In a message dated 2/23/2008 4:26:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Not really. The cover of a bio of Gandhi isn't of much significance or relivance to the article>>
-------------------------------------- If there is a book about Gandhi, and our Gandhi article has no image of Gandhi, wouldn't you say it's appropriate to have an image instead of no image?
Whether the cover image is significant or relevant, is not material to the separate issue of whether using it would be "Fair Use".
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 24/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Whether the cover image is significant or relevant, is not material to the separate issue of whether using it would be "Fair Use".
Whether it's "Fair Use" or not is irrelevant to the nonfree images policy, which is what Betacommandbot addresses. Your introduction of this other concept that isn't actually in play here is a red herring. If you continue to rail against Betacommandbot on grounds it isn't operated on, you'll continue to get nowhere.
- d.
On 24/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If there is a book about Gandhi, and our Gandhi article has no image of Gandhi, wouldn't you say it's appropriate to have an image instead of no image?
Whether the cover image is significant or relevant, is not material to the separate issue of whether using it would be "Fair Use".
Will Johnson
Since we would be discussing neither the book or the image no. Trying to defend grabbing a random image of Gandhi and putting it in the article would be kinda dicey. Using the cover of a bio would be worse still since the use wouldn't be transformative and to an extent we would be directly competing with the book. I can quite easily see the courts saying if you want to use the image for that you are going to have to pay.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
geniice@gmail.com writes:
Not really. The cover of a bio of Gandhi isn't of much significance or relivance to the article>>
If there is a book about Gandhi, and our Gandhi article has no image of Gandhi, wouldn't you say it's appropriate to have an image instead of no image?
Whether the cover image is significant or relevant, is not material to the separate issue of whether using it would be "Fair Use".
Very few illustrations add significant information to any article at all, both in and out of Wikipedia. An image of *any* person in a biographical article is only necessary to the physiognomists. People have just become accustomed to pretty pictures in books as well as in arttcles. Most of those pictures mean nothing; they only serve to break up the monotony of solid text.
The problem with the Gandhi example above, or any other author for that matter, is that it is only an example. The arguments really need to be addressed separately for each such use. Andrew's earlier example about a book cover being used to illustrate an article about cricket may indeed go beyond a general understanding of fair use. That identical image could still be fair use in the illustration for the book. The solution would be to remove the link from the cricket article, not to remove the image from the database.
Some of us very strongly support principled fair use, and would never make a fair-use claim without applying due consideration. We are also aware that we have many contributors whose definition of fair use is at best egotistic.Those who apply due consideration and effort should not be treated in the same offhand manner as the abusers. That takes due care by the deleters.
Ec
In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in auto delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required, although some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline. That isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired warnings mean images should be deleted.
Nathan
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in auto delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required, although some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline. That isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired warnings mean images should be deleted.
As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is effectively auto-deletion. How that happens / via what mechanism, the only thing that matters is that "no human reviews each individual case before it going poof".
George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in auto delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required, although some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline. That isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired warnings mean images should be deleted.
As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is effectively auto-deletion. How that happens / via what mechanism, the only thing that matters is that "no human reviews each individual case before it going poof".
Yes, and I think this is the crux of WJhonson's arguments. Bots are a very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios. The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages the environment.
Ec
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in auto delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required, although some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline. That isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired warnings mean images should be deleted.
As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is effectively auto-deletion. How that happens / via what mechanism, the only thing that matters is that "no human reviews each individual case before it going poof".
Yes, and I think this is the crux of WJhonson's arguments. Bots are a very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios. The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages the environment.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It is not the bot but the admins... we need a strict policy about trigger-happy/script deletion. On the other hand, it would be nice if the bot could behave differently on images that have rationale templates, or if it could follow redirects for links (does it?), or ... etc.
Indeed. The vast majority of admins (especially those specialising in images) will delete an image they could save, simply because nobody else has tried to.
Using scripts which stop them from being able to get talk page messages, etc., just adds to the problem.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Thinboy00 (Wikipedia mailing list) < thinboy00+wikipedialist@gmail.com> wrote:
It is not the bot but the admins... we need a strict policy about trigger-happy/script deletion. On the other hand, it would be nice if the bot could behave differently on images that have rationale templates, or if it could follow redirects for links (does it?), or ... etc.
-- Sincerely, [[User:Thinboy00]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in auto delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required,
although
some administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline. That isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired warnings mean images should be deleted.
As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is effectively auto-deletion. How that happens / via what mechanism, the
only
thing that matters is that "no human reviews each individual case before
it
going poof".
Yes, and I think this is the crux of WJhonson's arguments. Bots are a very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios. The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages the environment.
Not to focus the argument on or pick on him particularly, but East718 just did a run that amounted to this and nuked one image off one page that I noticed, and on checking his logs appears to have gotten a bunch more too.
The one that got deleted had been manually tagged, not bot-tagged, and the tag was proper (there was no current rationale), but the rationale was self evident and easy.
It might help with friendly behavior modification if a few more senior people hop over and constructively ask him not to do that again... (note: CONSTRUCTIVELY ... thanks)
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Yes, and I think this is the crux of WJhonson's arguments. Bots are a very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios. The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages the environment.
I believe we went over this with spoiler warnings. And after that, with episode articles.
Anyone for four times?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Very few illustrations add significant information to any article at all, both in and out of Wikipedia. An image of *any* person in a biographical article is only necessary to the physiognomists. People have just become accustomed to pretty pictures in books as well as in arttcles. Most of those pictures mean nothing; they only serve to break up the monotony of solid text.
Argh. We've done this before, but...
Images are a key, important role in learning and education. The level of text and fact retention after reading increases significantly on articles, books, etc. which have a minimum density of included images. That's common education psychology theory and why normal print encyclopedias and textbooks have a significant density of images for the most part.
In particular, the interest that people have in reading web pages from top to bottom increases significantly if they have multimedia content (photos in particular) which are easily visible as part of the initial view.
In terms of the role that we play as an educational tool, *which is why the project is here in the first place*, images are a *key* part of that role. They should not be downplayed or minimized. A vast majority of our articles have an image deficit at the current time. Few have too many.
This viewpoint that images aren't that useful keeps resurfacing, but does nothing to enhance the anti-fair-use arguments.