I recently saw the last image in an article I watch was tagged as having no fair use rationale. I decided to check it out, and saw this on the image tag: "Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image."
I don't know a lot about the whole fair use policy, and I don't really care to. Image policy in general is absurdly convoluted at times (mostly due to copyright laws, I imagine). I simply put a message on the talk page, mentioning why I thought fair use might apply, so that the administrator could take a look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:ChagallGuevara.jpg). If I was right, I figured it would be worth going back to try and find the right template and sort it out, but I didn't want to waste the time if the image was just going to be deleted anyway.
Instead, the admin who deleted it never bothered checking the talk page at all. It was one of hundreds of images deleted in minutes using Twinkle. There's no possible way he even checked if the talk page existed at that deletion rate. Functionally, it might as well have been a bot doing the deleting.
Now, I really don't particularly care about images, for the most part. What does bother me is that one thing was said, but something completely different was done. This is a very unfriendly way to do things. If we're going to automate the entire process of tagging and deleting images, it needs to be clear, along with a way for people to ask for review by other editors, much like PRODding an article.
Maxim runs a script to delete tagged images where the deadline has passed. If I remember, he can't do anything else (or even use his computer) while it runs - he sets it, and leaves for a few hours until its done. There was an AN/I thread about it at some point I think.
Nathan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Matt Jacobs sxeptomaniac@gmail.com wrote:
I recently saw the last image in an article I watch was tagged as having no fair use rationale. I decided to check it out, and saw this on the image tag: "Administrators: check the image talk page for comments before deleting the image."
I don't know a lot about the whole fair use policy, and I don't really care to. Image policy in general is absurdly convoluted at times (mostly due to copyright laws, I imagine). I simply put a message on the talk page, mentioning why I thought fair use might apply, so that the administrator could take a look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:ChagallGuevara.jpg). If I was right, I figured it would be worth going back to try and find the right template and sort it out, but I didn't want to waste the time if the image was just going to be deleted anyway.
Instead, the admin who deleted it never bothered checking the talk page at all. It was one of hundreds of images deleted in minutes using Twinkle. There's no possible way he even checked if the talk page existed at that deletion rate. Functionally, it might as well have been a bot doing the deleting.
Now, I really don't particularly care about images, for the most part. What does bother me is that one thing was said, but something completely different was done. This is a very unfriendly way to do things. If we're going to automate the entire process of tagging and deleting images, it needs to be clear, along with a way for people to ask for review by other editors, much like PRODding an article.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Images are deleted fairly efficiently, if they are not then you get an out of control situation very quickly. Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week, there is simply no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review. This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Every effort is made to educate people as they are uploading, and including fair use images isn't super easy, but some people argue that it shouldn't be since we are a free encyclopedia.
Probably no more time can ever be spent per problem image, as we are rate limited by number of volunteers, but better upload tools, and/or better education about the policies would be a big help I think.
On 04/03/2008, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Images are deleted fairly efficiently, if they are not then you get an out of control situation very quickly. Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week, there is simply no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review. This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Indeed. A non-free image that isn't on any article and doesn't claim fair use is taken out and shot in short order, and this is entirely the right thing to do. If someone is upset by this, that's a problem of manner of action and education of the uploader, rather than the action itself or its timing.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. A non-free image that isn't on any article and doesn't claim fair use is taken out and shot in short order, and this is entirely the right thing to do. If someone is upset by this, that's a problem of manner of action and education of the uploader, rather than the action itself or its timing.
However a non-free image that IS on an article and complied with all applicable policies & practice at the time of its upload might be worth a few moments longer, especially when it was uploaded years ago and the contributor may have left the project since.
As it is, I'm increasingly inclined to the view several people have expressed here that the mechanism of requiring a new hoop for fair-use images to jump through every six months or so, and expecting original uploaders to respond within a couple of days to a notice or the image gets deleted, is in effect a program of trying to get rid of fair use images even if they are within our defined scope for using them.
This process will inevitably cut down the use of fair-use images in enwp down to a tiny subset where there are a group of people who'll spring to that image's defense.
It could be argued that this will be the group of images where we really NEED fair use images, but this is a change in de facto policy.
-Matt
On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
This process will inevitably cut down the use of fair-use images in enwp down to a tiny subset where there are a group of people who'll spring to that image's defense.
A consummation devoutly to be wished!
It takes a few second for somebody to upload an image he doesn't have copyright on and cannot possibly release as a free image, and pop it into an article. It takes *days* for us to get around to deleting it.
It could be argued that this will be the group of images where we really NEED fair use images, but this is a change in de facto policy.
We could quibble forever, but the policy is no non-free images. We're making exceptions where those images are really necessary and those exceptions do need to be argued.
Well, there is some degree to which we don't need any non-free images, or indeed, any images at all. Articles still get written, even though there is no way to illustrate the matter in question without resorting to a non-free image.
So if we are talking about exceptions, the issue seems to be that those exceptions invariably generalize into situations; and that therefore exceptions are really policies of permission. If a corporate logo is acceptable in a context in which it is not discussed itself, then ALL corporate logos are granted exceptions. Same thing with album covers. Here comes my hypothetical infobox 'bot again, except this time, instead of applying the fair use rationales mechanically, it deletes the images or strips away the fair use rationale mechanically, because the situation is held to be too general to justify fair-use.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
We could quibble forever, but the policy is no non-free images. We're making exceptions where those images are really necessary and those exceptions do need to be argued.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week, there is simply no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it was not a recently uploaded image - it's been on the site for almost two years.
This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Linking to the article has only recently been required. Imposing new rules and then expecting someone who uploaded an image 2 years ago to still be on the site to make that change is rather ludicrous.
-Matt
On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Linking to the article has only recently been required. Imposing new rules and then expecting someone who uploaded an image 2 years ago to still be on the site to make that change is rather ludicrous.
Expecting images to fit the new rules, however, isn't.
Surely someone is keeping a general eye on the tagged images, then?
- d.
Looks like the image has been restored, and re-tagged. If it was deleted as an orphan non-free... The original post says that it was an image on an article he was watching. Do orphan non-frees even get tagged usually?
Nathan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the image has been restored, and re-tagged. If it was deleted as an orphan non-free... The original post says that it was an image on an article he was watching. Do orphan non-frees even get tagged usually?
Oh, this one wasn't an orphan, it didn't include an outbound link in the rationale. Sorry for the confusion. The current situation is that the rationale needs to link to the article it's being used in. (like "This image is fair use, in [[Diet Coke]]") This is distinct from orphan non-free images (which are also tagged, yes, and deleted in 7 days)
I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great idea, but it's been around for a while now. I don't think bots should look at the *quality* of rationales. I think bots are helpful in making the binary decisions about whether a rationale exists, and if it's an orphan. If a rationale exists however, and it is used in an article then, in my opinion, any further action needs to be taken by a human. Having said that, the preceding is *not* the current status of image management on enwiki.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great idea, but it's been around for a while now.
Likewise. That page doesn't even make a link compulsory; all that's compulsory is the name of the article.
Even that requirement is relatively new.
Many older rationales don't necessarily name the article. On ones i did, for instance, I may have put 'Fair use in an article on the subject is claimed based on ...'
In this case, the image was uploaded when many believed that the {{Promotional}} template was sufficient rationale for an promotional image of something in an article about that something.
The requirement to link is really to do with refusing to accept rationales that are templated or boilerplate.
-Matt
On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great idea, but it's been around for a while now.
Likewise. That page doesn't even make a link compulsory; all that's compulsory is the name of the article.
Even that requirement is relatively new.
Um January 2006 is relatively new? Image was uploaded after that date.
Re requirement to link - I don't think there is one, actually. If I remember, BCBot looks for the name of the article - linked or not.
Nathan
On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org
wrote:
I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great
idea,
but it's been around for a while now.
Likewise. That page doesn't even make a link compulsory; all that's compulsory is the name of the article.
Even that requirement is relatively new.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I personally don't think this extreme reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCC#10c is such a great idea, but it's been around for a while now.
Likewise. That page doesn't even make a link compulsory; all that's compulsory is the name of the article.
Even that requirement is relatively new.
Many older rationales don't necessarily name the article. On ones i did, for instance, I may have put 'Fair use in an article on the subject is claimed based on ...'
In this case, the image was uploaded when many believed that the {{Promotional}} template was sufficient rationale for an promotional image of something in an article about that something.
The requirement to link is really to do with refusing to accept rationales that are templated or boilerplate.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Which we should refuse, since the whole purpose of a rationale is to address why a specific use of a specific image in a specific article is justifiable. We should never accept nonfree images by category, only by individual case. It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that.
I'm not sure what the point of saying this is, since the sheer numbers involved in these categories require dealing with them somewhat mechanically. Indeed, one could imagine a bot which ran through uses of a particular infobox (say that for railroads) and tagged the image with a proper fair use rationale if was not otherwise tagged. Whether we would approve such a bot is beside the point, because a human doing the same work would do something of the same thing. They would just do it more slowly, which is sort of the point of the whole discussion.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Which we should refuse, since the whole purpose of a rationale is to address why a specific use of a specific image in a specific article is justifiable. We should never accept nonfree images by category, only by individual case. It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that.
I see no reason why we should change this for these instances. Why would you favor such a change?
-Matt
On 04/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Which we should refuse, since the whole purpose of a rationale is to address why a specific use of a specific image in a specific article is justifiable. We should never accept nonfree images by category, only by individual case. It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that.
That statement makes little sense, because the rationale is in fact pretty much identical for pretty much all CD and book covers. (I'm sure Geni will dive in right now with a string of exceptions, but I maintain it's still the case in general.) You really could put identical text on almost all and it would be a fair-use justification.
- d.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:44 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Which we should refuse, since the whole purpose of a rationale is to address why a specific use of a specific image in a specific article is justifiable. We should never accept nonfree images by category, only by individual case. It is unfortunate that in some cases we do de facto have categoric acceptance (CD covers, logos, etc.), but that will change in time, and requiring individualized rationales will help with that.
That statement makes little sense, because the rationale is in fact pretty much identical for pretty much all CD and book covers. (I'm sure Geni will dive in right now with a string of exceptions, but I maintain it's still the case in general.) You really could put identical text on almost all and it would be a fair-use justification.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What you describe is the problem, though, not the solution. For some instances (Nike, Coca-Cola, the Intel Inside campaign, the Beatles' White Album), an album (or other media) cover or corporate logo is an integral part of the article's subject, there is a significant quantity of discussion of -the image itself-, and we can make an appropriate rationale for putting it in the article. In most cases, though (Advanced Micro Devices, Band X's latest release), the logo or cover is unnecessary and decorative since the article does not (and should not) discuss it, since it's just decoration for the company/book/album in and of itself and is not discussed by sources. It is not, in most cases, a necessary part of an article on the (corporation|album|book|movie|video game|what have you). We should only provide exceptions for nonfree images where they're -needed-, and part of the requirement should be that the image itself should be the subject of significant commentary and discussion, rendering its actual presence necessary for the reader to see the image that's -actually being discussed in the article-. A nonfree rationale should include a rationale for why the image is needed because it is actually going to be discussed and why it is not just a pretty for the infobox.
I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal. In such cases, an image is decorative. That disqualifies a nonfree image too. We should be writing detailed rationales for every nonfree image justifying the use of that particular image in one particular article, -including the presence of sourced commentary on the image-.
And yes, that would drastically reduce the number of nonfree images we use. Good! In case anyone has forgotten, we're a free content project, and that is and should be one of our aims. Exceptions to that goal should, above all, be made on an -individual- basis, not categorically. A detailed and individualized rationale is a good step toward that goal. Accepting boilerplate rationales would be a tremendous step backward.
On 05/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal.
False. We've seen studies cited here that show that the presence of images help the educational process.
On 05/03/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal.
False. We've seen studies cited here that show that the presence of images help the educational process.
And that record and book covers are a significant part of almost any record or book release, because people do in fact judge records and books by their covers. Todd is phrasing a personal editorial viewpoint as if it follows naturally from WP:NONFREE, and it doesn't.
- d.
On 05/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal.
False. We've seen studies cited here that show that the presence of images help the educational process.
And that record and book covers are a significant part of almost any record or book release, because people do in fact judge records and books by their covers. Todd is phrasing a personal editorial viewpoint as if it follows naturally from WP:NONFREE, and it doesn't.
- d.
The problem is that for the most part we rely on the criticism and comment justifications for fair use in our rationals (news reporting doesn't work to well, teaching generally assumes classroom use and scholarship, and research don't quite fit what we are doing). However articles such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distance_%28album%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breath_of_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_the_World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronet_Til_Konge
And most of the rest of our album and single articles don't mention the cover at all so criticism and content is kinda tricky. I would tend to argue that even fairly minimalistic stuff such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_%28album%29#The_cover
Has the potential to make the fair use case a lot stronger.
On 05/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And most of the rest of our album and single articles don't mention the cover at all so criticism and content is kinda tricky. I would tend to argue that even fairly minimalistic stuff such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_%28album%29#The_cover Has the potential to make the fair use case a lot stronger.
It only needs strengthening for those demanding shrubberies. Isn't there a WP:RFA for that sort of thing?
- d.
On 05/03/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
And most of the rest of our album and single articles don't mention the cover at all so criticism and content is kinda tricky. I would tend to argue that even fairly minimalistic stuff such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_%28album%29#The_cover Has the potential to make the fair use case a lot stronger.
It only needs strengthening for those demanding shrubberies.
Content actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distance_%28album%29 is a problem. The fair use case is going to be rather weak.
Is there any criticism or comment? No. news reporting? album was released in 1982 I really can't see the courts going for that one. Teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) looks good but the courts might well take the view that accepting wikipedia as teaching would result in too broad a level of coverage since it would allow any mildly informative work to claim that. Scholarship, or research runs into WP:NOT. So we are not really using any of the standard statute defined situations under which fair use is okey.
So onto case law. Bill Graham Archives, LLC v. Dorling Kindersley Limited is about posters rather than album covers but is the closest case I know of. Looks promising but isn't an exact parallel. Worse still the judges interpreted the "the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" in controversial manner in deciding that the small number of images taken as part of a large book was a point in favor of fair use. If the courts keep deciding that the number of album covers we have could become a problem.
The good news is that the court stressed the importance of the book being transformative which means that a decent sized article should be fairly safe even if it does not directly mention the cover.
In short the problem is not the cookie cutter fair use rationals (although these should be avoided since a fair part of our EDP is meant to make people think what they are doing) but the cookie cutter album articles which once you strip out all the copywritten material barely make it to substub status.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that most of these images are not replaceable by free images, but irreplaceable is just one of many requirements for when a nonfree image may be used. In many of these cases, the image could be taken out and not replaced, and since it is not discussed in the article, the article would not suffer for its removal.
False. We've seen studies cited here that show that the presence of images help the educational process.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If we accept that in and of itself as justification for a nonfree image's use, we could use that to include any nonfree image anywhere, so that alone is not justification. If the image is undiscussed, it's still unacceptable, even if it would be nice. "Nice" or "helpful" aren't enough for nonfree image use. Also, I'd like to see this study. Does it state that -any- image helps the educational process, even when it's only marginally related to what's actually being discussed and the image itself isn't discussed at all? What study is this? I've seen that bantered around, but I've never seen any particular study actually -cited-.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Todd Allen wrote:
What you describe is the problem, though, not the solution. For some instances (Nike, Coca-Cola, the Intel Inside campaign, the Beatles' White Album), an album (or other media) cover or corporate logo is an integral part of the article's subject, there is a significant quantity of discussion of -the image itself-, and we can make an appropriate rationale for putting it in the article. In most cases, though (Advanced Micro Devices, Band X's latest release), the logo or cover is unnecessary and decorative since the article does not (and should not) discuss it, since it's just decoration for the company/book/album in and of itself and is not discussed by sources. It is not, in most cases, a necessary part of an article on the (corporation|album|book|movie|video game|what have you). We should only provide exceptions for nonfree images where they're -needed-, and part of the requirement should be that the image itself should be the subject of significant commentary and discussion, rendering its actual presence necessary for the reader to see the image that's -actually being discussed in the article-.
Huh?
Knowing what a company's logo looks like is itself a piece of important information about the company, just like knowing what state its headquarters is in or what product it makes. You don't need to discuss the logo in order for the logo to provide information about the company.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Huh?
Knowing what a company's logo looks like is itself a piece of important information about the company, just like knowing what state its headquarters is in or what product it makes. You don't need to discuss the logo in order for the logo to provide information about the company.
I do agree with your position here, but I feel the need to point out a flaw in this reasoning. If this position translates to album covers (and I'm not saying you think so) where an album cover is included because it identifies the album, then why not the individual songs? They identify the album too.
What if we discuss a particular song, such as [[Head over Feet#Harmonic_structure]]? (Ignore the OR tag for the sake of discussion.) Can we include the song under fair use?
I have no answers, only questions.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
What if we discuss a particular song, such as [[Head over Feet#Harmonic_structure]]? (Ignore the OR tag for the sake of discussion.) Can we include the song under fair use?
Hmm... [[Ironic (song)#Style_and_theme]].
(I'm not an Alanis fan, I swear!)
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
What if we discuss a particular song, such as [[Head over Feet#Harmonic_structure]]? (Ignore the OR tag for the sake of discussion.) Can we include the song under fair use?
We can include some of the song in that case, I feel, either in terms of audio clips or some written musical notation.
It's probably not good enough to include the whole song.
-Matt
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Chris Howie wrote:
Knowing what a company's logo looks like is itself a piece of important information about the company, just like knowing what state its headquarters is in or what product it makes. You don't need to discuss the logo in order for the logo to provide information about the company.
I do agree with your position here, but I feel the need to point out a flaw in this reasoning. If this position translates to album covers (and I'm not saying you think so) where an album cover is included because it identifies the album, then why not the individual songs? They identify the album too.
The individual songs identify the album in the literal sense that there's only one album with that particular combination of songs, but they don't identify it in the ordinary sense. A K-Mart ad for the album won't include the text of the song. It isn't printed on the outside of the casebox and it's.
Matthew Brown wrote:
Likewise. That page doesn't even make a link compulsory; all that's compulsory is the name of the article.
Even that requirement is relatively new.
Many older rationales don't necessarily name the article. On ones i did, for instance, I may have put 'Fair use in an article on the subject is claimed based on ...'
In this case, the image was uploaded when many believed that the {{Promotional}} template was sufficient rationale for an promotional image of something in an article about that something.
What's the point in naming the article when "What links here" will accomplish the same thing. Are some people just too lazy to check that?
Ec
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like the image has been restored, and re-tagged.
I have now restored it to the article it was formerly on and given a templated rationale.
-matt
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely someone is keeping a general eye on the tagged images, then?
From my (albeit limited) observation, only those intent on their deletion.
-Matt
On 04/03/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely someone is keeping a general eye on the tagged images, then?
From my (albeit limited) observation, only those intent on their deletion.
Well, the solution is obvious ...
- d.
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:16:18 +0100, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week, there is simply no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it was not a recently uploaded image - it's been on the site for almost two years.
Well two years ago the Non-free (then title "fair use") policy stated (among other things):
"(...)For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&oldid=43474222
And yes it was official policy at that point. One might argue that it was not very well known (or enforced) back then, but requieiring a link to the article is hardly some recent retroactive addition, it's been in there for a very long time (see below).
This one was deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Linking to the article has only recently been required. Imposing new rules and then expecting someone who uploaded an image 2 years ago to still be on the site to make that change is rather ludicrous.
Depends on your definition of recently. True it's only been "hard" policy for a couple of years, but even the earliest precursor to the current policy I know off http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_description_page&oldid=1431693 (4 September 2003), states:
"Remember there is no "general rule" about fair use, each "fair use" must be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use (i.e. every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image page)."
While it doesn't explicitly state that each article name must be typed out it's hard to have a distinct rationale for each use without mentioning wich use is wich. Also later versions (2004 an on) also include a link to the article in all the example rationales given.
Ok so it wasn't tagged as official policy at the time, but then again neither contemporary versions of things like WP:NOR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=5884338 or WP:NPOV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=1471194...