User:Drini

<dannyisme> here is policy
<dannyisme> no one may add a fair use image of themselves
<dannyisme> if they wanna be in wikipedia, they gotta make it a free image

Jimmy Wales wrote:

This should be required reading. Charles is a voice of great experience and wisdom:

Charles R Matthews wrote:'

(...) In other words, discretion in Arbish is read as saying that pro-active admins are the first, second and probably third lines of defence of the project. It is much better to have them out there doing their best, and taking away the mop-and-bucket from a very few, than doing up the constraints ever tighter, because it is felt that this pre-empts misuse of admin powers.(...)

Reference: [1]

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance.

The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

link See also: [2] [3]

From the Wikimedia Foundation attorney.

Dear Community:

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.

We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.

Thank you for your help.

-Brad Patrick User:BradPatrick Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

David Mestel wrote:

I don't think that "implied discretion" is a good idea long-term - it's better to codify it in policy so that everything is consistent and in the open. Apart from anything else, it's kind of inadvertantly biting the newbies when stuff happens for reasons which aren't explained.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

This is an eloquent expression of ongoing problems with process creep. Not everything needs to be codified in a strict policy involving a 5 day voting procedure.

One thing to remember is that deletions can be undone. Deleting an article is really no big deal.

As far as not biting the newbies, well, of course I agree. A kind and loving template which says "Thanks so much for your submission to Wikipedia, but it was deleted. Before submitting again, please read <this>, <that>, and <the other> policy, and if you have questions, please raise them at <an appropriate page>."

--Jimbo

Kim van der Linde wrote:

That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........

Jimbo Wales wrote:

Go for it!

--Jimbo Source: [5]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.

Jimbo Wales wrote:

In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

--Jimbo Source: [6]

• On ignore all rules...