Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Michelle Merkin POTD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard by way of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109 over concern over proper forum for dicussion. Please find a better location if there is one. - Wikidemo 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A better place is as a subpage of the POTD talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Merkin POTD

A somewhat controversial image, Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, was promoted to Featured Picture status some time ago, and now it's time for its day in the sun as POTD. User:Pharos suggested that we might talk up the benefits of this being a professional quality free-license image, even if such discussion were a bit self-referential. I've made an initial stab at it at User:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Comments are welcome at User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD. Thanks. (cross-posted to Talk:Main Page). howcheng {chat} 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think promotional, ex-commercial images should be featured on the main page. Featured, sure, but by giving them space on the main page we're going to see a flood of corporate interests releasing images to us solely for the purpose of getting a POTD spot. While this might at first seem okay - "who cares what they're motivations are, they're helping out regardless" - it would nevertheless be a loss for the non-profit nature of Wikipedia. We haven't had this issue before because did you know articles, featured articles, and news stories can't be released to us for our use - but images can, and once we place one ex-commercial image on the main page, we will get a lot more, and the door will be too wide open to close again. Any mid-size or large corporation which sells products related to something that a picture can be taken of can easily pony up the money for a professional photographer to come take a spectacular picture, and from there it's just a skip, hop and step over to Wikipedia's main page. We shouldn't let that happen. You can't (or at least, aren't supposed to be able to) buy an spot in a Wikipedia article, even though a few people have tried, and even less a spot on the main page. In conclusion, this image and images like it should not be featured as pictures of the day. (Cross-posted to talk page you mentioned.) Picaroon (t) 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn over this. In principal, I agree a lot with Picaroon. But part of me thinks "What if National Geographic decides to donate some of their spectacular photography?" Would I mind at all if National Geographic donated something like [1]? Would anyone really mind? Even if their purpose was to get an image on the front page? And there is no guarantee that a donated image would even make a featured picture. I guess there is a chance that corporations may try to game the WP:FPC system. As long as we are very careful of abuse, I think only good could come from corporations donating photos with the intention of maybe one day making POTD on the front page. I don't see many scenarios where blatant advertising would have enough encyclopedic value to get featured. But again, I haven't thought this through yet, and I agree a lot with the principals Picaroon pointed out above.-Andrew c [talk] 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Open the f-ing door. I'd love for Wikipedia to have the problem that so many commercial organizations were donating free images that we didn't know what to with them and then had to pick and choose which ones were worth featuring. Free content is free content. If some ex-commercial images of high quality end up on the main page for a single day, then in my opinion that would be a small price to pay for an increase in the breadth and quality of images on Wikipedia. Dragons flight 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand this objection. We might be flooded with high quality free images? That's bad? -Chunky Rice 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's see. Blatantly self-promotional, commercially produced image. The picture nomination was not impressive and passed largely as a result of the sheer number of sophomoric support comments from teenage fanboys. Soft pr0n finally makes the front page. Not exactly one of our finer moments, IMO - Alison ❤ 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that Bomis used to have pornographic content but the powers that be on wikipedia usually try to live that down. Do we really want wikipedia to be associated with something so naff and sleazy?Merkinsmum 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As Michele Merkin's mum, I would think you'd be more supportive of the idea.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a search for an article (it's Michele Merkin, BTW, with only one L), and I'm not convinced that this particular picture adds that much encyclopedic value to the article, nor am I convinced that it's in the same class as other POTDs that we have had in the past. What I mean by encyclopedic value, this picture shows off her Merkin's body, but not so much her face... so for me it ends up being somewhat generic in its effect. I don't know quite how to say this. It comes off more as soft pr0n as Alison says, and not something that genuinely enriches the article or the encyclopedia. I'm also very concerned about the idea of commercial interests "gaming" Wikipedia's WP:FPC system as mentioned above, and getting free publicity that way. --Kyoko 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a fair enough picture to illustrate a stub/start article about a minor celebrity known mostly for her state of undress. Nothing inherently wrong with the female body, and if a greedy corporate outfit wants to release self-interested commercial publicity photos to the world's repository of free content, good for them! Who cares why they do it, it's great that they do it. On the other hand, it is a little cheesy. Definitely not featured picture or featured article territory. I'd rather reward a photo service with featured picture status for releasing a nice picture of a horse, or a newsworthy event, or a cupcake. To summon the words of the immortal Joan Rivers, grow up! Wikidemo 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture review is that way, by the way. MER-C 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted!)I'm not sure that I can get on board with these objections. Addressing them in the order in which they were presented: 1) The photograph was provided in response to a request by an editor for a free image of the subject; the subject didn't just provide it out of the blue. As such, it's no more self-promotional than any other image provided by a subject in response to a request (of which we have many). If we weren't prepared to accept such things, we wouldn't have the OTRS system in the first place. 2) Likewise, many of our other photographs here were produced by commercial photographers: All of the many images provided by User:David_Shankbone, and all of the Commons pictures from the National Photo Company Collection of the Library of Congress, just to name two examples. If anything, we should be encouraging commercial photographers to contribute content, since they generally take better pictures than amateurs, and they often have access to subjects and events that amateurs do not. 3) Ms. Merkin is a professional model, and the photo illustrates her performing her job, which is one of the main reasons that she's notable in the first place. We wouldn't have any objection to a photograph of a politician giving a speech, or a baseball player swinging a bat, and as I see things this isn't any different from a functional standpoint. 4) The image is large, focused, and high-resolution, the subject is looking directly into the camera with an unobstructed view of her face, and the subject isn't wearing a strange expression, which immediately makes this better than about 99% of the other photographs of notable people used here to illustrate their appearance in their articles. 5) In addition to Michele Merkin, it's also used prominently in Glamour photography, and given the nature of that article's subject material, it'd be extremely difficult from a functional standpoint to develop a thematically-appropriate image with no sexual overtones. A lot of the comments in opposition to this image seem to arise from a desire to censor Wikipedia, by isolating certain categories of images into a ghetto or backwater. In my opinion, if an image does a good job of illustrating its subject(s), and the subject(s) are worthy of coverage here, then there is no reason not to treat that image just like any other with the same status. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the image, but Hit bull is absolutely correct IMO of the rationale for a featured place. Keegantalk 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Seconding the above. --Haemo 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree with HBWS. There is no reason this can't go on the front page. In addition to possibly encouraging other sources of professional photography to contribute to Wikipedia, who doesn;t appreciate the absolutely inevitable cries of OMGTHINKOFTHECHILDREN that will echo from the corners of several talk pages? We've always claimed Wikipedia isn't censored, it's time to put our money where our mouths are. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Hit bull, win steak (talk · contribs). This image is appropriately licensed, of a high quality, and was donated by a professional at the request of a Wikipedian. That is precisely what we should encourage, and preventing it from being on the main page is an odd double standard. Today we have an image of a dead, bloody, Chinese soldier on the font page; I'd say that's more offensive than the side of a woman's right breast. - auburnpilot talk 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is making a straw man argument. It's not about censorship. It's the cheese factor, plus it's an unremarkable photograph. Get something like one of these, and we should put a fashion shot on the front page - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Wikidemo 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's is a deadly dull and boring picture. The subject isn't interesting; the pose isn't original; the significance is non-existent. It's not even pornographic enough to be worth censoring. Face it: there's nothing noteworthy about the picture. The dead soldier picture has a lot more going for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As MER-C (talk · contribs) pointed out, if you have a problem with the image being identified as a featured picture, you want Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nomination_for_delisting, not here. - auburnpilot talk 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary undent) There are a few points I see:

  1. Is the picture encyclopedic? Probably, though it can be argued.
  2. Is the picture promotional? Perhaps to some extent, but putting a picture of any human being on the Main Page is promotional to some degree. Picking particular things out as promotional runs the chance of POV.
  3. Is the picture inappropriate for the main page? Depends on how strictly we apply WP:CENSOR. Personally, I think it might not be a great idea - in the same way that Raul has a list of featured articles he won't put on the Main Page, there are some images which might be damaging to our reputation, even if they are completely fine in the context of our no censorship policy.
  4. Should the picture even be featured? Go to review, this is about a potential POTD.

Those are my thoughts. In summary - it's probably OK, but it might not be the greatest of ideas for PR, especially if some journalist is offended and decides to say that Wikipedia is filled with porn (which may be a ridiculous statement, but somebody will say it). Nihiltres(t.l) 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholly with point 4. My main goal here is to determine the appropriateness of putting this on the Main Page, and if we do that, is it OK to have a somewhat self-referential caption in order to point out why exactly this is notable (the release under a free license) in order to combat the "OMG pr0n on the Main Page" comments. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm not being ambiguous, in point 4 I mean that this discussion ignores that the image is featured - I have no opinion about the image in and of itself. A self-referential caption isn't a good idea, though it is otherwise an excellent idea to publicize offwiki that we will use high-quality images from people and companies if they are offered under a free license and not blatantly promotional. Michelle Merkin made a good decision to give some decent photos, and we use decent photos when they're given - that she, as a model, has had the luck to have her image on Physical attractiveness is unsurprising given that her image is both encyclopedic in that context and high-quality. Finding ways to make people interested in donating high-quality images is a good idea, even if saying so on the Main Page isn't. Nihiltres(t.l) 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Hit Bull and others that the featured picture review process is available for all those who disagree with the image in itself. Wikipedia is not censored and does it not deserve as much space as an image of a dead child or a flagellated slave. I agree with nihiltres in most regards, especially those regarding a self-referential caption. I agree with Wikidemo that a fashion picture would be a good image for the front page, if we were able to get one on the appropriate free-license. As it is, we don't have one. The Merkin image probably won't be a PR coup but it might get some more free-use images coming in. Woodym555 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED should rebut most of the complaints. As for the caption, the image is used in Glamour photography, Physical attractiveness, Michele Merkin, and Beauty. Just summarize the relevant language from those four articles into three or four sentences to be used in the Main Page caption. On the Main Page right now, we have a blown apart Chinese man with flys all over him. Let's not make this into a big deal. -- Jreferee t/c 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't featured picture review, if it's in line, put it on the front page. Wikidemo claims that it's an unremarkable photograph, but so are many featured pictures, it doesn't take an artistic genius to do a close up shot of a piece of fruit using an overpriced camera does it? This isn't going win any photography prizes is it? If it leads to more promotional images sent to us under free-use terms, then that's great, whether we'll feature them is a different matter. But we've featured this one, and it's her turn on the front page. - hahnchen 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not every act of editorial discretion is censorship; most are not. What we put on the front page advertises to the world what Wikipedia is. It's entirely reasonable to want to convey that we are about things more substantive than lo-calorie cheesecake. To play the same game as Vogue, and Cosmo, GQ, Maxim, and People, and fifty other magazines, and to play it far worse than any of those, doesn't put Wikipedia in a great light. I sense we have a problem opposite to censorship, that some are promoting and defending meaningless content precisely because it is a mildly provocative image of a sexy young woman, and giving short shrift to our encyclopedic mission in the process. The nudity isn't the problem, it's utterly tame and would be at place on an outdoor billboard. The dead soldier, by contrast, is more informative and thought provoking, even though less professional. It raises an issue a lot of people don't know, that the US and China were in direct military conflict during the Korean War, and encourages people to read up on the important topic. Incidentally, I don't know what this subject has to do with WP:AN but the discussion is far broader and more policy-oriented than a mere image de-listing. Wikidemo 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Then that's an issue to raise at WP:FPC. I was not aware of this featured image until I saw this thread on AN, but it conveys as much about the subject as Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg does its. And it's also used on more articles. If we can get a great promotional photo of a band under free use, then it's a heck of a lot better than a grainy image taken at a concert with a cameraphone. And if we do get a flood of these in, which is ideally what we'd like, then our featured standards will naturally raise to take these into account. Wikipedia won't feature images just because they're the celebrity du jour, and even if we did, given the queues, they won't be when their picture is on the main page. - hahnchen 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No COI or relationship to the lady of the same name lol:) Just to say I don't intentionally share part of my name with the subject either, it's a coincidence, 'Merkin' is a sadly deceased cat of mine.:)Merkinsmum 03:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no objections to this image as a POTD: it's pretty, completely harmless, professionally shot, and -- most importantly -- a good representative of its type as a glamour photograph of an attractive woman, which is a common and notable type of image we have not featured as a POTD before. As a European, I find it difficult to conceive how it might be regarded as "pornographic" in any way. (Curiously, it might be regarded by some as more "artistic" if she wasn't wearing a bikini bottom.) As a representative of its type, as said by Hanhchen above, it's just as much a valid POTD as Image:EIAJconnector2 edit.jpg, and (with apologies to Ms. Merkin, who I am not comparing to an EIAJ connector) for exactly the same reason. Providing this does not turn into a "babe of the week" feature, I'm happy to endorse it as a POTD. -- Karada 10:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do object to this being a POTD: not on the grounds of obscenity or indecency, but rather companies trying to game the system to get promotional photos on Wikipedia. Surely this violates WP:NOT - i.e. Wikipedia is not a ground for advertising or promotion?? I think it would be better to use a different photo for POTD, e.g.Image:98-04 Dodge Intrepid.jpg - an uncontroversial photo, not taken for advertising purposes, in situ and not of a living individual.

I fear that once this photo appears as POTD, gaming the system may inevitably happen.... --Solumeiras talk 11:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I don't like the composition of that picture. The angle is funny and it's too closely cropped for my liking. Call me fussy :o) Guy (Help!) 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I should also add although Wikipedia is not censored, schools might not think that way - and the site could be blocked in schools if this is used as a POTD. --Solumeiras talk 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with several of the concerns above, but principally the fact that this is not an image designed to neutrally document an encyclopaedic topic, but an image designed to promote a barely-encyclopaedic topic. If we POTD this we run the risk of large-scale gaming of the system by companies and other promoters uploading promotional images in order to get on the front page. POTD should be for pictures taken by Wikipedians, or from sources that routinely make their content available freely; it's a way of promoting the value of free content images and encouraging people to join the free content movement by making great images available freely, not a way for article subjects to get their article on the front page by releasing one or a very small number of carefully selected promotional images. The front page should be a showcase for what's best about Wikipedia, the rare promotional images uploaded by article subjects are not one of those things. It wouldn't matter if it was Kellogg's uploading a picture of a packet of corn flakes, it's not about the nature of the subject, it's about what I believe POTD and Wikipedia are about. This subject does not GFDL most images, is not a part of the free content movement, and is not a member of the Wikipedia community, so her image is not "our best work". Guy (Help!) 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and here's another reason not to include it: it's a composite, and not a particularly skilfully done one at that. Zoom in on the bow on her swimsuit, it shows the original background colour, and it's likely that the subject was not standing in this orientation for the original shoot. So not only is it problematic as promotion, it's also not a single image. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • JzG, you've made some good points there and I agree with you. I would also agree it isn't "our best work", and it seems my argument about gaming the system has been proven above. --Solumeiras talk 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to totally agree with JzG on everything he said. I hate to weigh in with little more than a "me too" kind of comment, but the fact that it's clearly a composite (and probably also airbrushed) should put it out of the running without question. JuJube 13:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's sleazy and naff and makes us look like sleazy teenage boys or dirty old men who run websites for porn. I thought we tried to play down the history of the wikipedia site in cheesiness, how do you think most women, most of whom think images like that are a real turn off, would think when clicking on wikipedia and seeing that on the front page? Those who are not regular editors or are just wanting to read up about something would just leave and surf away from the site immediately. There's enough porn on the net and sleazy pervs using women as masturbation material in this world, without a supposed site for education having it on the front page, glorifying skankiness. This belongs on w*nkwiki if there is such a thing. The main page should present us as a good source of information/education, imagine how muslims, evangelical christians and other people whose religion rules against them viewing such images, would feel being confronted with that on the front page with no warning too. In most of society people have a choice not to view soft porn images if they don't wish to, they're warned about where it is so they can avoid it. Merkinsmum 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The image was contributed by a woman (as a matter of fact, the woman portrayed in the photograph). Wikipedia is not censored, and I fail to see exactly who is being exploited here. I don't see how it glorifies "skankiness". It's an artistic work - or are Venus de Milo or David (Michelangelo) skanky and exploitative as well? This is hardly porn. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying anyone's being exploited. Just that it'll make a lot of religions and women be put off and not surf any further, and it makes us look bad, when the front page is supposed to make us seem impressive. of course, the horny might surf more lol. You say it was commented by a woman- was it by Ms.Merkin herself or a fan/someone close to her? Women are usually turned off by such stuff. Unless it's advertising for them to earn money for flaunting/selling themselves as a thing- for which there is a word and with which perspective most women wouldn't identify. I don't know about censorship- although there's actually plenty of various kind on wikip- but it's not suitable for the main page/photo of the day- unless the criteria for judging that is the same as that in a playboy model competition.Merkinsmum 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Rofl, are you really saying this is 'art' in the same sense as Michaelangelo lol, it's designed to sell her work, the artist was no doubt paid to make it for that reason and nothing more.Merkinsmum 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to Michelangelo, who of course didn't create the Pietà because a rich priest gave him a whole bunch of money to do so (as is commonly believed), but rather because he wanted to create something that would impress a society of foreigners living in a 500-years distant future that was almost incomprehensibly alien to him. Mozart, Vermeer, Andrea Palladio... none of them cared about money, or needed to eat, so they never took commissions. They just wandered the earth like that guy in Kung Fu, leaving masterworks and a grateful citizenry in their wake. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, someone called this picture "art". There seems to be a lot of missing the point 'round here. The proper objections are based on the fact that this is not an actual photograph but a composite. I give a damn that this is a naked woman (even though arguable she's dressed up in airbrush). JuJube 01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The prevailing opinion at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg appears to be that Guy is mistaken about the photo being a composite. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a bit tired of seeing "Wikipedia is not censored" used as a reason for doing things which are gratuitously controversial. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, so the image is included in the article of the subject (and penis has a penis on it and so on). However, Wikipedia unquestionably does practice a degree of self-censorship. For example, we censor rumours in articles on living individuals, because we're not a rumour mill. Wikipedia not being censored is not a reason to put something like this on the front page, it's just a reason not to remove it from the subject's own article. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Main Page is the first thing many people see when they visit Wikipedia; it makes a first impression on the reader. I don't feel that using the Merkin image on the Main Page would make the best impression on someone who is seeing Wikipedia, especially for the first time. --Kyoko 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Put it this way: the Main Page, in a sense, tries to project the image of Wikipedia as a credible encyclopedia. That's why it is protected against vandalism. It creates the first impression. That is one more reason not to use the Merkin image on the Main Page. To use a real life analogy, I don't wear a bikini when I am at a job interview. I could, and there is nothing legal to stop me, but I want to project a professional image, and and swimwear doesn't fit into that. Likewise with the Wikipedia Main Page. This isn't about censoring the encyclopedia, it's about making a good first impression. --Kyoko 01:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The above discussion seems to be losing focus. Can we concentrate on three questions and canvass people's opinions on them:
    • (1) Should this be a featured picture? (see the delisting discussion)
    • (2) If it remains a featured picture, should it be used on the main page? (see above)
    • (3) If it is used on the main page, what should the caption say? (the original question)
  • My opinion is that I don't think it should be a featured picture (see the delisting discussion for more on that), but if the community think it should be a featured picture, then fair enough. Regarding the second question, I think using this picture on the front page sends the wrong signal. This is not about censorship, but about reputation. If Wikipedia gets a reputation for these sort of pictures it could be a good thing (if people realise this sort of content is balanced by other, more encyclopedic, content as well) or a bad thing (if people start focusing on the glamour pictures and the lightweight articles, at the expense of the encyclopedic, information-dense and educational content). As for what the caption should say, I don't think it matters much compared to the other two questions, but I think having self-references to Wikipedia and free content should be avoided. Carcharoth 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Some people have mentioned the "rebellious" tone to some people wanting to get a picture like this on the main page, and looking forward to the fall out. I saw something like this on Talk:Main Page recently. See here:

    "I can imagine it quite well, it will clog up half of the main page discussion, several "concerned parents" will threaten to sue Wikipedia for not protecting "my babies" from pornography, others will demand the banning of howcheng. But honestly, let them whine, and pretend they know best. We don't have to come here, and defend our policies if we don't want to (while it is fun to read some of the comments)." - User:Puchiko 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

    Is this an acceptable attitude. I will notify the user of this post. Carcharoth 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand the user's pent up frustration coming out in a comment like that, I too lack the time or energy for complaints that encourage any form of censorship. At the same time the tone is probably inappropriate, as Wikipedia is for readers. I don't think it's the world's biggest violation or anything, the note you left on the user's talk page should be sufficient action in this case I would think. My opinion. IvoShandor 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, as I said on Puchiko's talk page, I think you're overreacting to a pretty mild comment. Puchiko's entitled to an opinion just as you are, and the comment was not directed at any particular editor. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry. I was attempting to say that we don't have to conform to the pressures of our readers. I wrote that comment in haste, and frustration. I hope I didn't offend anyone, and believe I will rather not participate in further discussion, as it seems I am loosing my cool. Just to clarify, it was not the readers' anger that I found funny, it was the well humoured response of the community (such as user:orngjce223's wet noodle). Again, I'm very sorry, and will refrain from making such comments in the future. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's OK. Thanks for apologising. Sorry to drag this over here. I'll keep it people's talk pages in future. Carcharoth 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a comment on the pic. If consensus is that its a FP, that's cool, part of Wikipedia's mission is to present free content. I see no problem with featuring the picture on the Main Page as long as its featured. These same questions about commercial photos could be applied to any FA that appeared on the Main Page about a product, movie, etc, etc. I don't think that has presented a problem. I think Wikipedia should encourage more free, professional submissions, featuring these pictures does probably do that, I don't know why we would want to discourage such professional submissions of free content. IvoShandor 17:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My thoughts: Should this be featured? As I said in the original FPC discussion, no for aesthetic reasons - it looks cheesy , the composition is unimaginative, and I don't think it's among Wikipedia's best work. For the same reasons, I don't think it should be on the main page. But if we choose to put it up there, I'd be much more comfortable with a caption referencing Glamour photography, which is frankly a more notable topic than Michelle Merkin and wouldn't look like an ad. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)