WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/19/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On the other hand, I'm not too convinced in
the majority of cases. Some
album/book/movie covers and corporate logos, where the images or logos
themselves are widely discussed, iconic, or controversial, may work that
way. But I'm not convinced that most use of such things is anything more
than decorative. In those cases, they don't add significantly to
encyclopedic value, but do detract from the free-content mission. In
those cases, we shouldn't be using them. In 99%* of album articles, for
example, there barely even is an article. "X is an album by YZ which
contained the following tracks:". I don't know that there's any
educational value in such an article at all, and I certainly doubt that
there's any more with an image of the album cover.
This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for
purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements
for the inclusion of non-free content?
People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is
legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to
be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an
issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for
identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized,
reverted, and argued over.
-Durin
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When it comes right down to it, fair use for identification fails the
directive from the Foundation-that we must use fair use minimally, and
only where it serves an irreplaceable purpose. I can identify Microsoft
by showing you their logo, true. But I also just identified them by
saying "Microsoft". You knew who I meant. Therefore, the image is
replaceable, in this case by plain old text. The same is true of album
covers and the like in most cases. I can identify Nirvana's Nevermind,
the Beatles' White Album, or for that matter Roger Clyne and the
Peacemakers' Americano simply by stating their name. The image serves no
purpose that the text does not, and unless the cover/logo itself was
somehow iconic, controversial, or otherwise suitable to -actually be
discussed- in the article, it's unneeded and decorative.
And there's where we should draw the cutoff line. Is the image being
discussed (not just mentioned, discussed) in the article? Is there a lot
of source material that discusses and covers that image? If we can
provide a good discussion of the image within the article (without
"padding" in an attempt to game the system) it's probably important to
have the image there. If not, it's a pretty for the infobox, and that's
decorative. I would imagine most cases fall into the latter category,
and shouldn't have those images.