definition: "A topic that one frequently brings up or dwells on; a fixation." As the topics of misuse and resolution like to dance merrily together, I think that a cease and desist on your favourite topic will bring about a correlative reduction in the other. Just sayin'. Maedin\talk 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Maedin. Re Daniel, I usually provide the high resolutions to legitimate individuals, be it teachers or students or even organizations such as when they request for such a copy after seeing it on wiki. This is my way of minimizing misuse of my pictures. --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that license compliant uses are more common than infringing uses? Outside of Wikipedia and a few direct mirrors, it often seems like most people get the license requirements wrong. Dragons flight (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a more strongly worded letter from an official at the Wikimedia Foundation or something might carry more weight than from individuals like us. It would show that the project takes the licensing seriously, instead of leaving it to individuals to chase their own images up. Having said that, it's a complicated issue, especially when we can't be certain that these images have not been sold or given away elsewhere. The only way to know is to contact the contributor and ask. I actually did contact the author of the first image, and he most certainly did not authorise this use, so it wouldn't surprise me if nobody else did either. They're not exactly high quality stock anyway, but it's the principle that I'm standing up for. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
So far as I know, it's simply not the Foundation's place to go running around after potential license violators- as the photographer themselves are the one being fucked over, it's up to them. Theoretically, of course, you could now start threatening legal action as they have failed to act... I suppose they're working off the basis that hobbyist photographers are not going to call in the lawyers. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
True, but I'd like to think that if we support the project, the project might do something to support us. Wishful thinking, perhaps. ;-) They haven't failed to act yet though, as I haven't contacted Bloomberg. The author of the first image has or will contact them though, after I made him aware of the misuse. I would say it's just another case of blissful ignorance of the license conditions - the assumption that everything on Wikipedia is public domain. It's unprofessional for so many reasons though. A large number of people who're interested in living in those cities may actually visit the Wikipedia article to learn more and notice that they've ripped the photos from the article. Makes Bloomberg seem a bit cheap. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Notifying the copyright holders is obviously worthwhile, but (when certain that copyright has been violated) Commons:Template:Published can be used to record unauthorised reproductions on file discussion pages. In general, do be aware of the possible implications of accusing a company of having violated someone else's copyright -- one doesn't want to get sued! NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has its own full-time counsel, and presumably a legal fund. All we need is a project for copyright infringement/violation reports/suits (WP:CIS is still available, for instance) and the willingness to push the Foundation to fork out money for it. Get a T-shirt printed, make people wear it at Wikimania, and talk to the press. I'm pretty sure there are APIs for bulk snail mailing, so just get a developer on it, and start hurting the infringers with the cost of having to deal with the incoming mail. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Postage costs would probably be higher than any financial hardship incurred by the violators. Having the wikimedia foundation pursue legal action on behalf of photographers is also probably untenable. The reason being that the copyright holders would be the ones to financially benefit from any legal settlement, and the foundation would be hard pressed to recoup what would obviously be substantial legal costs. Complicating both proposed remedies further is that many of the photographers reside in different countries, making any kind of joint legal action, or mailing program complicated. I have essentially no knowledge of international copyright regulations, but needless to say a scenario where: a photographer living in England is represented by a Wikipedia lawyer in the United States who is pursuing legal action against a violator in India, is rather bewildering. Summarizing this post: us photographers are screwed. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You misinterpret the economics of this. It would be an investment on the part of the Foundation to get access to more pictures, namely those from the people who at the moment wouldn't upload because of exactly the kinds of problems reported in this section. And while the Foundation isn't a legal aid charity, it's still a charity and would be conducting charitable work if it helped out contributing photographers in a small way. Professional photographers will probably want to choose their own representation anyway. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Helped out contributing photographers? Seriously PLW? The little help we do get from the credits is being threatened and you are suggesting we will get more help? I doubt it --Muhammad(talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Doubting is the one thing that certainly will not help. :) I'm providing my thoughts. What you make of them is up to you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Letters can work, though their effectiveness varies. I've seen people ignore the issue. I've seen people make prompt corrections. I even know of a few cases where Wikipedians have received financial settlements over truly gross abuses. When one is talking about blatant abuse by corporations that should know better, I find that sternly worded personal complaints are generally better than the standard violation notice. Of course, the one sending the complaint really has to be the copyright holder if you expect results. Dragons flight (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, there's no technical barrier to that, although copyright holders would have to provide their name and address. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • From reading the above, it seems like contacting the copyright owners is the best way to go. I just created a page in my Commons userspace which might make the job easier. I will also post a message seeking help going through the pictures on the Commons Village Pump, unless anyone here has any objections. I don't have time to contact every user, so any help would be appreciated. The page is here: Commons:User:NotFromUtrecht/Images used in Businessweek. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, It is up to the copyright holder to make a complaint to the infringing party. The best thing to do if you see infringement is to inform the image author. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
      • That's what I meant -- but there are 50 categories that need to be checked, and potentially 50 copyright holders to contact. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I recommend supporting NotFromUtrecht's initiative. If y'all ever want some official support to be given for license enforcement, you really ought to support it *now* while someone is actually being bold and donating their good hours to devising a procedure for it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)