Image talk:Tao-te-ching005.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Advertising?

I own this translation and like it, but as it in not mentioned in the text for any substantial reason and the book is not in the public domain why is this book's cover displayed? Doesn't this boil down to being advertising?

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. I don't think it necessarily amounts to advertisement, but I guess it is a little more problematic for translations and very old books. There are, though, lots of book covers floating around Wikipedia. They're generally used as kind of eye candy on otherwise imageless pages. -Seth Mahoney 05:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for not signing the above ... a mind blank :) I think that we will very quickly get down to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", but it seems to me that sometimes the standards applied are very variable. What happens, for example, if another author of, say, a more commercial book demands that their cover should be used as well. I know, I'm being picayune, but .... -hypotaxis 23:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing against using book covers generally, or against using book covers in specific instances? -Seth Mahoney 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... good question. Both really, but book covers in general, I think is the issue that I am raising at this point anyway. I think my head had jumped ahead to see a problem of how Wikipedia might deal with competing demands from publishers. Suppose for example there is a controversial issue and two (or more) books are published covering it. Wikipedia puts up one cover, but the competing publisher(s) say, "Hey, no fair, we want equal time." Translations of the Tao Te Ching are not huge sellers would be my guess, but if there is lots of money or prestige at stake, then may be it becomes an issue for Wikpedia. because the pulishers may well view a a cover in an article as a type of "product placement" advertisement. It was really just a passing thought and I think this molehill may be becoming mountainous :) -hypotaxis 03:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, were that scenario to happen, Wikipedians, following the "Wikipedia is not an advertisement" maxim would pull all relevant book covers rather than bow to the demands of publishers. But at the moment book covers are generally used in articles which cover that specific book. Another way to look at it: Its not as if a publisher could reasonably expect Wikipedia (or any other document) to reference its books, whose titles and publishing information appear at the bottom of many pages, in lieu of (or in addition to, for that matter) some other book, just because they want the press. I know its a little different, but its something to consider. I think a stronger solution to the issue would be to use book covers only in articles that deal with the book in question, and not in other situations (which seems to be the unspoken guideline generally followed on Wikipedia). -Seth Mahoney 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seth, you said "I think a stronger solution to the issue would be to use book covers only in articles that deal with the book in question, and not in other situations " and with which I agree entirely. It was what I was trying, not vey clearly, to say in my original post. An interesting conversation, thanks. Kia kaha, Brett -hypotaxis 22:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)