Wikipedia talk:Images for blocking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] From creator

I apologize for posibly poor presentation. I am usually very against instruction creep. But I feel this topic is somehow missed. The guideline of wikipedia about reliable sources generally excludes wikis not reliably associated with reputable authors, but Commons, with its potential for dubious authorsip, somehow slipped through the cracks. `'mikkanarxi 19:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I curious exactly what you intend this for. Will you block my contributions? --Gmaxwell 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the section "What to list here" does not have an item "Images created by Gmaxwell" :-). And I am curious why would you ask this. Believe me or not, I don't remember any clashes between you and me. Also, please clarify which kind of "you" is in your question: "thou" (you guy) or "ye" (you guys)?
On a more serious note, if you are hinting that the policy is too vague and prone to abuse, please make a better suggestion or state your objection more clearly. Because your question as it stands calls for the answer "yes we will, if you will be doing original research". There is a say (with different versions in different langauges): "a picture is worth thousand words". Please notice this say does not specify which kind of words: true or false ones. A good picture may deliver misinformation quite efficiently, and I see all reasons to require the policy wikipedia:Verifiability applicable to pics as well. `'mikkanarxi 03:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked in that manner because I think it strikes to the very heart of my interest in this page. Go visit my commons userpage, scroll down and click on the [1] next to the word uploads in the section heading above the gallery... and let me know. Since the proposal has no examples, I guess I'll make a fine test subject. --Gmaxwell 03:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't look much thru yours but it seems to me that you are describing your contribs quite diligently (judging from, e.g., Image:Regency_transistor_radio.jpg). As you know, in wikipedia we do assume good faith, so unless you are caught cheating in image descriptions, you'll hardly be bothered IMO. `'mikka 07:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Here we have an example of potential trouble: Image:Flag of Morocco.svg. While in this case the flag is easily verifiable, I've actually proposed for deletion one or two flags uploaded to wikipedia for some short-lived states. `'mikka 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Flag: still, unless you have a reference to formal description, how am I sure that the sizes are correct? May be in some obscure Moroccan mysticism the size of the star is too small or too big? The pic looks OK to me, but may be you will be sentenced to death im Morocco for blasphemy? :-) `'mikka 07:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It was orignally drawn based on the description in the CIA World Fact book as were all the other flags created as a part of that project, although most have since been updated based on the official government references. Because there has never been a dispute about the flags there has been no cause to make their specifications more transparent, and because there is no evidence that they have been used "to advance a position", there is no evidence of a WP:NOR violation.
What's the problem in adding this reference in the future? Also, did you read carefully my remark about some esoteric states? Aslo, my major concern is not WP:NOR, but WP:Verifiability.
It's interesting you mention the radio: that image replaced an enwiki image in the Transistor radio which was not only non-free (totally bogus claim of "fair use"), but was actually the wrong radio. So much for accuracy problems being limited to user created content.
Since you seem to be fine with all of my image can you produce any examples of what would be blocked under this? If producing an example is hard... then perhaps we don't need this system. --Gmaxwell 20:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I can (I was right into it when I saw other having similar concerns): Image:Huns empire.png Fortunately, the uploader added references after I expressed my concern. `'mikka 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
A much uglier example was a map of "territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians" (deleted), which was intended to push the nationalistic agenda that there is no such an ethnic group as Moldovans, that "Moldovans" are the Soviet invention and hence must be eliminated, because they are Romanians. `'mikka 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Method

Is there a special technical ability to do this here, or would we basically be creating a local protected page with the same name? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

  • MediaWiki:Bad image list stores a list of commons images that cannot be transcluded into Wikipedia pages. I do NOT think that we should use it for this proposal, for two reasons. (1) My understanding is that every time you add an image to the page, this list has to be checked (behind the scenes, automatically by the server) to make sure that your image isn't on it. The more images we have on the list, the more work the server has to do. (2) If we are going to start blocking images that depict things other than human anatomy, we're going to start blocking images that users in good faith might want to use. They may not realize that a map is inaccurate or that a bad photo has been replaced. They may try to use it and then get confused when nothing happens. By uploading a replacement image that explains that the image they want is blocked, we keep the solution from being worse than the problem. BigDT 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One suggestion: there's no need for instruction creep

My suggestion is that we use the existing processes that we have right now. If an image would qualify for speedy deletion if it were hosted here, then it may be speedy blocked. For example, vandalism-only images, recreations of previously deleted material, etc, may be speedy blocked. Anything that is not a candidate for speedy blocking (eg, bad maps), can be handled on IFD. Right now, if someone nominates a commons image for deletion, we usually just inform the person that Wikipedia has no power to delete the image, point them to Commons:Commons:deletion requests, and move on with life. But there's no reason that we couldn't handle that as a blocking request. By using the existing processes, we keep it simple. BigDT 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to expand this policy by an option of speedy blocking? If yes, please add the corresponding section into the policy page. `'mikkanarxi 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of discussion: what images may be blocked?

As it stands now, the proposal says that low quality images where there is a higher quality image available may be blocked. I don't know that there's any reason to do that unless there's a problem with someone insisting on reverting to their pet image. Unless there is actual abuse with an image, there's no real reason to block it. If we replace a low-quality image on Wikipedia, there's a good reason to delete the old version here - Wikipedia is not free filehosting and doesn't store images that aren't being used. But there's no good reason to outright block the image if it is being hosted on Commons - it isn't hurting anything and blocking it is only going to create work for someone that serves no purpose. Blocking should really only be used if there is a policy violation - a persistent vandalism-only image or a WP:NOR type image. BigDT 22:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This was my suggestion, for a discussion. I agree that this criterion is rather shaky; I confess I threw it in to make the list longer. Still, the main point is at the top of the whole policy:
An image must be listed here if a simple procedure of delinking of it fails for some reason (e.g., persistent trolling).
Probably this point must be made more prominently: we are not going to block thousands of commons images; only if the things start being really nasty. And we better have this, basically very simple, policy in place. `'mikkanarxi 02:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

"(...) once the image is tagged as "PD-self" or something like this, one may upload virtually anything." That's simply not true. Or, at least, it's true for en.wp as well. And, just like here, if you have doubts that the uploader has the rights to these images, bring it up at IfD. I nominated quite a number of PD-self nude images on Commons (by new users who otherwise didn't had any contributions), and they all got deleted.

"Low quality images when images of superior quality to illustrate the same topic exist" should be blocked. Err, why? Sure, there's no real reason to use such images, but why should we block them? I don't see the point here.

"Self-drawn images used to illustrate a certain topic in wikipedia, but which constitute original research." I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this, how does this relate to Wikipedia:No original research#Original images?

Vandals uploading stuff on Commons so they can use it here is a problem, yes. But I don't think this is the solution. Here, we put such images on the image blacklist or delete them. Enabling the image blacklist to work with Commons images as well might work. So that we just have to add a Commons image to our blacklist, and it won't be possible to add it to any article anymore. Not sure how much work that would be for the devs, tho. --Conti|✉ 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The image blacklist does work with Commons images already, right now, today. This proposal just formalizes the process for blacklisting an image and potentially clarifies what things we want to blacklist vs block. The blacklist cannot be but so large or else it causes a performance hit ... and as people continue to upload penis pictures to Commons, that's just more junk for us to blacklist. Formalizing a procedure of blocking an image instead of blacklisting it would save the potential server workload. As for WP:NOR images, something like a schematic or a sketch isn't the problem. The biggest problem that I have seen in the WP:NOR area is "innovative" historical maps. User A wants to make it look like their country was a superpower 2500 years ago, so they make a map showing their country having lots of territory. If they upload it to enwiki, we delete it at IFD as it violates WP:NOR, but if it's on Commons, we have no control over whether Commons deletes it or not and frequently, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests seems to go out of its way to remind us that they don't care whether enwiki wants the image or not. BigDT 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If blacklisting Commons images already works, I don't see the need for this at all. Sure, we aren't supposed to make the image blacklist too big, but why should we treat commons images different than our own? If someone uploads a perfectly fine nude image here, it gets blacklisted. If someone uploads a perfectly fine nude image on Commons, it gets blocked? Why, where's the difference?
I see that it is possible to construct a case where an image would be fine on Commons, but WP:OR here. I don't think we should have any kind of policy on that, tho. Just use some common sense: Remove the image from the corresponding article, tell the creator of the image why it is not allowed here, warn him if he doesn't care about that. Hmm, maybe a "This image is Original Research and therefore is not allowed on most Wikimedia Projects"-template could be created on Commons, so it is clear for everyone who looks at the image to not use it here. --Conti|✉ 15:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

crap, crap, crap. Ridiculous idea. So now what? Are you telling us to put high quality (and almost implicit -> high resolution) images (under fair use) in place of free images? Did you known that the english Wikipedia has a policy that says that fair-use images should be of low quality, low resolution, etc? So don't you realize that it is almost impossible to have a free low quality picture that is even worse than one that can be used here under fair-use? This is just non-sense. It'd be like making rules that will be used just one or two times a year...

Images used for persistent trolling? I can't think I'm listening this, but if I do just let me say that it won't work at all...

Now... Please, give me some reasonable idea that would make me to support the non-sense idea of forbidding the use of creativity by us? So, are you telling me that indeed I am a very good drawer I should NOT make an amazing image to illustrate how a network is, but I should get one from the Internet and use it under fair-use? Working for Britannica or Encarta? o.O

You are not reading: the problem is not with original drawings, the probliem is with the drawings that present some information and we don't know where this information came from: from a car repair manual or out of yor head. In wikipedia, the latter case is disallowed: no original research. `'mikka 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What more? Maybe forbidding photos taken using professional cameras and with exposition over 5 seconds as it might be copyvio...

Copyvio is already covered in a separate policy. As for photos, if you take a photo of your girlfriend taking a leak and say it is Shakira, you better prove your claim. Some photos of, say, a monument, speak for themselves and verifiable, others are not. `'mikka 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody home? Doc, Doc. I can't listen. The sound doesn't propagate on the vacuum... Hello!!! --Henriquevicente 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody is home, but not everybody is sitting all day long by the keyboard. So next time please start panicking after 4-5 hours, not earlier.`'mikka 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the "low resolution" bit as it has pretty unanimously not gone over well. The whole point of this proposal is to formalize a mechanism for dealing with problems when Commons is used as an end-run around our policies. If a low quality image is uploaded to Commons, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to block it unless someone begins edit warring with it and adding it to an article because they want to have their pet photo in defiance of consensus. Even then, there's no real reason to block the image - just block the user. The only real issue that isn't a solution looking for a problem is formalizing the process for blocking penis pictures that are frequently used for vandalism. BigDT 06:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

BigDT: I'll personally delete any images on commons which have been demonstrated to be questionable with at least strong suspicions of inaccuracy. Commons loves enwiki and wants us all to be happy. Rather than working on blocking policies, lets just work as a team. Blocking the image on enwiki would do nothing to stop the inaccurate image from being used in hundreds of other wikipedias, wikibooks, or wikiversity. Does this make the matter mostly moot?--Gmaxwell 06:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell:Does commons have anything similar to wikipedia:Verifiability policy? `'mikka 06:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability of images

I am repeating, the issue of correctness of information presented in images is absolutely not covered in wikipedia, and by no means I have a good idea how to deal with it. It is quite possible that we don't have to deal with it at all until shit happens, but we may well start discussing this issue: how to expand basic wikipedia rules of verifiability of information (WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NOR) to images, which are also an important source of information. `'mikka 07:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say WP:NOR#Original images says it pretty well, though certainly the phrasing could be further improved. Images on Wikipedia are illustrations; they are not, and should not claim to be, evidence of anything. (Note that we do have plenty of images that someone claims as proof of something; the fine but important distinction is that we don't.) If an image fails to adequately illustrate an article, it may be replaced or removed. If someone persists in reinserting it, that may be treated like any other kind of vandalism or disruption.
To put it differently: the fact that a given image already exists on Commons doesn't mean we need to treat its addition to an article any differently that we would treat the addition of a piece of text, or of a template, or of a category. As far as our policies are concerned, all of the following should be treated just about identically:
  1. the addition of the text "Elvis is alive!" to Elvis Presley
  2. the addition of "[[Category:Living people]]" to Elvis Presley
  3. the addition of a (local or Commons) image with the caption "Elvis as seen in Mexico City in 2005" to Elvis Presley
  4. the addition of an external link to "proof that Elvis is alive" to Elvis Presley
The only difference local images have from the other cases is that, if they truly are useless for illustrating anything but original research, we may deleted as unencyclopedic. Note, however, that even an image of a claimed Elvis sighting may in fact be a perfectly appropriate illustration for the article on Elvis sightings. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree here (about your statement that WP:NOR covers it). It is too much assumes good faith and does not have the requirement to explicitely state the sources based on which an illustration was drawn. For some reason, people who draw maps and diagrams are very defensive of their work (and I can understand them: to do a good pic requires much more effort than to hit a hundred or two keystrokes of text), and I would like to have a clean-cut policy at hand to avoid personal conflicts. `'mikka 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technically

Is this even possible in the current version of the software? If not, perhaps you should speak to some devs first? >Radiant< 14:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • "The blocking is accomplished by creating a wikipedia image file with the blocked name." I don't get why this would not be possible. Herostratus 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Admins can upload an image with the same name as a commons image. (There isn't even a warning message ... which annoys me more than slightly.) So yes, it is technically possible. --BigDT 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary

Is this policy necessary? I am having trouble seeing the problem here. If an image from Commons is added to an article to which contributes nothing or violates NPOV or whatever, it can simply be reverted like any other edit. Concensus as to approptiate pictures can be arrived at on the talkpage. Editors not abiding by this would risk blocks for disruption. If the picture cannot possibly be put to any practical use it is likely to fail the criteria for inclusion at Commons and its deletion can be requested at Commons:Deletion requests. Are there any particular examples of incidents where the ability to request a block of an image from Commons would have been particularly helpful? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest reason for it (really, the only reason) is that if the bad image list (MediaWiki:Bad image list) continues to grow, there will be a performance hit with it. But since the technical ability is there, the more I think about it, I don't know that a proposal is needed - if the bad image list grows too large, we can just do it. There's no formal process for adding something to the bad image list now ... so there wouldn't really need to be for blocking images, either. --BigDT 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)