Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Promotional Photo Advocacy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete the project, keep the debate, and advise the participants to discuss modifications to policy on the policy's talk page. >Radiant< 10:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Promotional Photo Advocacy

A discussion page about this matter would be one thing, but a WikiProject dedicated to opposing our fair use policy is not an example we should be setting for WikiProjects. At first I thought this was a proposal to use fair use images of living people when one could not realistically obtain a free image. Such discussions and debates have been going on for a while now. Personally, I somewhat support that view, but only when it is necessary. This WikiProject not only wants to use fair use images for living people, but to replace free images of living people with fair use images. That is clearly needless and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, you could've just joined the discussion, I'm willing to hear you out. It doesn't sound like you're being very reasonable, suggesting the page should just be deleted so quickly like that.--Jeff 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to use copyrighted images of living people over free images. Unless you are willing to change the very purpose of this project, there's not really more to discuss. -- Ned Scott 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse one sentence of what I say with the greater goal. Your reaction is confusing.--Jeff 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, in concurrence with Ned. Advocacy for less restrictive use of fair use images of people is one thing (although also, arguably, not the proper use of a Wikiproject), but having the replacement of free use images with fair use as a as a fundamental purpose is quite another. I don't feel this is a confusion of what the Project says: "There is no plausible legal rationale for preferring GFDL images to promotional fair use images", "Free alternatives are never high quality and do not offer the same value", "it impossible to verify a ... free license", "Most celebrities are unlikely to ever release a quality photo of themselves unlicensed, and for a variety of reasons, they shouldn't be expected to." There are some valid arguments to be made here, don't get me wrong. But this isn't the place or the manner in which to make them. Serpent's Choice 10:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep(kind of, but I already agreed to move it out of WikiProject), disagreement is no reason for deletion, and moving it from being a Wikiproject has already been discussed and agreed upon. The NfD is a result of Ned's unwillingness to discuss.--Jeff 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename. Based on the comments above, some good points are made here, but I don't think it fits the scope for a project. It should be discussed on the fair use page. If it was an essay, it would be lot less of a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Move to whatever designation would be more appropriate for this discussion. I find it pretty remarkable, I have to say, that the argument for deletion is not that WikiProjects aren't supposed to have a point of view, but that the nominator strongly disagrees with our point of view. (The one concurrence so far also takes exception to the point of view expressed.) And that finding a complete willingness to redefine the page, the nominator goes ahead and nominates for deletion anyway--suggesting that these views have no legitimate place on Wikipedia. This kind of hostility toward dissenters from the GFDL gospel is the reason why this page got set up in the first place. By the way, whatever result is decided at here, I'm going to nominate be applied to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair Use as well, because that page is certainly defined not as neutrally carrying out Wikipedia's policies, but as shaping the interpretation of those policies toward a particular vision. Nareek 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy or Tag as rejected proposal. Inconsistent with the guidelines for WikiProjects; goes directly against WP policy as determined by consensus and Jimbo Wales. User seems more on a campaign (WP:NOT a soapbox) that doesn't seem to agree with WP's core principles of cooperation, shared ownership, and protecting rights held under other ownership such as rejecting copyrighted material. This whole debate should be discussion on the Fair Use talk page, not a wikiproject nor even a policy-guideline essay, and certainly shouldn't be the basis for actions that override policy and consensus. Barno 15:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The repeated insistence that there is consensus on this issue when clearly no such consensus exists is an illustration of why this page is necessary in the first place. Nareek 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I have had little background with this ongoing issue within the context of WP (though a bunch in other contexts), but I've done some reviewing of the Fair Use talk page and some older policy discussions. While 100-percent agreement has never existed, there does appear to be rough consensus in favor of the existing (non-PPA) guidelines, and a lot of cooperative work developing balanced guidelines and helpful templates. This WikiProject reminds me of the Extra-Long Articles Committee, also on MfD: Somebody gets an idea into his head, tries to get it made into policy but is rebuffed by established editors, and simply brute-force implements it, hacking up articles in ways that aren't close to being accepted by either the Wikimedia Foundation (which pays the bills and has to face any legal hassles) or by the majority of the WP community. Shouldn't be in WikiProject space so long as its purpose is "advocacy" of a counter-to-policy position. If we accept that current Fair Use policy is not fully supported by a strong consensus, then the PPA's proposed policy is much further from even a rough consensus, and certainly is not ready to serve as the basis for mass changes, edit warring, and bot programming. Barno 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or move. This issue is one that Wikipedia is yet again being ridiculed over, and needs further discussion. As the page was created because discussion wasn't possible it seems, then there has to be a place for it to be discussed. Maybe a project page isn't the place for it, but WP space certainly is. As to the idea of moving it and marking it as rejected, perhaps it might be better to discuss it rather than reject it outright - this is in fact the very reason that the page was created in the first place! Once more, this is yet another issue WP is getting ridiculed for, and when fair use images are perfectly ok to use, sometimes even with the owners permission, yet they are being replaced needlessly with awful and untidy low res cameraphone images, ridicule is quite understandable! No, I'm not makeing this up, see here and here for a slightly more balanced view of the subject matter (IMO). Crimsone 15:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. A half dozen editors have been claiming in recent weeks that there is a consensus at English Wikipedia that it is okay to delete all fair use images. That is why this page is needed, to illustrate that this is not the case. Eliminating this page is thus a "self-fulfilling prophecy," using force to insist that there is a consensus -- because dissenting voices, no matter how well reasoned, will be effectively silenced, shut out of the discussion entirely and thus "out of sight." Badagnani 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all "Us participants vs. some policy" Wikiprojects. The proper way to discuss a policy is to make comments on its talk page, not create a Wikiproject to war with the policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm still going with delete here. Crossing out the word "Wikiproject" makes it a euphemism, it doesn't actually fix it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, especially if it's being moved to userspace. I don't really see what the problem is. More discussion is seldom harmful. —Chowbok ☠ 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and no need to userfy. Entirely legit for Wikipedia space. --Irpen 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Discussion about this is not bad, but the way this project is heading is just all wrong. For example, the several attacks on User:Chowbok [1] [2]. A few clicks and I found this comment left by Jimbo Wales about Chowbok. I'll let people draw their own conclusions from that. Like I said in my edit summary when I added the MfD notice, this actually hurts arguments to soften fair use restrictions on living people. This project seems to come from frustration rather than rational and productive thought. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't WP:IAR suggest that rules are there to be broken when they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia? Where a decent non-copyright image is possible and plausible, then yes, I agree. However, just because somebodies alive, it doesn't mean that a decent image is possible or plausible. I'm sorry, but a poor quality GFDL cameraphone image of a celebrity or famous person at a distance in place of a quality fair use promotional photo of the same (especially where permission is granted!) simply isn't helping the encyclopedia. In fact, a poor quality cameraphone image is (as pointed out elsewhere) likely to pu a person off the article, and I'm pretty sure I know what kind of photo celebrities would like to see of themselves on the worlds 12th most popular website. As far as I am concerned, we have here one of the precise reasons that WP:IAR exists. Indeed, if it truly were to the benefit of the encyclopedia, then the encyclopedia wouldn't be being ridiculed over it (admittidely, they'd probably find something else to ridicule it over at some later date, but the point stands). I really fail to see where making this point hurts the argument. Indeed - this point is pretty much the argument itself. Crimsone 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is to the benefit of the encyclopedia to do that sometimes. It is most definitely not to the benefit of the encyclopedia to set up a Wikiproject whose sole reason for existence is to war against a policy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Personally, I felt that it was set up to advocate against a particular zealous interpretation of policy, rather than against the policy itself, which is certainly to the benefit of the encyclopedia - though admittedly (see my above vote) perhaps in the wrong place (WP namespace is fine, by a project probably isn't). Maybe sometimes it is indeed to the benefit of the encyclopedia in a few cases. However, tagging thousands of promo images for speedy deletion in a war against fair use images is not, mainly for the above reasons. Anyhow, I suspect that both sides of the issue are now sufficiently stated for a MfD' Crimsone 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You know what, you're right. I thought it explicitly stated "no promotional photos". Regardless, I stand by what I said, that the proper way to discuss something is not to set up a Wikiproject whose only goal is to fight what you're trying to discuss. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I must confess, untill now I thought it was only governed under WP:FUP, but I've just found that Wiki has an essay on the subject dating from August 2005 - Wikipedia:Publicity_photos - though not governed by it, it does have an interesting comment by Jimbo on the talk (though I'm not sure I entirely agree - being powerful enough to force people (ie, celebrities) to jump through hoops doesn't mean that you should be rude and difficult enough to do it, IMO), and does seem to contain some advice on the subject. A simple ammendment/addition to a sentence on fair use would prevent this whole issue ever arising again (or indeed, if promo photos end up banned - the only rational conclusion to what's happening if the deletionists have their way), the removal of an entire section of policy). That's another issue though. (For those who don't understand the difference between essays, guidelines and policies, well, an essay isn't an official guideline or policy. It's just an essay, and is really only there for informational purposes. Crimsone
• Keep or Move per Chowbok. The policy needs discussion one way or another, and Jeff's attempt to do so is admirable. I'd prefer it stay in the Wikipedia namespace, however. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the project is there just to defend the use of fair use images. It isn't like they have organized to violate established policies; they are just trying to force people to actually discuss the issue rather than implementing polices that don't exist. Koweja 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Wikiprojects don't have the authority to force people to do things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - we don't need Wikipolitical parties. BigDT 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and I suppose you mean we don't need more WP parties. DGG 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Amarkov said it best: If you disagree with a policy, you should lobby towards a consensus for your position on that policy's talk page. Don't create your own cabal dedicated to defying policy. OTOH a project dedicated to monitoring abuses of policy should be OK. --Dgies 06:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wikiprojects that exist to promote a position should be deleted. Content can be userfied if someone wants it and the debate on policy interpretation should continue on the appropirtae Wikipedia talk pages. Eluchil404 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WikiProjects are not pressure groups. ed g2s • talk 11:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support Rename or move. While I can accept that a pressure group should not be a separate wikiproject, I do think we need a central place to advocate for the use of "fair use" publicity photos on Wikipedia. Also, I suspect that most of the votes to delete this page are from "GFDL only" types who want to stifle advocacy of "fair use" publicity photos on Wikipedia.Librarylefty 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As of now, the page has been moved and some wording changed based on feedback. I respectfully request that the redirect remain for a period of time. I want to hammer out a way we can all coexist on this issue. I think there's already been some progress made and I'd love some more people who disagree to come and talk about it. Thanks.--Jeff 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this pages is no effort to discussing anything, as it defines itself as a collection of Wikipedians with a given opinion: "a collection of Wikipedia editors who hold the opinion that copyrighted publicity photos hold a place on Wikipedia". If all participants already have this opinion, how can we expect any meaningful discussion to take place? --Abu Badali 15:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  The wording seems to have just been changed to address that concern. If this is really a change in the spirit, and not simply a phrasing change, shouldn't the title be something other than "Publicity Photo Advocacy"? And if the intentions is really a "fair and open discussion" instead of plain advocacy, why do we need a brand new page for doing so? Why not using Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos? --Abu Badali 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because we need a place where we can figure out the best way for everyone to be happy and efforts at discussion have failed in the various FU articles because they are too dispersed and it seems that after a week of discussion everything goes back to the status quo. If I wasn't sick of moving the page, I might consider moving it again, but can we just leave it where it is? Seems silly.--Jeff 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"everyone to be happy" can't be a compromise. What do you consider a "failed discussion"? One that hasn't concluded we should allow publicity photos? Also, if you really expect to create a new forum for "fair and open discussion" on the matter, you should call this forum something other than "Advocacy for this side of the discussion". Also, the "Reasoning" doesn't seems like describing a place for "fair and open discussion". It is, just like the title, defending just one side.

The point is, this page is not a forum for open discussion. This is more of a pamphlet or manifest. --Abu Badali 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this deletion question is now moot, I suggest we continue this discussion on the new page. Nareek 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, sadly. Goals, #1: Stopping the deletion of fair use publicity photos. In other words, a primary goal is stopping an activity designed to protect Wikipedia against legal action for copyright infringement and facilitate a core purpose, creating a free-use (i.e. redistributable under GFDL) encyclopaedia. Discussion is fine, openly declaring war on core policy is not. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as intrinsically hostile to Wikipedia's mission of creating a free encyclopedia ➥the Epopt 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment thank god this isn't a straw poll because every deletion arguement is horribly flawed and more in favor of shutting down discussion than actually discussing policy.--Jeff 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to discuss policy, fine. That's what the talk page for the policy is for. Why must you create a page to war with people who interpret it differently? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• First off, don't insult me by calling it starting a war. That's terribly sensationalist. Secondly, the page was created because, as stated elsewhere, those of us opposing the deletion of photos used properly under fair use need a place to organize our thoughts and offer some option that maybe everyone can agree on, or at least start discussion again. It's outside of other talk pages because efforts there have failed because after a week of discussion, no consensus or agreement is reached and discussion simply stops and I'm not willing to let this just atrophy. I want this resolved and I want it fixed in a fair, appropriate and just way that increases the quality of the encyclopedia we are offering the world.--Jeff 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Calling it something different won't change what it is. And the page is not there to discuss whether or not what you think is a good idea. The page doesn't say "We're discussing this", the page says "We're doing this". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• If I'm declaring war on people misinterpreting policy and deleting shit from wikipedia that shouldn't be deleted then SO BE IT. I DECLARE JIHAD! I also declare shenanigans. And I declare that I wear boxers, not briefs. and I declare that custard filled longjohns are delicious.--Jeff 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's your opinion that they are misinterpreting policy. It isn't theirs. It should thus be discussed. Creating a page for people on one side of the discussion to congregate does not facilitate actual discussion, it facilitates factionalism and groupthink. Grouping into opposing parties works only when issues are resolved by a vote, which is not true here. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It facilitates a place for us to put our heads together and think of something we can do. You're wrong about everything you said. sorry.--Jeff 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How are you defineing "us".Geni 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this "page" (it no longer describes itself as a WikiProject) exists only for advocacy. People are welcome to make discussion on policy talk pages or on noticeboards elsewhere. --bainer (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note a second page has been created due to a cut-and-paste page move, Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed - it was already noted, and untill you reverted it at 01:18(UTC), the page listed here was a redirect to that very page, as was noted here, and people were very well aware of (if only by simply clicking the link).
  • Notethe current state of the page is the one listed in the note above (where the redirect had been pointing all day), and changes made in response to the MfD (and the productive discussion ensuing between both parties of the issue on the talk) can be found. Crimsone 03:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm... restoring the deletion notice is pretty much required by the deletion policy. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I must confess that I hadn't noticed that particular issue - but one that can be easily resolved by moving it to the new page? alternatively, having it on both, but reducing the old page content to a link and explanation? Crimsone 04:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (done with agreement :) )

• Comment The page has been changed substantially to incorporat a more neutral point of view (ie, expressing both sides - with the exception of the pro deletion sides reasoning which I can't really comment to much on personally). Disscussion has been emphasised, as has the desire to reach some manner of solution/resolution to the issue all that really remains in my view is the "advocacy" in the page title - though it's only a title. If I've missed anything, I suspect I'll find out. :) Crimsone 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's far too much illogical argument with no legal basis to worry about when it comes to officially sanctioned media shots. Publicity photos are not fair use - they are use for purpose designated by copyright holder.Citizensmith 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

please be provideing the details of the lisence they are released under.Geni 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given that it now expresses both sides and has been moved to Wikipedia:Fair Use/Publicity Photo Advocacy, keep there; I think the old title should be kept as a hard or soft redirect, so that people who had linked to the old title can find it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - For every group that likes to talk something to death, I suppose, there's an opposite group that wants everyone to shut up. But I thought Wikipedia was open and free? Let it be... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I'm sick to death of these weenies on Wikipedia ruining the quality of this place.--Jack Cox 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a vote on the use of fair use images, but on a project and their tactics to use fair use images. There's good ways and bad ways to go about things, so don't assume that supporting keep is helping your cause. That being said, at the very least this project might be headed in a better direction as a result of this AfD. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, it's not a project anymore. Crimsone 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not labeled as one, but the general concept of a collaborative effort is still there. I meant my message as a somewhat neutral one to the extent of, this MfD is regarding this group specifically rather than an over-all argument about fair use images. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Erm, it's not a project - full stop. Collaborative effort should be part of any page on wikipedia, the page shows both sides of the issue, and prompts disscussion and collaboration on the issue from both sides (not just one side) - in fact, it's the very purpose of it. The "group" you speak of no longer exists - there are quite clearly participants in the discussion, and people from both sides of the issue are more than welcome to place their name in that section of the page. As far as I can see (having edited most of it), it's quite simply a discussion/dispute resolution/proposal page. To the best of my knowledge, an MfD cannot be about "a group". It needs to be about a page.

Further, there are no tactics. There is a genuine attempt to discuss and resolve an issue, where there is quite clearly no full concensus (if one at all). If a group forms, then so be it - human beings will always form into clusters of like-thinking people, either on or offline. It's quite natural. However, neither the intention, or the stated intention of the page is to form such a group, and if such a grouping exists, it exists on both sides of the fence - this is why discussion is needed, and I see no harm in that.(Crimsone 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was commenting on people who were showing support or oppose based on the general idea of fair use images, rather than the specific page and the advice it gave. -- Ned Scott

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.