Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Chowbok has added literally thousands of RfU tags to images that have been CORRECTLY uploaded under fair use and have been correctly attributed as such. There has been a significant outcry on his talk page regarding this behavior which many see as frivolous. The primary complaint has been that he seems to incorrectly apply the RfU tag on a regular basis to images that are uploaded under ACCEPTABLE fair use. All attempts to discuss this with him and ask him to please form a consensus before his mass RfU tagging have been in vain and the user refuses to stop his actions or to listen to anyone. Editor also becomes upset when his own fair-use-uploaded images are RfUd and does not appear to operate under the same principles he espouses.

Text from Wikipedia Copyright: All original Wikipedia text is distributed under the GFDL. Occasionally, Wikipedia articles may include images, sounds, or text quotes used under the U.S. Copyright law 'fair use' doctrine. It is preferred that these be obtained under the most free (libre) license (such as the GFDL or public domain) practical. In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available). Chowbok believes, instead, that all fair use images should be deleted as "it's better to have no image than a fair use image" (see last note under "evidence of disputed behavior"). If this were a correct analysis, then fair-use as a whole would have been eliminated and the list of fair-use license templates available when uploading images would have been wiped. Chowbok appears to operate based on this discussion from his and another users talk page [1] and also links to several other discussions, namely this one [2] in which Jimbo Wales gives his opinion of fair use in general and then clearly states that this is NOT POLICY.

[edit] Description

See above and see list below. In addition, Chowbok has begun trolling the image uploads of certain editors who have disagreed with him on this topic. User accuses others of bad faith when they RfU his images. Also engages in edit warring, broke 3RR rule and reverted a decision by an administrator.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Chowbok's list of contributions consisting of almost nothing but RfU tag placement and arguments regarding this topic [3]
Chowbok's talk page and archived talk page filled with comments seeking consensus, asking him to review policy and asking him to exercise restraint [4]
Chowbok engaged in edit warring [5]
Chowbok broke 3RR rule and reverted an administrators decision. Note dates [6]
When he was accused of incivility by myself and User:Irpen, he responded by making a bad faith accusation himself [7]
A small fraction of the RfU tags he has uploaded to various user pages [8] [9]
Statement that Chowbok's behavior has been questioned by an admin [10]
Chowbok threatening another User with a ban, even though he himself is not an op [11]
Support that Chowbok is violating policy with mass RfU tagging [12]
An editor accuses Chowbok of rudeness [13]
Chowbok accuses an editor of bad faith and resorts to namecalling [14]
Chowbok accuses an editor of bad faith again and again accuses the editor of whining and resorts to namecalling [15]
Makes an unrealistic request that "someone" (not named) could take a photo of the subject of a photo and this makes it replacable [16]
Clearly states his belief that "Wikipedia policy is that it's better to have no image than a replaceable fair use image, as a matter of fact. If you don't like that policy, take it up with Jimbo" [17]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

Edit Warring
3RR
Trolling 1
Trolling 2
Trolling 3
Avoid Copyright Paranoia

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Irpen asks Chowbok to please stop misapplying RfU tags and discuss on the images talk page. [18]
TheQuandry states that an image is acceptable fair use, provides a rationale, disputes tag placement, etc. [19] [20] [21]
An editor asks to be helped rather than have his images be tagged outright [22]
An editor asks Chowbok to stop making blind changes to copyright tags [23]
An editor questions Chowbok's understanding of the policy he claims to be enforcing [24]
An editor asks Chowbok to please initiate a discussion of the promophoto tag and reach consensus before resuming his tagging [25]
An editor asks Chowbok to exercise restraint and give him a chance to get it right [26]
An editor states that it seems Chowbok is opposed to standard fair use process on Wikipedia and Chowbok agrees that this is why he's tagging and that the standard fair use process needs to stop but quotes no policy [27]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. TheQuandry 03:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Irpen 03:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Jack Cox - Personally I feel the member is a first class jerk who has zero respect for the fact I spent a hell of a lot of time trying to upload these images only to have them deleted by somebody who thinks its fun to go around and harrass people. 04:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add something else: Chowbok is an extremely difficult person to work with and refuses to compromise at all, he is stubborn, he is arrogant and he does not know how to work well with others. 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Badagnani - The editor in question does appear to target particular editors' contributions (specifically uploaded promotional photos with the "promophoto" tag), does not tag the actual articles in which these photos appear, and does not acknowledge those instances (namely, those images that are irreplaceable or extremely difficult to recreate) when fair use is the only option at this time. Badagnani 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Jenolen 08:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC) -- My favorite Chowbok moments: I do agree that most of the photos I've tagged are fair use. The question is are they acceptable fair use. I'm still trying to understand the difference between "fair use" and "acceptable fair use". And, of course, the vaguely threatening, if you're really concerned about productivity, why not devote your energies toward finding a freely-licensed photo of Tina Dico instead of using so much of your time fighting a battle (that you will not win—trust me on this) with me? Both from User talk:Jenolen.
  3. Jbuzza 10:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I have been watching the saga unfold on talk pages since I had an image tagged by Chowbok myself. The debate over the image, like many others, is unresolved but I felt Chowbok's argument was made from a position of ignorance on the subject matter. Chowbok continues to operate in an unreasonable and somewhat arrogant manner despite many requests from editors to reconsider approach. This needs to be resolved as this behavior is not constructive and causing frustration to many editors. Chowbok is operating under a personal interpretation of the policy. The root cause of this issue is the policy itself. It would be better if energies were channeled into gaining consensus on this subject and into bringing some much needed clarity to the policy which is currently inadequate.
  4. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Bebop 21:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I had to take down my comments from here and move them "to a separate section" after getting a notice from user Irpen that my message was too long. I don't know if it belongs in an "outside view", so I will put it on the Discussion page in a section called Bebop's View.
  6. Bearcat 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC) I have to conclude that Chowbok is misinterpreting the policy as it stands. The policy does state that GFDL-compatible images are preferred whenever possible; it does not state that fair use images can be deleted in advance of a GFDL-compatible image becoming available. Some people have suggested that we take that more restrictive approach, but at present that has not been approved as actual policy. I would suggest that a more appropriate manner of dealing with the issue would be to institute a project that would actually take on the job of getting GFDL-licensed images to replace the fair use images already on Wikipedia; simply deleting the existing images before any such replacements are available is, to my mind, an unacceptably confrontational and tendentious way to go about this. There's no value in turning this issue into a battleground — it should be an opportunity for a constructive community-building project to help Wikipedia work toward its goals, but so far the manner in which Chowbok has approached it has turned it into a scorched-earth campaign. The goal is worthwhile, in a nutshell, but the implementation so far has been crapola. Withdrawn; new comments below. Bearcat 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. OneCyclone 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Dionyseus 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Fourdee 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Chowbok does nothing but spam and harass other users. He knows he is not following Wikipedia policy and places the tags improperly, causing a lot of trouble for other users and disrupting wikipedia articles. He admits that he is opposed to any fair use images and disregards the policies allowing them. I tried to reach an understanding with him but it was impossible because he rejects the very premise of fair use. As with any case of someone deliberately and routinely defacing articles, I suggest his account be removed and his IP address(es) banned. Please see below for my reasoning behind characterizing Chowbok as a vandal.
  10. Briememory 02:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) For about a month now, I have been receiving messages on my talk page about images I uploaded for various hockey players, all of them from press releases from their teams and all marked with the tag promophoto. I told him on his talk page that I thought the images were fair use, and for the first five photos I replaced the images and added rational, but he said they weren't fair use enough. As you can see, this user has just been going around randomly saying that we could be using freer images and many of us are annoyed by him telling us what we are doing is wrong, when we are following all the rules of Wikipedia.
  11. --Krm500 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Dark jedi requiem 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC) For a while now I've noticed Chowbok's behavoir and bullying and breaking the 3 revert rule. I've tried to find middle ground, and also what part of the rules I'm not reading. Chowbok responded every time trying to blame me for things even when I tried to understand him. Eventually he said I was wasting my time and than rediculed me for trying.
  13. Although Chowbok's energetic efforts at purging Wikipedia from questionable images are commendable, he has behavioural problems. Despite my request to modify his behaviour, Chowbok frequently stoops to incivility, makes no mainspace contributions, revert wars. He is often disruptive. No other editors specializing in images (Carnildo and Sherool are just two examples) interacted with fellow wikipedians in such a way. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Tvccs 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) To me this is yet another instance of editing under the guise of copyright protection/fair use run amok. An image on the Trilok Gurtu page has been marked for deletion, even though no free image is in fact available, and the image in question was uploaded from the artist's Web site and is specifically distributed and encouraged to be used in whatever forum users wish, and should be a welcome addition to Wikipedia - this was not an image I uploaded, and I have now disputed the deletion request. To delete such content under a fair use/free image rationale as posited by Chowbok denigrates the legitimate work of other Wikipedia users and needs to be stopped, period. When will Wikipedians stop deferring to people whose primary mission in this project seems to be to delight in deleting the content of others, regradless of any genuine rationale? It's a complete and total waste of time and effort to have to respond to garbage like this, denigrates the Wikipedia project as a whole, and helps discourage many, many legitimate contributors to the project who don't want to put up with this kind of harassment parading as some sort of copyright/fair use "protection" when they make legitimate contributions.  :::And I now find that even though I had contested this image's deletion, it has been removed without notification or comment - utterly absurd.Tvccs 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Hackajar One would question what motives are associated with actions of user Chowbok, as when people attempt to ask him for justification, or what he see's as ideal, he stonewalls users. If he in fact cares about this topic, then he should be more engaging. Further, I am having a hard time understand why images released by PR departments are not concidered "Fair Use" when they are introduced into Public Domain on purpose. Copyright law is very detailed in U.S.A. and states very clearly that any non-attempt to protect copyright is the same as loosing it all togeather. This is not the case here, as publishers release all copyright. So where's the beef? Hackajar 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. --HeartThrobs 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) I am a newbie that was bitten hard by the incivility of User:Chowbok. He caused me a lot of frustration and stress. I had my bags packed and was ready to leave until an admin gave me some hope. Because the fair use tag issue is currently being discussed here I will just comment about the incivility of the Chowbok issues.
    Being new to Wikipedia I wasn't sure I wanted to get involved in this but I decided to post this endorsement after rereading WP:Civil and WP:WQT and my personal experience. My first contact with Chowbok was when he tagged a picture with the Fair Use tag and continued when four days later he placed the article the image was in up for deletion. Unfortunately the image was deleted so you cannot read what was written there but it is referenced in the article for deletion discussion. During that time he attacked my integrity. His explanation in part said, "Please assume good faith, and don't take any of this personally." In the interest of civility and because I had no reason to doubt his word I accepted that it wasn't done in bad faith. After reading this Request for Comments it gives me a bigger picture of him. To save space here I ask that you please go read the entire text.. His reply, "I hadn't looked closely at the article before you wrote that; upon closer examination I realized I had no idea why there was an article about her in the first place," will also show you that he puts things up for deletion and makes comments without researching the entire subject.
    I feel there is enough to support the issues raised by User:Sebbeng and User:Irpen in the evidence presented by them, my personal dealings and the comments about civility from others about Chowbok.
  17. Mr. Chowbok's actions were that of a person with a very ultra-conservative misinterpretation of Fair Use Guidelines. It does not help matters that he tagged countless images that were copyrighted and yet properly attributed as to copyright status, source, etc. In addtion, I would also further endorse the restoration of all images that were improperly deleted because of Mr. Chowbok's actions. --CJ Marsicano 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. DHowell 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) The current rush to delete thousands of images, by Chowbok and others, because they may be in technical violation of controversial policies, and when many are arguably not in violation, is, in my opinion, disrupting Wikipedia. There are much less disruptive methods of achieving the desired goals.
  19. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I believe Chowbok is violating the spirit of the Fair Use policy on Wikipedia: that we should strive to have free use images in all cases, but that in some cases that is not possible and therefore fair use images can be used unless and until an equivalent free image is found or created to replace it. Chowbok generally refuses to discuss this issue, merely stating that what he's doing is policy, and therefore he's justified.
  20. Tryggvia 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC) I've had recent disputes with the user discussed on this page. What stuns me the most are the arguments for deleting promotional portraits. The fact that a person is still alive doesn't necessarily mean that the fair use image is easily replaceable. In small countries like Iceland, where I come from, there aren't thousands of photographs of famous people out there, and therefore it can be difficult to acquire a free image.
  21. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC), I've recently come across an image he tagged which was completely not RFU. I then saw the massive tagging of all images. This is a problem, and he doesn't really discuss it. This is not helpful to the project, possibly even disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    I should mention here that I've since spoken with Chowbok and he has been helpful about it. I'm AGFing that he must have just missed my comment due to the sheer number of them that he gets. I still think he's wrong and he's being overzealous about RFU, I'm just saying I rescind my comments about the not discussing. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    And now the picture is magically gone, despite a consensus on the talk page towards keeping it as valid fair use. This is ridiculous and needs to stop right now. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Endorse. This user is clearly interpreting the First Fair Use Criterion far too strictly and destroying a lot of people's good work because of it. I'd strongly advise him to stop. – Lantoka (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. VitaleBaby 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I try hard to work with Chowbok, but I disagree with his interpretations. Yes, if there is a free photo of a person readily available, then we should use it. However, if such an image is not able to be found, then fair use should be deemed acceptible. For example, I edit the political pages. For US Senators, there are plenty of photos available on the public domain site of Congress, so promo photos shouldn't be used. However, for governors, whose photos are generally not available on free sites (and about 4/5 state website's are copyrighted, so one's from the governor's official site usually aren't free either), fair use is a valid criteria. Personally, I feel that all users should be constructive, not destructive. Chowbok's actions are similar to that of a user who does nothing but get into edit wars- it contributes nothing to the encyclopedia.

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

It's clear that this being brought forth not because my actions are out of line, but rather because I am implementing an unpopular policy. User:Sebbeng has indicated as much in several places, especially on User talk:Bebop where he baldly states that this is "an attempt to bring his actions (and perhaps the actions of others who are doing the same thing) to the attention of Wikipedia at large which should, theoretically, allow the whole fair-use issue to be reviewed and dealt with." Regardless of how people here feel about me personally, this effort should be opposed by anybody who is against attempts to change policy simply by terrorizing those who implement it.

On to specifics. I'll try to address Sebbeng's points in order. He points to my edit history, which consistly largely (at least lately) of tagging images as replaceable. Although he's wrong in characterizing it as "almost nothing but" (I'm also spending a lot of time finding free images—see User:Chowbok#Images uploaded—and I also created this article from scratch the other day), it's true that it has taken up the bulk of my time. Since this is an agreed-upon policy, I don't see why I should be punished for implementing it. Again, it's telling that Sebbing's #1 complaint is that I am using a tag whose use was agreed-upon some time before—in other words, that I am implementing a policy he doesn't like.

It's true that many people have asked me to exercise restraint and seek consensus. In this context, that means "don't tag the images". It's hard to see how asking me to ignore an unpopular policy is an attempt at consensus. However, I have always responded courteously to people who have questioned me in kind.

Sebbeng also accuses me of violating 3RR and edit warring. What I was reverting was Irpen's constant removal of the RFU tag from the image. Removing delete tags is basic vandalism. Nothing would ever get deleted if editors who opposed the deletion could simply remove the tag. Irpen and Sebbeng are well aware of the dispute policy, but they would rather cheat and take the image out of the queue than have a discussion on the merits of the tag. As is obvious from my last edit summary, I wasn't aware that Alex Bakharev is an admin; once this was pointed out, I stopped adding the tag.

As for incivility; I don't think I've been that bad, although of course I'm sure I could do better. I think it's interesting that Sebbeng doesn't post what started this: his post here. I replied with this and then he reported me for incivility. Things just went downhill from there. I'm willing to bury the hatchet; I'd like nothing more than to discuss this stuff in a civil fashion with Sebbeng, if he's willing to do the same.

Threatening another user with a ban: well, as I said, removing RFU tags is vandalism. Before we can report vandalism, we have to provide evidence that we warned the user multiple times. There's no vandalism tag yet that applies to removing the RFU tag, so I had to write the warnings myself. If there's a better way I could have phrased it, please let me know.

User:Grafikm_fr accused me of violating policy by tagging the images, but provided no specifics. The tag is there, I don't see how using it is a violation. He also said it was "frivolous", which I strongly dispute. Nearly every image I've tagged, when reviewed by an admin, has been deleted. The few that were not were the result of a judgement call; obviously, I may be getting some wrong. (There have also been a few nominations which I've withdrawn when the uploader pointed something out that I had missed.) But that doesn't make them "frivolous", which means obvious, meritless nominations.

User:Bebop felt I was rude simply by following the RFU procedure. I was sorry he felt this way, and tried to make peace on his talk page. Again, though, this is a complaint with the policy, not with me personally.

Accusing Sebbeng of bad faith; I stand by that. Please note that the only images Sebbeng has ever tagged for deletion have been mine, including with the RFU tags he hates so much. I'm motivated by a genuine desire to reduce the amount of fair-use content we have on here; Sebbeng, clearly, is only motivated by revenge. Any visit to our respective edit histories will demonstrate that.

Asking that an article go six months without an image is not an "unreasonable request". It, again, is policy. If an image can be replaced, which the editor in that case conceded, then it is better that the article have no image than a fair-use one. I realize many people disagree with this, but it is current policy, and it seems hardly fair to act like I'm in some way misbehaving because I'm following it.

Sorry to be so long-winded about this, but I felt Sebbeng's multiple points needed to be addressed. I would like nothing more to be able to make peace with Sebbeng (and with Irpen, with whom I've already tried to make peace, only to be ignored). My question to Sebbeng is this; what can I do to restore a harmonious relationship with you, aside from ceasing to follow this policy which you don't like? It's unfair to hold me responsible for implementing a policy you hate, as I've said, but I'd like to know how else I can change my behavior in a way that would end this dispute.

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Chowbok ☠ 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I endorse this, with two caveats. First, incivility is not excused by similar or worse behavior on the other party's part, and civility is of paramount importance in fair use tagging work, as enforcement tends to make good contributor upset. Second, I do not think that claims of bad faith, accurate or not, are productive in this type of situation. On the whole, however, Chowbok's behavior has been appropriate. --RobthTalk 22:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I endorse it. I would just suggest Chowbok to avoid trying to guess other user's motivations for theirs attitudes. As Robth pointed, this takes us nowhere. As a whole, he is just being accused of implementing an unpopular policy. --Abu Badali 01:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. I endorse this. The policy being enforced is emotional and unpopular, but it is absolutely necessary for the long term survival of the project in the increasingly litiginous environment. Criticism and discussion of the policy is proper, singling out implementers is not. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. I endorse this per Robth and Abu Badali. Megapixie 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per Robth. Jkelly 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Endorse, with similar caveats as above; you must remain civil at all times and avoid speaking anything of the motivations of other editors. Calmly, rationally, peacefully deny claims. Continue the work you are doing so well. --Durin 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Robth

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I see several issues as being at the heart of this RfC; I will try to address them one by one, saving the most important for last.

First is the question of whether Chowbok is enforcing actual policy or his own interpretation of policy. The answer must be that Chowbok is enforcing policy. I would encourage anyone who doubts this to read down Wikipedia talk:Fair use and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use. Note that when Jimbo Wales states, in the discussion linked above, that he has not made his most extreme views on fair use policy, he is referring to a much more extreme position than that currently being enforced, under which even fair use images of fictional characters and deceased people would be deleted. A more relevant discussion with regards to this policy is here, where Jimbo strongly endorses the policy of deleting replaceable fair use images. Note also that the reference to Chowbok saying that "it's better to have no image than a fair use image" is actually a misquote of him saying that "it's better to have no image than a replaceable fair use image"--a position supported by the current policy. The first fair use criterion (a policy) has been in place for over a year, and explicitly states that images of this sort are not permitted.

The second issue is a misconception regarding the nature of the {{Replaceable fair use}} tag. Several editors seem to have misunderstood this tag as the equivalent of a speedy deletion tag, criticized Chowbok for adding it before discussing (as here, and accused him of edit warring when he re-adds it after it has been removed. It is important to remember that, for images on which the replaceability is questioned, the rfu tag is not a verdict but the start of a discussion, and the appropriate reaction to its placement is not to remove it but to place a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag and start a discussion; this is why there are seven days between tagging and deletion (and if an editor happens to be absent during the intervening period, the image can always be undeleted for discussion, as happened here). Note also that this procedure is not Chowbok's invention; it was worked out through discussion on the various fair use talk pages.

The next issue is the reasons that some editors have taken personal issue with Chowbok over his enforcement of this. The first problem here is that when a one editor tags a great number of another editor's uploads, it is easy for that second editor to get the perception of harassment (and thus the accusations of trolling here). I do not think Chowbok is harassing people. There are two common ways to identify potentially problematic images; one is by examining all the articles on a subject area or images in a category that has been historically problematic (e.g. automobile articles or {{promophoto}}s), the other is to go through the contributions of an editor who has uploaded problematic images in the past. Any of these methods tends to lead to accusations of a vendetta (against a certain subject, image tag, or editor), but I see no sign that Chowbok's tagging has been in any way targetted at editors. The second is Chowbok's tone in dealing with uploaders. Chowbok has, at several points, lost his temper with or made sharp remarks at other editors. These comments have always, as best I can see, been in response to aggression or incivility by the other party, but that is not an excuse. It is very important, when doing image work, to remain civil and patient at all times, as having one's images tagged as inappropriate is a very stressful and unpleasant experience.

This brings me to my last and most important point. Dealing with fair use on Wikipedia is an unpleasant and messy process, because it pits good contributors against each other. The people lodging this complaint are good contributors; personally, I can testify to the high quality of Irpen and Grafikm's work, which I have noticed through WP:MILHIST, and Badagnani's, which I have observed while interacting with him in recent days. Chowbok is also a good contributor. A look through his full edit history shows that he has done a great variety of useful things in his time here, and recently he has done a good job with the tough and unpleasant task of enforcing this policy. The problem is that bringing our fair use usage into line with recently clarified policy is going to involve stepping on a lot of good people's toes. Since our current usage of fair use images is out of line with policy, and since many good contributors have put time and effort into uploading outside-of-policy images, enforcing the fair use policy inevitably involves undoing people's work, and this makes people understandably angry.

So what can we do about this? Well, the first thing is to have a better notification system, so that a fuller discussion can occur in borderline cases. To this end, I propose that we have OrphanBot go to work on the replaceable fair use categories, commenting out images that are on track to be deleted in articles; this will alert the editors of those articles that the process is underway and allow for wider input. The next thing to address is the level of awareness of our fair use policy. If people are uploading outside-of-policy images, we need to talk to them and explain the policy before they put their time and effort into finding and uploading dozens or hundreds of such images. Perhaps a longer upload screen for fair use images, with input boxes for things like what makes the image irreplaceable, could be implemented (although this would require getting a developer's ear). The one thing we cannot do, if we are ever going to bring image use in line with policy, is allow the current situation to persist; so long as people look around and see fair use images of replaceable subjects on Wikipedia, they are going to assume that these images are permitted and spend their time and effort adding more, which will just lead more conflict and hard feelings when the transition eventually does come.

An addendum, after the first five endorsements. Let me register here my strong disapproval of the various comments above in which people have insulted Chowbok or claimed that he is acting in bad faith or in knowing contravention of Wikipedia policy. I recognize that there are heated feelings on both sides of this case, but I'm disappointed that Wikipedians can't maintain a higher level of discourse than this, particularly since Chowbok is clearly a good-faith contributor who has invested much time in many different aspects of of the project over many months. I encourage the people who have spoken out in these ways to retract these insults and accusations and apologize. --RobthTalk 06:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. --RobthTalk 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Chowbok ☠ 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Endorsed with no caveats; Robth's criticism about my tone is correct and well-taken, and I will redouble my efforts to work on that.
  3. --Abu Badali 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I endorse Robth's views with no caveats.
  4. -- Bebop 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I endorse the one sentence of the final paragraph by Robth where he states that a better notification system about policy is in order but endorse little else of his view, explaining why in the Discussion page here.
  5. --Interiot 05:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Endorsed with no caveats.
  6. Tagging fair use images that can reasonably be replaced by free licensed alternatives (even if no such free image currently exist) is entirely within policy as it stands. Disputes about the "replacability" of individual images (not the policy as a whole, take that to Wikipedia talk:Fair use) should be filed on the talk page of the individual image where an admin will evaluate it before deciding to delete it or not. --Sherool (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- cohesion 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Endorsed with no caveats.
  8. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 10:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Endorsed. I'm new to this RfC system. I want to add that Chowbok's actions have served to educate me further about what's fair use and introduce the concept of replaceable images. I'm more selective now about what images I upload and am more actively trying to find free-use alternatives. I will further add that in my interactions with Chowbok, I crafted a civil message to him, questioning what the tags were all about, and he gave me a civil response. He and I disagree on a couple of photos he tagged, but that will be up to the admins to decide. I guess, if I have a caveat to this is that I think the Wikimedia board should take on the issue of educating the public about copyright vs public domain/free licenses and how copyrights prevent the free sharing of information.
  9. This is a really excellent summary of policy, outstanding issues, Chowbok's good work, and Chowbok's missteps. Thoroughly endorsed. ×Meegs 11:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Endorse absolutely. —Angr 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. - Herostratus 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes, Chowbok does good work in a very hellish subject, but overagressive and sometimes unpleasant to work with. The other side in my opinion especially TheQuandry especially his WP:POINT taggings of Chowbok few fair use images is guilty as well, so I can't strongly blame Chowbok. Jaranda wat's sup 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Very well said! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. From what I've seen of this incident, and what I'm familiar with our fair use problems, I think this is a fitting description, not only of this particular matter, but of the entire situation as a whole. Someone needs to take care of these things, and as far as I can tell, Chowbok is doing the best he can. Luna Santin 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Jkelly 21:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. An excellent comprehensive view. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Excellent points, all. I'd like to note special agreement with the good contributor vs. good contributor problem. I myself am heavily involved in fair use work, and I am quite aware that this work causes stress to the people whose work I am undoing. This is a difficult, at times emotionally painful process for some. We all must be mindful of that. That said, we should not stop this process because some people suffer anguish from it. Our goal is a superset of our editors, not a subset of it. The march to fair use compliance must continue as best as we can make it go. --Durin 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jimbo Wales

I strongly support Chowbok's good work. His interpretation of policy seems to me to be exactly correct, and many of the comments of people who are opposing him here reveal that they are on the wrong side of the policy issue. He has here frankly acknowledged some missteps and vowed to correct these things. I am personally satisfied by that, and encourage him to go even further than what would normally be required of us all, in terms of trying really really hard to be extra kind to people with the understanding that when contributors are on the wrong side of policy, they tend to be rather emotional about it. We can treat them with kindness even as we firmly enforce policy.

It is important to say: RfU work of the kind that Chowbok has been engaged in is very badly needed. Virtually every image that he has tagged should be deleted in due course. (I have not checked them all, and I am sure there are exceptions... but this is the point of the tag... to give people the opportunity to sort out the exceptions ahead of time.) I did a spot check of a number of the images, and frankly, I feel that we have not done nearly enough to educate contributors about the problems in this area.

Chowbok, good work. Do not let this RfC dissuade you fron continuing. --Jimbo Wales 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. I agree that Chowbok wishes good for Wikipedia and that we need more wikipedians sorting out images that are being uploaded. However, he has serious behavioural problems, such as recurrent ourbursts of incivility and failure to interact with fellow wikipedians. I urge Chowbok to make some contributions in mainspace, write a few articles, preferrably featured, and, after taking this break, return to his RfU work. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with certain aspects of this statement but I'm putting other comments in the Discussion page here since I have suggestions and comments about his statement. I also endorsed generally the main statement of the RfC that people were encountering problems dealing with how photo policy was handled by chowbok but I was not agreeing with all the accusations made in some of the endorsement comments. I suppose my views & comments put together might have made an outside view, as Irpen had suggested to me. I generally agree Chowbok should be encouraged to work on things here and that his energy to work here is valuable. – Bebop 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. --RobthTalk 17:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I am encouraged by Mr. Wales' statement that not enough has been done to educate contributors this issue, and I am hopeful that in the future something will be done to educate not only contributors, but the general public as well.
  5. --Abu Badali 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I have some idea of what is it like to work with image's issues in Wikipedia. A great number of great contributors still see Wikipedia as a project to build an informative website, and I believe this is the main reason why the policy on unfree material usage is so unpopular. We need to educate editors (sometimes even Admins) and the public in general about the issue. --Abu Badali 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. I've had disputes with Chowbok on image stuff before, but really, he's been right and I was wrong, even when I thought I was right. Chowbok has been abrupt, not exactly per policy but he's doing a whole lot of work. I just suggest Chowbok figure out some way to seem more tactful, even when he's right. It will go a long way towards helping avoid problems. User:Pedant 20:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. ×Meegs 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Endorse absolutely. Chowbok is helping Wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming a free content encyclopedia. —Angr 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Endorse. When you're tagging images, people yell at you, when you tag a lot, people yell at you a lot, and that gets to everyone. I hope this doesn't discourage you. If you do get overwhelmed don't hesitate to push questions off on others. It's a lot less stressful sometimes to not be so close to the situation. - cohesion 04:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. I strongly agree with Ghirla, Chowbok in my opinion is an excellent fair use fighter but is overagressive and once got into a revert war with him over an image that was a derivative work in fair-use replacable and I was the deciding admin, but Jimbo makes a valid point and we need more anti-fairuse fighters, but please, take a break, work on some articles and hope a lesson can be learned with this. Jaranda wat's sup 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    Partial endorsement, particlarly in terms of Ghirla, Bebop and Jaranda. Adding the indent mark so that my endorsement is not counted as agreeing with the whole statement. --Irpen 05:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Endorse. Megapixie 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Jkelly 21:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Endorse. Wholeheartedly. Too many editors here fail to understand that simply because we can use fair use does not mean we should use fair use. Our goal is to create a free encyclopedia, not a fair use encyclopedia. --Durin 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpoint by Fourdee

I may be mistaken about the images which Chowbok tagged being legitimate fair use, but I do not believe that he has been following wikipedia policy. He appears to have stated that he objects to all fair use images (at least publicity and screenshot) and it was under that assumption that I described him above as a vandal. Perhaps that is not a fair characterization, but consider the following exchange from Image_talk:Stephanie_Kralevich.jpg:

  • "This image could only be replaced with another fair use image such as a screen capture of a television broadcast. I don't see the rationale of replacing one fair use image with another." Fourdee 07:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, nearly every article of an entertainment figure has an illegitimate photograph and should be tagged. The number of screenshots on Wikipedia is staggering. My interpretation of the above exchange and Chowbok's statements is that he would tag any screenshot or publicity photo at all, at least for living persons. That is not wikipedia policy as I understand it, and evidence that he is willfully enforcing a policy he has contrived on his own. I am not familiar with his other tags, only the ones he placed on images I uploaded.

I think we could all use some very specific clarification about what is an acceptable use of a publicity photo or screenshot for a famous living person. Fourdee 02:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is precisely the sort of photo that should be tagged and gotten rid of as quickly as possible. There is zero reason to have a photo like this in Wikipedia. Notice that this image is slightly different from many screenshots, in that many screenshots (from movies for example) can not be easily replicated in content by another photo (Darth Vader in a fight with a light sabre for example). But this is just a photo of a local newscaster, it would be easy to get another photo of her.--Jimbo Wales 23:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourdee 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - I don't see how this is any different than a screenshot of a movie or television show illustrating a person in a role they perform. Most examples are not Darth Vader in a suit but merely the actor appearing more or less precisely as they normally do. A photograph of a newscaster outside her role as a newscaster would not depict her as described in the article, same as any movie or television personality. There are a great number of exampes of just this kind of use. Spending just a few minutes:
Tom_Brokaw screenshot
David_Brinkley book cover not used to describe book
Gary_Coleman screenshot
Howie_Mandel screenshot
Katie_Couric screenshot down below in article
Regis_Philbin publicity photo
  • You note Tom Brokaw above. I find it interesting to note that on December 11 Chowbok removed a fair use image from that article on the grounds that it was replaceable [28]. Today, it was replaced by me with a free license image [29]. I only stumbled across this RfC because of finding that image on the www.navy.mil site, and putting it into the Tom Brokaw article. Just because a screenshot displays the subject in question doesn't mean we should permit it. Our goal is the creation of a free license encyclopedia. Fair use images detract from that goal and should be kept to an absolute minimum. Fair use overuse is rampant on Wikipedia but in no way does that mean that is the way we should be doing things. For living persons, it is quite possible to come up with a free license image and we should strive to do that, and not fall back on fair use alternatives just because we can. --Durin 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by JYolkowski

The most productive use of this RfC is to ignore whose interpretation of policy is correct (that can be discussed elsewhere; policy isn't made by RfCs) and look at the behavioural issues. When implementing policies that may be unpopular, it is incredibly important to exercise civility; otherwise, there is a strong risk of alienating editors and/or driving them away from the project. Adding {{rfu}} tags is not vandalism, nor is removing them; rather, editors doing both indicates that there is a dispute that needs to be resolved by civil discussion, not by editwarring or by unilateral action. Chowbok has failed to do this on a few occasions, but the other "side" of the dispute is not entirely innocent either.

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. JYolkowski // talk 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Irpen 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. TheQuandry 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. CJ Marsicano 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jaranda wat's sup 05:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate view by Bearcat

First off, I would like to note that I have withdrawn my original endorsement above, and would like to offer an alternative. I accept that Chowbok was acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy as written; I also accept that because the policy was not adequately communicated in all of the appropriate policy locations, some of us misunderstood, albeit justifiably, the policy as it stands. However, I would note that when this many Wikipedia editors feel as though they've been personally kicked in the gonads, I think it behooves us to consider that something about the process needs to be examined and/or revised.

I truly believe that the goal on Wikipedia should always be to find constructive, community-oriented solutions which respect the good faith contributions of our editors. I also truly believe that the approach that's been taken with regards to this issue so far hasn't really been the best implementation of that goal; to a lot of people it's felt like an army of stormtroopers marching through and smashing their work to smithereens. Maybe Chowbok was a bit incivil at times, but so were some of the editors whose image uploads were tagged — and having done it myself more than once, I certainly have no right to chide another Wikipedian for getting a bit hot under the collar when other contributors are coming at him with tar and feathers. Glass house, stone, you know the proverb. Essentially, Chowbok became a lightning rod for what's really a policy dispute — so let's take the opportunity to examine whether we can find a less confrontational approach. Remember that Wikipedia contributors are, for all intents and purposes, volunteers, and we should accordingly keep the principles of good volunteer management in mind when dealing with an issue such as this.

I've mentioned this a couple of times already on the talk page, but I'd like to officially propose the following solution:

  1. So that interested Wikipedians can contribute to a project which actively strengthens Wikipedia's goals in a team-oriented way, a project should be created to actively take on the role of locating GFDL-compatible replacement images. When a replaceable fair use image is located, it would be listed there, and the project participants would take on the job of contacting publicists or searching Creative Commons databases or whatever. The fair use image can still be deleted, but at least the contributor would know that a replacement was actively being sought and their work wasn't just being thrown in the trash compactor for shits and giggles. And I'm sure that quite a few Wikipedians would be only too happy to contribute to a project of this type.
  2. The policy should clarify that album covers, book covers, movie posters, etc., are not easily replaceable, and thus not subject to deletion; the policy applies principally to images of people, geographical places, buildings and objects.
  3. The boilerplate messages and templates for replaceable fair use issues should be revised, if possible, with an eye to being a bit more sensitive to and respectful of editors' good faith contributions. Remember that people do take a significant amount of pride in their WP contributions, and that even if it isn't your intention, seeing somebody take a hacksaw to their pride and joy can hurt their feelings. Try to communicate around the issue in a constructive way that doesn't leave editors feeling attacked.
  4. Some leeway should be given for fair use images that were already on Wikipedia before the more active enforcement of replaceability came into effect. Certainly new replaceable fair use images should be deleted right away, so that people start thinking in terms of GFDL or PD for new uploads, but I'm not convinced that it's justifiable to downgrade an article that's had an image on it for two or three years already. I am convinced, however, that I'm entirely justified in being at least a little bit angry that all the work I've put into Spirit of the West over the years has now been undermined by a theory of replaceability that nobody has taken the initiative to actually investigate. Certainly list such images on the image project page for replacement, but at least consider the possibility that if the image was already here before replaceability was strictly enforced, and a project is actively pursuing alternatives, then maybe it should be allowed to stay until the replacement is actually found.

I'd welcome other ideas, but I offer this as a start for discussion. Instead of laying blame in this, let's recognize that we have an opportunity to improve how we handle the situation; let's recognize that we have an opportunity to come up with a more constructive, community-oriented solution. Bearcat 11:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. TheQuandry 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I also endorse under the caveat that Chowbok was operating under an interpretation of policy, that there are other interpretations for the word "reasonable" and that the policy, as written, is a big part of the culprit.
  2. Herostratus 17:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jbuzza 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Endorse with caveat that Chowbok was operating within an interpretation of policy. There are other interpretations. The root cause being a badly written policy.
  4. Tvccs 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) There is a huge need for a project that people would devote time to constructively finding free quality images rather than mass deletions of fair use images. I do not support the immediate deletion of fair use images without a quality substitute.
  5. Alex Bakharev 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Irpen with a small caviat that I do not see the Chowbok was acting within a policy as written. Thoroughly support the proposed remedy. 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Chowbok ☠ 05:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I endorse all of this except point #4, for the reasons Robth gave on the talk page, and with the understanding that point #1 will not affect the currently in-place timeline for RFU image deletions. I'm also glad to see that Sebbeng has changed his mind about album covers being replaceable. I never thought they were, but he was more deletionist than I in this respect.
  9. Bebop 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This pretty much mirrors my view. I hesitated to remove my partial endorsement of the original dispute (at the top of the page) previously because it seemed a wishy washy thing for me to do, so I just endorsed parts of different views and explained my personal view's differences on the Discussions page. Thanks to Bearcat for his additional view that is closer to what I have previously stated on the Discussions page, and sorry I didn't see it sooner, but I've been busy.
  10. I endorse this, except for the fourth point; I do not believe that grandfathering in existing images while trying to explain to uploaders why their image, unlike the thousands of existing ones, is impermissible, is practicable or desirable (although exceptional courtesy to the uploaders of such images is). I very much like, however, the idea of a centralized project for trying to arrange image releases. --RobthTalk 07:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. DHowell 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) This proposal is a good example of a positive way of achieving the desired goal of encouraging free-content alternatives to fair-use iamges. DHowell 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I strongly support the ideas put forth in this proposal.
  13. Hackajar I endorse these statments and add following statement: Mr. Chowbok should have predicted, or attempted to mitigate after wave, large outcry based on volume of images tagged and reach of users effected. Therefore, had he had more then a one sentence disclaimer on his User page, many people could have understood his stance, and not felt this was personal attacks. See my example of a good start to disclaimer on his talk page.Hackajar 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Daniel Case This view comes closest to mine. I was angry about both the way this policy was applied at first, and the seeming obtuseness of enforcing it without any thought, or experience, of what it's like to actually be getting pictures of this sort (I found out that Jerry Bauer, the guy who took the book-cover photo of Alice Sebold that got deleted, lives in Italy. Can the Foundation reimburse me for the cost of the phone call as I was only given his number?). But, I decided to write guidelines that the original policy makers forgot to instead of getting mad and resisting. I agree strongly with the idea of getting a project together to actively secure free images. It would be madness to so ruthlessly enforce this guideline without it. It's a shame it took this RFC to force this discussion we should have had before. Daniel Case 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. MECU≈talk I have been on the opposite side from Chowbok, but the above statement (except #4, there should be no leeway) sums it up. It appears that the policy is and will be "replaceable" as defined by the possibility of replacement. Education of image uploaders should be better and explanation should be greater and clearer than it is. Almost everyone agrees that WP:FU is confusing. We should seek to provide a clear example. And, after seeing the hundreds of pictures uploaded each day that don't even include basic information on the source or the uploader trying to put a license, I would even be for requiring users to go sign some sort or form or seek permission before being able to upload. Most pictures are utter junk. No one said working for Wikipedia would be easy, finding quality free pictures won't be either, but it is the way Wikipedia is. I recognize the hard work in good faith that I and others have done, but it appears Wikipedia has decided that they do not want these images and instead want free ones. I don't think the method imposed is the best decision or method, but it's the one we have. Instead of complaining about it, people should work towards a better one, community supported and that works as least as well. --MECU≈talk 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on policy, replaceability by Luke Brandt

I see the word "policy" is used 4 times in Jimbo's general approval of Chowbok's actions. There is a simple question to be asked (particularly in the light of endorsement #10 to Bearcat above) of Jimbo and all those who support his viewpoint.... - why is it worth causing such ill feeling to contributors? Is the aim perhaps eventually to eliminate fair use completely? If not, then what precisely is the objection to it? (I simply don't swallow the re-distribution argument - accurate tagging can take care of that.) If the aim is to eliminate fair use, then why not simply ban it now? Also WP:C has been as much our policy as any other policy page. Although it was recently edited without debate, I suspect the debate is being carried on here..and I think the replaceability concept needs a PhD to understand it! (as if procedures are not complicated enough!) Much simpler to ban fair use completely, as I hear is done for example in the German and Portuguese Wikipedias. So my question is: what principles are causing this mayhem?...luke 08:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that banning fair use images altogether would be the ideal solution. There's absolutely no need for any of them, and having them is in direct contradiction of Wikipedia's goal of being a free content encyclopedia. —Angr 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
At least you're honest about it here...I can't wait to see the reaction of the thousands of Wikipedians who have uploaded album images. Amazing. Tvccs 03:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Luke is right. The vehemence in the defense of the deletion, and the utter failure to even consider valid fair use claims by the half-dozen most active deleters, to me indicates that there is a plan to eventually convert our content to a commercial venture of some sort, with only a few "in the know" about this. There seems to be no other explanation for this ironclad and somewhat hysterical enforcement of these editors' interpretation of policy. I've been following the discussions and while the justification for some of the very rare images has often been very good, I've again and again seen arguments dismissed (or not responded to at all) and images summarily deleted. Badagnani 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The idea that Wikipedia is to consist of free content only, freely reusable for commercial purposes, has been around since Wikipedia's inception. It is nothing new, and everyone who has ever bothered to discover what "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL" under every edit box means ought to be aware of that. —Angr 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In reality, this is fantasy - there are thousands and thousands of fair use images of deceased persons, album covers, and others that will likely never leave Wikiepdia. This "free only" argument cannot support that simple fact. Tvccs 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So you are admitting that the recent rush to delete promotional images by the group of a half-dozen editors we all know by now, which many editors clearly regard as unreasonable, is primarily fueled by projections of future commercial gain by some editors (and that the deleters are hoping to receive some sort of "reward" for their activities)? I thought as much, since the fever pitch of the deletion and accompanying rhetoric didn't make sense unless money were involved in some way. Now at least I know that the work I have put in is intended for the enrichment of a select few editors at some future date. Badagnani 11:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, no. The recent rush to delete promotional images is fueled by a desire keep Wikipedia true to its roots as a free content encyclopedia. No Wikipedia policy has actually changed in the last weeks, only enforcement has. It has always been the case that "fair use" images were not allowed if a free equivalent could be made, but up until quite recently no one has paid particular attention to that fact. —Angr 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The idea of deleting all fair use photographic content of any sort, however (the primary subject under discussion), is one that there clearly is no consensus on, if you've been following the discussion here or elsewhere over recent weeks. Thus, the only alternative is compromise, from a position of mutual respect. That is not happening. Editors with more power and connections are steamrolling over others without meaningful consideration. This has caused at least one productive editor to leave the project entirely and must stop. Whatever the case, we must be at all times reasonable when dealing with one another in these matters. Badagnani 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If the editor who left was truly a productive editor, I'm sorry she left, but frankly, lifting a bunch of other people's images off the web and uploading them to Wikipedia can hardly be called "hard work". The statement you linked to above sounds to me like it was written by someone who never really understood what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. —Angr 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It is hard not to take this personally, but I do find this extremely insulting. I refuse to have my valid contributions denigrated in this offhanded way. Your provocations seem designed to make other editors lose their cool, but I will not; instead, I will present evidence to support my comments. Locating photographs in one's area of expertise often involves searching (often in several different foreign languages) for images of rare items such as obscure Asian liquors, which are often the only available images. It can be extremely difficult to locate such images because in many cases there is only one image on the entire Internet of a particular item. Uploading, properly tagging and linking, and carefully labeling them as to the photo's content, photographer, and source is an art in itself and does take a lot of time. Every one of the photographs I uploaded was on the Internet in the first place for promoting the product or individual in question, and as our own guidelines state, it is extremely unlikely there would be any objection to the use of such photos in our educational forum. Badagnani 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Badagnani. There are some users (and worst of all, admins), who seem to take particular pleasure at being infected with copyright paranoia, tagging for deletion everything that itches them. Clearly, it is not a constructive attitude. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The very idea that "copyright paranoia" exists at Wikipedia is both offensive and ridiculous. This has nothing to do with being worried about getting sued. This has to do with with one of Wikipedia's core principles: creating a free content encyclopedia. I'm really not trying to provoke anyone into losing their cool, and I'm truly sorry if people have wasted a lot of time finding images that were never in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I understand that most of these people probably didn't realize their images were policy violations at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that the images never should have been uploaded in the first place and must go now. —Angr 12:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, I am certain there is no policy banning all fair use images on Wikipedia, only a tiny few people hellbent on creating it by any means necessary, apparently. Again, amazing. Tvccs 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey the commercial venture thing don't seem that bizare.You can have for free the downgraded shity wikipedia with no pictures but you can buy it with the images for 100-200€.Thus the GFDL is complitly bombed away.and the volonter's(us) are completly fucked.This is a very serious charge since it also involve treason.Especially for jimmy walles.--Bootstrapping 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Summary on thoughts:- Following my thoughts and the above, my view is that we should be full GFDL / open content or else allow fair use. To that end, as a first step to move to free content exclusively, I proposed a guideline on images of living people. As some will know, it received little support from contributors who knew about it. I am being made more and more aware of inconsistencies in Jimbo's approach, and I wish he could explain why he doesn't either ban fair use - as would be fully in accord with his clearly stated principle #5 (and which I was made aware about when joined a little over a year ago) - or just leave it be.

Well said - what's equally odd is that "Jimbo" has specifically endorsed copyright protections and the DMCA as being a good approach to protecting the rights of artists. Anyone else find this odd? Tvccs 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Shojo (talk • contribs)
  2. TheQuandry 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I endorse the concept of more tightly codified policy which, in turn, would help prevent the kinds of behavior we're witnessing. And editors wouldn't feel steamrolled when they're told "that role has been there for a year, we just weren't enforcing it before." Why start "enforcing" it now? Because the interpretation fo the policy changed (but that policy wasn't clearly codified and the various other means of communicating that policy are out of compliance with it.

[edit] Statement by Alex Bakharev

Honestly I would rather have ab RfC on the new interpretation of policy that require automatic deletion of all the promotional photo of celebrities. It was named many times "unpopular policy". The phrase "unpopular policy" is just an euphemism for the "policy not supported by the community consensus". Wikipedia is not a democracy, any policy can be accepted even against the community consensus by the WMF board or by Jimbo expicitly stating that he is acting as a god-king. So far it was not the case, we can freely edit all the wikipedia policies, what is matter is not the letter of the policy but the community spirit behind the letter and it is not here yet. Thus, I think the mass tagging of thousands of promophotos by the speedy deletion tag was wrong.

Article on models, actors, dancers, singers loose a great deal when we do not have appropriate image. It is obviously much more than a simple image used for identification. Mutilation of our collective work just to encourage people to hunt for the free image is akin to deletion all the articles that have not got WP:FA status in some time. It would certainly encourage people to provide some free images/improve some article but the overall usability of our project would go down. We already has the project for collecting free images, it has the name Commons. Here we are interested in free encyclopedia that everybody could fork. Fair images under our already strict guidelines are not hinder it.

Moreover I think that there are some cases when we should not push for the free images. One example are portraits of people who might be of interest for the Viagra or condom advertisers. Pushing for them is simply evil. It is equivalent to pushing wiki-editors to work under their real name. Some stupid people (like me) do it. Some celebrities provide free images or tolerate wiki-razzies for the free street shots of them. It is their choice. But we should not push them. Imagine the drama and the lawyers' picnic we would have when such image would endup on a website with an inappropriate context. We are not Google, but Don't be evil is still a good slogan. Another example are corporate logos. We did not make free our own wikipedia logo nor should we push for people to make theirs free.

In short I want to say that in my opinion (IMHO shared by many users) wholesale deletion of promoimages is wrong. We do not have consensus for it. It does not make the project safier or more ethical. Sometimes the opposite is true. Tagging thousands of such images happily sitting in Wiki for months and even years is wrong.

[edit] Users who endorse this summary

  1. Absolutely, this copyright paranoia is not only becoming tiresome, but prevents WP from developing itself. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Endorse. Chowbok is truly implementing an unpopular policy. He is implementing it correctly, but that doesn't mean the policy is correct. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. I think the people running roughshod over others in pursuit of this "policy" is abominable, but this unclear, up-to-interpretation policy is a significant part of it too. Maybe someone should start a separate RfC for the policy itself? TheQuandry 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    Being discussed at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos of Living People. Not quite an RfC, but close. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Endorse, per my above comments. DHowell 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. per my above comments. --luke 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. I fully endorse this summary. Dionyseus 09:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. I endorse the intention behind this, but the issue is not simply free-use or copyright paranoia, it's whether images are replaceable, and I'm finding that in many cases the concept of something being replaceable is subjective and not absolute. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 09:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Endorse... and would add that use of press photos would be characterized more accurately as "copyright waived" rather than "fair use," effectively placing them outside of the scope of the cited policy anyway. -- J-M Jgilhousen 03:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Endorse. Badagnani 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Endorse this summary and think we should stop this image deletion process IMMEDIATELY while true policy is discussed. Obviously there is serious disagreement over the interpretation. I'm feeling very steamrolled. --Jeff 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Endorse. Somebody please get this whole image mess sorted out and given a firm rule. Patstuarttalk|edits 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Wholehearted Endosement. --CJ Marsicano 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Endorse. You pretty much sum up my feelings on this matter. – Lantoka (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Tvccs 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Chowbok_02b2.html"