http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_G._Wilson#Image_was_not_Michael_Wi...
I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. [[Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg]] is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... I've marked the photo "do not use!" on the commons image page, and will nominate for deletion if it does turn out not to be him.
OTOH, here's to free content from a commercial company :-)
- d.
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_G._Wilson#Image_was_not_Michael_Wi...
I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. [[Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg]] is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... I've marked the photo "do not use!" on the commons image page, and will nominate for deletion if it does turn out not to be him.
OTOH, here's to free content from a commercial company :-)
- d.
Surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. ~~~~
On 23/05/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_G._Wilson#Image_was_not_Michael_Wi... I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. [[Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg]] is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... I've marked the photo "do not use!" on the commons image page, and will nominate for deletion if it does turn out not to be him.
Surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. ~~~~
She was very nice about it :-)
- d.
On 5/23/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. ~~~~
Seen it before however the thing to remember is that anyone who gets around our anti copyvio procedures is fairly likely to be acting in good faith.
On 23/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. ~~~~
Seen it before however the thing to remember is that anyone who gets around our anti copyvio procedures is fairly likely to be acting in good faith.
It was actually a Flickr image taken and put on Commons, so the error happened before it hit Wikimedia. At least it probably wasn't a copyright violation ;-)
- d.
On 5/23/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
Surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. ~~~~
I can see this as becoming a new form of vandalism on BLPs of marginal notability. Someone takes a picture of some random shmoe of about the same age and gender of the subject, GFDLs it, puts it in the article, then sits back and sees how long it take someone to say "that ain't him Jack".
On 5/23/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I can see this as becoming a new form of vandalism on BLPs of marginal notability. Someone takes a picture of some random shmoe of about the same age and gender of the subject, GFDLs it, puts it in the article, then sits back and sees how long it take someone to say "that ain't him Jack".
That sounds like more work than your average vandal wants to do. I suspect most cases will be like this one probably is; mistaken identification.
I have photos of a couple of celebrities that lack free pictures, but I'm not 100% sure of the identification, so I don't upload them. The photos could simply be of look-alikes.
-Matt
David Gerard wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_G._Wilson#Image_was_not_Michael_Wi...
I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. [[Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg]] is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... I've marked the photo "do not use!" on the commons image page, and will nominate for deletion if it does turn out not to be him.
I've always wondered when this was going to happen.
It's kind of funny that images aren't subject to original research claims.
-Jeff
It's kind of funny that images aren't subject to original research claims.
That's an interesting point. We don't require reliable sources for images. Of course, if we did, we would rarely be able to get any images, since most reliable ones aren't free. I think we've chosen the best option, but it isn't a very good option.
On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:43:45 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
That's an interesting point. We don't require reliable sources for images.
Sometimes we do. I came across an edit war recently where someone was trying to insert an image into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28lightning%29 of something he claimed was a sprite; consensus was to remove as there was no credible source for it being as claimed.
Guy (JzG)
On 5/23/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I've always wondered when this was going to happen.
It's kind of funny that images aren't subject to original research claims.
-Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#Original_images
On 23/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. [[Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg]] is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... I've marked the photo "do not use!" on the commons image page, and will nominate for deletion if it does turn out not to be him.
I've always wondered when this was going to happen.
It's kind of funny that images aren't subject to original research claims.
The immediate problem is the thought of someone querulous saying "oh yeah? find a reliable source *saying* that's a dog, you POV-pushing crazy".
Any policy that means we would have to tactfully ignore the status of 90% of our free illustrations is a bad solution, I fear...