Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Colour shifts on LoC scans

It's hard to not notice the large number of high-quality Library of Congress scans passing through here and even harder (for me, at least) to ignore the incidence of a very distinctive, characteristic colour cast which isn't always getting corrected before nomination, or even noticed on the FPC page. The more obvious ones are picked up, but there are plenty of others which aren't, as well as one or two which have recently been promoted.

I went ahead and emailed the Library about this and heard back from a couple of departments who advised that, while charged with checking raw scans for luminance and contrast, archivists don't routinely correct colour balance. It turns out you can find this information on any LoC Collection page by clicking the "Digitising the..." links at the foot of the page. It also seems the first scans produced for the archive were made on an early 90s large-format flatbed scanner which I understand wasn't programmed with automatic white- and black-point selection, the way modern scanners are via more interactive user interfaces.

The result is a very large batch of uncorrected raw scans in the archive, all with more-or-less the same "signature" colour cast. Technically, all LoC scans are uncorrected, due presumably to time restraints, but this batch is the earliest and most poorly-calibrated. Thanks to the occasional reliable white paper reference on several scans, I've worked this out to be a mired shift of approximately -450K with a slight magenta tint shift (Lightroom users: temp -10, tint +6) to correct to a roughly neutral balance. It's no more than a rule of thumb, but hopefully a good starting point for assessing and correcting future potential FPs which might not have an obvious white reference within the frame, but display this particular hue. In most cases this reveals a cleaner-looking and/or more colourful image, which if nothing else is a better starting point for assessing the scan.

It's probably worth pointing out that not all warm-casted LoC scans are from this batch (later scans with Sinar and Phase One workflows are obviously much cleaner and often include colour charts anyway) and also that many pieces may well have a strong yellow cast to begin with, due to natural paper deterioration. The debatable need to correct for this sort of thing and restore works to "original" condition (whatever that might be) isn't the issue here. For the record, I'm all for changing as little as possible, which among other things means watching out for less-than-faithful scans. Hopefully this will save a load of time-consuming edits and lengthy discussion on the FPC page, at least. Apologies for the lengthy one here :-/ mikaul^talk 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been treading water lately and owe Mikaul an apology. It appears that he really is right about this, and I was pretty vigilant in doubts a few days ago. Thanks very much for your research, and mea culpa. Durova^Charge! 01:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

De nada. Sorry for bargeing in unexpected :)) mikaul^talk 06:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

However, I think you're wrong int he case of Ryu sho ten: Ukiyo-e almost inevitably have yellow paper. I DID reduce the yellowness somewhat in my original - adjusting levels tends to increase saturation - but don't think that going as far as you did is correct. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ryu sho ten borders still look quite yellowish on my monitor. I've been back and double-checked and there's probably some latitude to tweak back some warmth without claiming artistic license or anything, but I'm really not sure there's that much in it. You were right about the Coriolanus image of course and the adjustment I just made there (edit 2) was closer to your original than my edit 1. The Coriolanus piece definitely looks like a later scan than the batch of early casted ones and I was wrong to lump it together with them. Must take more care...
On the Ryu sho ten one, I see a major cast which fits the "old scanner" profile exactly. It's the white on the dragon's neck that gives it away: once you correct the scan balance, that part of the image samples at pretty much neutral white. mikaul^talk 06:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus FPC

This is a bit under-reviewed. Could I ask that people have a look at it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FP on other language Wiki's

Is it acceptable to nominate pictures that are FP on other language Wikis? Thanks. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say go for it, but remember that other language Wikis may not have the same criteria that we do. Also, any images that are Featured here have to appear in at least one article so it may be that an Icelandic-Wiki featured image appears in an article there, but there isn't an equivalent English-Wiki version of the article. Good luck! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Matthewedwards. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking out Tufacave votes

I believe that opposes with the reasons like "My poodle could do better. And has", "Yawn", "zzzzzzzzz" should be removed as the opposes with no good reasons given. Please notice I am very much against of removing the user oppose from my own nomination first-of-all because the reason for the oppose was at least readable and second-of-all I would like to be fair to the user. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think care has to be taken with wanting to discount others' votes as there may be valid reasons for phrasing things that way such as, but by no means limited to, a lack of ability to express the exact reason for not liking an image. I agree that it is highly unhelpful to vote in such a manner and it can appear very discourteous to the nomination to not make the effort to phrase a real opinion. Then again, I don't think it necessarily invalidates the oppose itself, even if it devalues it. After all, should an oppose with a simple comment like "yawn" count any less than a simple "support" with no reason. I think it has to be left to the discretion of the closer to weigh the votes. Mfield (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it works perfectly as a form of sanction. We can't really claim that Tufacave doesn't know better and should be forgiven for slight hiccups in formality: the user is clearly seeking to insult or aggravate the targets of his comments - and by doing so has forfeited the right to have his opinions taken seriously. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

His votes are obvious WP:ILIKE violations. I respect a reasonless support (since there is a nomination that should be read before supporting) but don't respect a reasonless (or insulting) oppose. I also commented on the user's talk page. The user was previously banned and the actions seen now are obviously in response to his previous noms being ended early. The user needs to grow up. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted this thing here and went to Tufacave talk page to invite him/her to take a part in the discussion. It was, when I saw that some users have already expressed their concerns on Tufacave talk page. If I knew it before my post here, I probabably would not have posted what I did. I believe the discussion on the user talk page should be enough.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

True Mfield, but we can't make unlimited allowances for those who, despite being given numerous chances to change their behavior (and he has - this issue with him has been ongoing for a while now), continue to cause trouble on FPC either through inappropriate nominations or rude and inappropriate responses. This doesn't seem to be limited to FPC, as I can see a history of similar behavior on their talk page too. I know we try to be as tolerant and open to 'the public' as we can, but there should be limits to this. If it really did look like all Tufacave needed was a bit of education about how FPC works, then fine, but I think his behavior shows that he has little patience or respect for the process. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at it further I completely agree with you (all). It does appear to be a WP:POINT thing. Mfield (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. AGF and common patience both have their limits, and Tufacave has repeatedly shown himself to be incapable of rational, reasoned discussion. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to the FPC reviewers for getting on top of this problem. Yesterday I first saw the 'poodle' comment while in voice chat helping a new restorationist who's wonderfully talented. Hope it didn't put a damper onto his enthusiasm--we were discussing photochrom restoration and the oppose really caught me completely off guard. It's been wonderful to see how the regulars responded.

There's another issue besides civility, though. Seeking suggestions for what to do about it. Tufacave's uploads tend to have documentation problems. He claimed authorship of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/peterlee, which appeared to be possible copyvio and has been deleted. Similarly with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/queenmumindurham.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/World War Two Tank, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pipistrellustufacave.jpg. For a first timer, not such a problem. But this has been going on several months without the appropriate learning curve. Any ideas what to do? Durova^Charge! 19:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Norris defends FPC. In other news, this is a rubbish picture of Norris when we want to display how hard he is.

In other, other news, Jack Bauer would most likely kick more ass defending FPC than Chuck Norris (this statement adheres strictly to WP:NPOV).

Ain't no messin' with FPC on our watch. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-uh. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that my poodle comment caused upset yesterday, I really am. I didn't like the 1902 picture, or a few of the others, but I certainly could have made a better job of expressing myself without being hurtful/juvenile/downright irritating. As to the photos mentioned above - all have been deleted because I asked for it to be so. I get downhearted when WFP yet again fails to want one of my photos - and so ask for them to be deleted instead. The World War Two tank, for example, was scanned from a glass negative released by the British Government during World War Two. I made this information available upon uploading and didn't claim I had taken it! Sadly, yes, I did take the poor little fuzzy bat picture though. Despite Durova's rather strong comments to the contrary, none of my photos have been shown/proven to be copyright infringements and I have never knowingly violated the copyright of anything.--Tufacave (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tufacave. You seem to be interested in British history. Probably, I could find something that would make a good restoration project within your area of interest. Interested? Durova^Charge! 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your apparently sincere change of heart. Please try to not lose your temper in polite discussion - if you just adhere to WP:CIVIL, you could become a valuable contributor to FPC. Translation: cool it, yeah? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 09:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful, now - the Jack Bauer's a fair use image, which we can't use here. 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, didn't think that would be the case. Oh well, that's why we have bots. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Camille_Saint-Saëns

Well, come on - it's my first restoration of a photo (as opposed to engravings and artwork) and I'm not going to get better without people tearing it apart =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

More !votes

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amstel Hotel, Amsterdam is going to be closed soon, so I'm requesting more imput on it...there's only 3 votes, and 1 of them is the nominator. Spencer^T♦^C 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Template Use vs. Commons Template Use

ZooFari brought up an issue over at VPC regarding the VP template that tags an image as a valued picture. This brought up a question from me. Commons has a template to note when an image is featured at Commons and on any local language WP (for example, this). We have a template on WP to note that it is featured here, whether or not it's featured at Commons (for example, this). Why aren't we just using the commons template to indicate that it's an FP on the en:wiki? We have many examples of the Commons template being used in addition to the English WP template (for example, this and this). It's not an issue of being able to be uploaded to Commons; the same copyright requirements for any Commons upload is the same we have for FP. Do we really need the English WP template, or is it just redundant? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What is acceptable here != what is acceptable on Commons. Some of our FPs are tagged as {{do not copy to Commons}}. It is the Commons template that is unnecessary and that's why I don't maintain the category over there. MER-C 03:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Limited by a few exceptions. Thanks for the clarification. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems that way. Shame though, as it is interesting to see what other Wiki projects have featured, and if the Commons template isn't used, the only way to know is to look at the image on that project's site. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I rather wish all the Commons tags - COM:FP, VI, QI, multi-wiki-FP, etc - didn't display here at all, they should just display on Commons. I think they're distracting, and confusing for all those people that aren't familiar with all the projects. All users here should see are the EN:WIKI ones. But I guess there's no way to get things like the image description to display, and those other things not to. --jjron (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be forced to the very bottom of the page somehow, so that they don't interfere with the image description, as I agree with you that when they are inserted above the description (which is common), then they do get in the way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the POTD tag there rediculously obtuse. It is rediculous when the commons tags take up as much room as the image preview and summary combined. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about the Commons POTD tag - oh yeah, that thing is absurdly enormous. I like Diliff's idea of at least shuffling all that stuff right to the bottom if we have to see it, wonder if there's a technical way of forcing that to happen? --jjron (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The file page was ment to inform people about how the image is used in all wikiprojects, not just for the English Wikipedia. However, I do agree that the license and description should be at the top. It is the main principle. Zoo Fari 06:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Commons POTY 2008

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2008
Voting to select the finalists is open from 2009-02-12 until 2009-02-26.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FPC critical gallery

I hacked up a script that scans the FPC list, and generates a gallery of twelve nominations that are ending soon. Expand the box to see it:

FPC critical gallery

FPCs needing feedback

I would appreciate suggestions for improvements. If you find it useful, let me know and I'll make a request for a bot task to update it regularly. Wronkiew (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this a lot. A smaller version (if it could be done) would be nice to put on my userpage so I can get a quick glimpse without having to go over to FPC. Kudos on the effort. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd modify it so it only showed images with few opinions (currently highlighted in red). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Some quick suggestions:

Compactify. It's practical for user (talk) page display if it's about the size of User:Deckiller/FAC urgents.
I second Noodle snacks' suggestion.
Raise the red threshold to 5. 3/1 is still annoyingly unclosable.
Can I (or someone else) manually add things to the list without working against the bot? Additional input may be required in the case of (say) a wikiproject influx.

Overall, a great idea. MER-C 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer to see fewer nominations in the gallery, smaller images, or just a text list? The script counts both supports and opposes, so I could list only nominations that either have not received enough reviews, or are close to the threshold. For manually adding things to the list, how about an invisible flag on the nomination page so the bot pulls it in on the next update? Wronkiew (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MER-C. I would like to see small versions of the images (with titles if possible). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and would we have to limit what we write for support or oppose? Would it be a good idea to move to using

Support and

Oppose so the bot knows exactly what !vote means what? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not worth changing the review process just to get the bot to work right. It ignores extra bolded text besides the support or oppose, so it would count Immoral sarcastic support as a support vote. I don't think this would interfere too badly with the generated list, and it's a supplement to the FPC page anyway. Wronkiew (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the script to address some of the above comments and to format it more like User:Deckiller/FAC urgents. You may need to purge this page to see the updated list. The vote count is no longer shown, as all the nominations in the list are under-reviewed or consensus is unclear. I've thought about making it play nice with others editing the urgent list, and have come up with a possible solution, but it would require removing the countdown timer. The request for bot task approval is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 2. Thanks for the feedback! Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Already on my userpage. Again, nice work! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the countdown timer drops off, in fact I'd prefer it. Nomination length is a bit fuzzy around here. MER-C 07:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can the critical gallery also include nominations older than 7 days? Spencer^T♦^C 02:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All of them? Wronkiew (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I have a feeling the template would become rather useless when I'm not around. MER-C 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ellis Island video

Would a few more people review this candidacy, please? Durova^Charge! 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lost page?

I was converting old FPC templates to FPCold and came across Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Western Sushi.jpg. It was nommed in December, but doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. Hope you guys can help this one along! (And maybe get a bot to update those dang templates :D) §hep ^Talk 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, not sure what's up with Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SydneyMonorail1 gobeirne.jpg either. And this one or this one. It also looks like this one was never closed. This one looks like it might need deleted. Do things like this just get left after so long? §hep ^Talk 22:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose some may have never been transcluded onto FPC. Spencer^T♦^C 22:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to shove the few with clear links to the proper images atop the page (there's a couple where no actual image or link to one appears). I'll do so if noone says not to by tomorrow. Obviously, I don't think all of them will actually pass, but there's a couple gems in there. I will, of course, check they haven't had their day on a separate page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The plasma one was removed because the nomination was withdrawn (when it should have been suspended). Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Johnson Ebban t and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SydneyMonorail1 gobeirne.jpg are not valid nominations and should be deleted. I've listed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Western Sushi.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Terraced Farming, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Folsom Lake because they were never listed and closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gent Bridge as the picture obviously fails the criteria. Basically, if the nominator does not transclude the debate it never happened. MER-C 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aeronautics featured picture set

A while back a set of images got promoted about aeronautics. These images were created in the 1890s about events that occurred several generations earlier, and at least one of the depictions is inaccurate.

André-Jacques Garnerin's parachute demonstration, 1797
From the 1890s set. Note that the balloon is actually below the parachute, which would be a serious safety hazard. If a large object becomes entangled in a parachute it can cause the parachute to collapse.
(currently at FPC) An early nineteenth century depiction of the balloon and parachute. In this version the balloon floats upward and away from the parachute upon release. Other sources support this version, not the 1890s version.

This casts doubts upon the accuracy of the entire set. Comments? Durova^Charge! 01:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are they, in fact, mutually exclusive? An empty balloon WOULD fall faster than a working parachute. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

According to the sources the balloon was full when it was disconnected. The basket and parachute dropped while the still-sealed balloon rose from the loss of weight. It was the rope that supported the basket that got severed, not the balloon closure itself. Durova^Charge! 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'm still inclined to allow this as artistic licence - presumably the balloon was only filled with hot air or similar, so it'd come down eventually. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I've made my opinion on featured sets known before...they shouldn't exist. There's bugger all EV in this set, and it's inevitable you're going to get this sort of crap happening (tell me anyone voting on this nomination actually scrutinised all these images the way most FPs are scrutinised). (Pardon my strongly worded opinions.) --jjron (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And thinking further on this, if it is obviously inaccurate that image should go up for delist. Now, have we ever had a delist of an image from a so-called featured set? Surely if all images in a set are promoted in a single nom, a delist of any of the images means the whole set is delisted. As they say, Live by the sword, die by the sword. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I could possibly find replacements for more of the others. The Library of Congress has an excellent collection for balloon aeronautics, and a lot of the alternates were published shortly after the events themselves. Early aviation was big news at the time, and there was a market for good illustration about it. Durova^Charge! 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review

...Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Punaluu Beach. Thanks, Spencer^T♦^C 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork

This seems incredibly out of date - for instance, there's been five images after the last "Other" shown. Are these subpages getting updated consistently? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. MER-C 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The first-level subpages should be kept up to date because they get a lot of hits. So far this month, FP has 90,000 hits, FP/Animals has 7,000, and FP/Animals/Amphibians only has 1,400. On the other hand, if we don't want to keep them updated, they could be deleted. The first-level subpages are only linked from WP:FP and the directory. Wronkiew (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If we did delete them, and just linked to what are now the sub-sub-pages (grouped by type) on WP:FP, keeping how we handle WP:FP the same, just skipping over the sub-page links, would that actually be a problem? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. MER-C 11:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is done. All section pages but the last two have been turned into redirects, with few inbound links. The last two had no subsections, so they were treated the same as the other subsection pages. Wronkiew (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Dying images

File:Suikoden.jpg and File:Somagahana_Fuchiemon_restored.jpg are dead. Commons has somehow managed to corrupt the files. What on earth is going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. I blogged about that the other day. Caught quite a bit of heat for it. Durova^Charge! 07:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(reads up on your blog). Good Lord, why is it that people pounced on your offhand mention of the PNG annoyance, and ignored that multiple Featured images have stopped displaying? And then sad that we shouldn't be working on large featured pictures anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a large photograph die too, its getting annoying. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For anyone with a Bugzilla account, I've started a list of images with problems at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17645. It's probably best to list them all there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. You're both welcome to post comments and join the followers at my blog. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good news! Tim Starling has fixed the problem. :) The key thing is to avoid interlaced compression. Now if only we could get .png files to thumbnail correctly... Durova^Charge! 03:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Let's get these things fixed and back into articles. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It never even got a chance to live! *sniff* :( Chillum 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviews?

Could I get some more reviews on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Chorus_girls? There's a couple above it that could also use more votes to establish consensus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting reviews for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First silk parachute. Getting close to closing time (partly my fault for being tardy with translation and sourcing). Durova^Charge! 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PNGing fellow FPC folks

At Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Early_science_fiction MER-C pointed out something I hadn't known about why .png images fail to thumbnail over 12.5 million pixels. In late 2005 that format caused a problem and he deliberately set the thumbnailing cap at that level for this format. The details are worth reading. Since the hardware got upgraded last fall the file upload cap rose from 20MB to 100MB, but the .png thumbnailing cap remained at 12.5MP. Since serious image work occurs in that format and uncompressed formats are important for re-editing, should we be petitioning for that cap to change? I think we should; if others agree we would be more effective to speak up together. Durova^Charge! 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should ask in #wikimedia-tech or on the mailing list before rounding up the masses. MER-C 11:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Too grainy?

This is from the same production as the one up for FPC, but the other one had a much higher-resolution, better copy. Is this one still good enough for FP? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FPC terminology collection

I've hacked together a quick collection using the new books feature detailing some of the photographic jargon we use around here for the uninitiated. The contents can be edited directly, the page is at Wikipedia:Books/FPC terminology. MER-C 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C, I would have thought you of all people would have remembered that Featured pictures weren't just photographs. I've added in some things on engravings and lithographs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just couldn't find the articles. :) MER-C 09:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Well, fair enough. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DERM

I recently started the Dermatology task force and want to create a subpage for the taskforce that addresses dermatologic photos, giving guidelines/recommendations for good images. On that page I was simply going to link over to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria, but also wanted to added a few comments specifically geared towards dermatologic photos (like something about always having a ruler, etc in the picture to keep size in perspective, etc.). I also found a paper online (see [1]) and thought I could integrate some of its pointers into the page. However, I am a dermatologist, not professional photographer, and therefore wanted to know if you, or any of your friends, would help me develop this page? kilbad (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more of an engraving expert than photography, but I could try and help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pharyngeal_jaws_of_moray_eels.jpg

This one could probably use a few more votes - it's almost at the four votes now, but a great deal of discussion and changes have happened, and I thought it better if it had a couple more days to be examined. Hope noone minds.

Honestly, this image could probably have used a suspension at some point while the details were being hashed out, but it wasn't suspended, so... oh, well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Gerrymander could also use more votes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Water Babies

Question What guideline are you guys following when deciding whether or not to keep the frame around an image? It was removed here, but kept in this example? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- If an image has a clearly-defined border, I always try and leave that in, and then just give as much paper outside the border as I need to make the border look tidy (not all are perfectly square), unless there's evidence that the space outside that border has artistic intent to it. However, not all images have a clearly-defined border, and with those, I play it by ear, and try simply to get a good framing for the image elements that exist. That's me, though, and I'm not sure it applies to anyone else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Let's discuss general questions on FPC talk rather than within a specific discussion. Please move/repost and I'd be glad to answer. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion, Shoemaker. I blogged about cropping in January.[2] The blog post refers to a specific type of cropping situation where the border in question is part of the original publication. In other situations (fine artworks, manuscript maps) sometimes a separate border was added at an unknown date after the image was created. The later border would generate irrelevant data in the histogram, so it's necessary to crop out that type of border to get an accurate restoration. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, if it helped, I think the problems in the original nom culd be solved by uploading a restoration xcropped less tightly. I don't mind it being cropped like that for Wikipedia use, but think it's a prroblem that anyone else using it would now be limited to the choice made for Wikipedia's circumstances. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to try then go for it. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

360 Panorama Viewer

I hadn't made any serious attempts at full spherical panoramas for wiki. But I've just discovered a useful commons template {{Pano360}} that allows correct viewing of spherical panoramas and so on. Unfortunately it isn't really ready for the prime time. The applet always downloads the full size image, rather than the thumbnail, which is slow with large images. After downloading you can only view images at a fairly small size without fiddling with your java settings. This is the only nearly spherical panorama that I have ever shot, but you can try it in the viewer through the link in the image page or click here. It'll be nice when its possible to display such things in articles, since that type of image looks very strange without an appropriate viewer. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Some code comments: the first problem can be easily fixed, say with getImage(String title, int width, int height) of my little wiki interface and/or with the API. The second can't really be diagnosed without source code. MER-C 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dschwen would be the one to talk too, I didn't write it. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm not sure how this pano viewer would be implemented in an article. It wouldn't be of much use as an embedded thumbnail sized scrollable panorama, so the only practical way to include it in the article would be a text link to the full viewer, presumably? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That is good news as I have a lot of highly encyclopedic full sphericals. I will upload some and play with it. Mfield (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

A few days ago I asked Papa Lima Whiskey to reconsider his sometimes quarrelsome approach to featured picture candidacies after his input to one of Calliopejen's nominations Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Meninas where he had admitted "I can be overly sarcastic".[3] He was not receptive to feedback, and since then he has initiated an off-topic discussion at a candidacy by a new nominator after PLW had already opposed.[4] Now PLW insinuates that I perpetuate systemic bias.[5] In the last six weeks I have contributed featured pictures about France, Canada, Morocco, Argentina, Israel, The Netherlands, Japan, Mexico, and Gaza. The problem is not systemic bias but Papa Lima Whiskey's conduct, which is damaging the morale of other volunteers and hampering efforts at expanding the contributor base to FPC.

PLW has contributed three featured pictures and sometimes offers valuable input, but over months a pattern has also taken shape that he acts disruptively at nominations he opposes or does not support. Earlier this year I offered mediation; Papa Lima Whiskey ignored the offer. When I approached him privately he rebuffed the overture.[6] The issue is not his opinions, but his manner. Few options remain to address the ongoing problem, so if it continues I will open a user conduct request for comment. Durova^Charge! 16:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how useful a user conduct request for comment will be, but I certainly agree with you - PLW has been quite disruptive in his time at FPC and doesn't seem at all apologetic for it --Fir0002 04:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you too. PLW and I have had numerous frustrating 'debates'. This would be fine, except for the fact that he regularly seems to avoid actually tackling the crux of the issue and seems to delight in perpetuating it through various means - Rhetorical questions, ignoring valid responses, etc. It is a shame because on the other hand, he does occasionally have a valid point of view and expresses it logically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FPC urgents template operational

DustyBot has received approval to update the FPCs needing feedback template continuously. You can add it to any page with {{FPC urgents}}, and I went ahead and added it to the top of this page. Please feel free to add nominations to the template if you think they need more reviews; this will help me to improve its selection criteria. DustyBot won't remove any nominations that you add to the template until they are closed. Wronkiew (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/El_Capitan

This is getting a ways down the page, has two versions, and no strong consensus as to which one should be used. I'd appreciate some more discussion. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Maritana could probably also use some more eyes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, please? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Non commercial image license

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#Proposal for introduction of NC licensed photos on Wikipedia. To read original thread, click "show".
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free. I have no problem with wikipedia or any other non-commercial organization using them, however I would not like commercial institutions to benefit at my expense. I therefore suggest wikipedia adopt a non commercial license such as CC-NC . This will not violate wikis principles of free knowledge and will convince photographers to release higher resolution pictures as well. It might also convince professional photographers to release their work knowing that their work will not be used for commercial means and that they will still be able to make a living. I don't know if this issue has been discussed before and I know village pump would probably be the place but I wanted some feedback from the photographers before taking it there. --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I think it is possible to upload to wikipedia under that licence. You won't pass criterion 4 any more however. Suppose that the wikimedia foundation was unable to raise enough funds for hardware and staff. It would have to make money using advertising. The NC clause would then prohibit the use of that content. In theory, the share-alike clause does reduce the risk of exploitation by requiring that any derivative work is made available under the same terms. The trouble is that aggregate works are not subject to the same restrictions. Personally I'd be happier if I could release my content under a NC licence, but it isn't practical in this context. I just keep the higher resolution copies and let those that are interested ask. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) The wikimedia foundation specifically wikipedia is by its nature non profit organization. Having ads to maintain the site should not make it a commercial website. However, that is yet to happen. Regarding criterion 4, perhaps a change of Image use policy? --Muhammad(talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC) But a non-profit organisation can still be a commercial organisation. Undertaking commerce does not always imply making a profit. Most non-profit organisations obviously still need to earn money to cover expenses, whether it be through donations or through sales. As such, even remaining non-profit, Wikipedia would still need a commercial license to sell content. As I mentioned below, I personally think that a license that restricted commercial use only to Wikipedia would be a solution, but I doubt it would happen. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC) A license that restricts commercial use to wiki would be good. What if the photograph contributors rally. Would that make a difference? --Muhammad(talk) 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I believe it has to do with the bundling of content into future and as such unconceived purposes. Like for a quick example - assume that all A rated articles were to be included in a CD-ROM that would be sold at cost to schools or something, borderline commercial use. It would be a nightmare having to remove some images from some articles that were non commercial and replace them for that one use. So simplifying to accepting content with commercial use explicitly permitted does not limit uses that may at this point not even have been invented/conceived. That is what I recall reading somewhere as an explantion, but it may be completely wrong. It sounds plausible enough. Mfield (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Won't happen per Jimbo. GFDL is good enough in preventing some commercial use because they need to put a copy of the license close to the photo (which isn't going to happen for adverts, prints, posters and all the usual photo stuff). MER-C 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I agree that it is very unlikely to happen. The licensing structure is pretty well engrained. I'd be interested to know what Jimbo's reasoning is, though. Is it ideological or commercial in nature? What about a license that is commercial but restricts commercial use to Wikipedia and its various sites, that way Wikipedia can advertise down the track (not that I would agree with advertising except as the very last resort to remain viable, but that is another issue) without giving away content? Surely a compromise can be found that doesn't allow commercial exploitation of content by companies that are simply being cheap, rather than having a genuine educational need for the images. Because thats what I see the issue as being about. Wikipedia's purpose should be to educate the masses - not to give away media content to commercial interests. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Lets invite Jimbo to this discussion. --Muhammad(talk) 13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Not a bad idea. Who's going to take the plunge and do it? ;-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 09:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I did it. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) And your statement about GFDL is true, but they're making it difficult (particularly for one not as familiar with what is going on behind the scenes) to use GFDL as only option for users uploading content is GFDL 1.2 or above, which rolls over to CC-BY-SA at Wiki's discretion... The only option is to manually assign GFDL 1.2 ONLY as the license for the image, which cannot be done using the 'Upload your own work' page, as it is not available as an option to select. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC) To do that, we would have to junk most of the content we already have and essentially start over. Nevermind that noncommercial licenses severely inhibit the spread of the knowledge we're creating. Inconsistant with our mission in that way. It would be easier to start a fork project, and import what scraps of content one could from here (there's bit and pieces that are public domain, or nonvirally licensed). Wily D 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Why do you think we'd have to junk it all? The existing images could remain as-is, it would just be new images that you could optionally license as non-commercial, except perhaps for use within Wiki projects. I think that is pretty consistant with what Wiki is doing, and it would not inhibit the spread of knowledge. It would just inhibit other companies from using the images commercially. Knowledge is not the same thing as business. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Because most of the content is licensed in a way that requires you to license it the same way if you reuse it in some fashion. Everything I've contributed, for example, under the GFDL requires you to GFDL the content as well. Otherwise, you're infringing on my copyright. The same is true of most of the other content. It inhibits the spread of knowledge by making it much more difficult to re-use the content and spread it around. Consider that the Germans have made a print book of de.wikipedia's content (not all articles, and just ledes). No one would ever do that if they had to pay the cost of printing the books, and the cost of shipping them and whatnot. They can't really charge for the content anyways (since you can get it free elsewhere), but not allowing them to get paid back the cost of binding the books? Wily D 12:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I think you're missing my point though. I'm not proposing that Wikipedia be restricted from using the images commercially. We all acknowledge that Wikipedia may need to use them commercially in order to cover costs, and I think we trust the foundation to do so sensibly. What I am proposing is that other companies not affiliated with Wiki not be allowed to use images taken directly from Wikipedia's website (or cd-rom or whatever other soft medium) and use them commercially. And yes, that may inhibit the spread of knowledge in practical terms by a very small amount, but then so do GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses by requiring the attribution/license text to be included, so the implication that a non-commercial license is alone in doing so is false. And on the subject of knowledge, I think we need to accept that providing access to view content is different to providing access to use content. Knowledge is gained from viewing it. Profit is gained from using it. I think that is a key difference and relevent to our point. And there may well be the very occasional situation where there is a legitimate need for a third party company to use Wikipedia's images commercially, but I don't think we should open the floodgates and let anyone use the images commercially just to cover that situation. Better to make the license non-commercial when used outside of Wiki and commercial when used within Wiki. This is all just my opinion, but I think it is shared by a lot of the photographer contributors, who I think are not trying to be selfish at all - merely trying to avoid commercial exploitation of their generosity. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Any company can use any of the images hosted here commercially, barring those which we're using under very restricted fair use conditions. The point, though, is that if you licensed your content non-commercially, it would be copyright infringement to combined it with my content, say, which is all GFDL'd, which requires, as part of the terms I demand for re-using the content for which I own the copyright, that any content you create from it also be licensed under the GFDL. These floodgates are already entirely open - any company can incorporate all our contributions and sell it, any artist can, whomever. If someone wanted to put this sentence on a coffeemug and sell it, they could, as long as they met the licensing conditions. It's the viral nature of the license that makes it impossible to ever restrict the content - it's free, and everything that gets done with it has to be free as well. We may loose out on some photographs - but we actually free up a lot too - I have seen many, many instances where individuals or corporations provide images, text, whatever, under a free licence because they want it included here, freeing it from them for everyone to use. In any practical sense, requiring the GFDL or a sharealike license gives us far more free content than it costs us (especially since non-commercial licenses can't really be considered free in any meaningful way.) Wily D 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not following why a non-commercial license would conflict with the existing GFDL content. You talk about your GFDL content and what it demands of derivative content', but I'm not referring to that, because a photograph is not a derivative of your text in an article or any other existing content. I'm referring to my content (for the sake of the argument) being licensed as non-commercial (and as I said, I would be more than happy to add an exception for Wiki to use it commercially). Can GFDL content and non-commercial content not co-exist within Wikipedia in the same way CC-BY-SA and GFDL do currently? And yes, I know the floodgates are already open with the existing licenses, but that is what has prompted this discussion in the first place. I am proposing that the floodgates just be a little better controlled so that good pro photographers are other media contributors can add images without fear that they will be exploited as a result. ;-) It seems that no particularly good rationale has been presented that explains exactly why Wikipedia needs to give media content away to external commercial interests as part of it its 'raison d'être'. I just don't see this as an issue of freedom, I see the current licenses as a license for commercial interests to print money at our expense, when they clearly don't need our help. I guess it is just where I personally draw the line on freedom of information, ideologically. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The combined work is a derivitive of both, though, so it has to be licensed in a way that's compatible with both licenses. As any noncommercial licence is incompatible with the GFDL, we simply can't combine them. Yes, using GFDL and CC-BY-SA is probably a little dicey, though the organisations that maintain the licenses are working this out, and it may not be the end of the world (one might be able to sue if they really wanted though). In practice, one can't think of commercial reuse as "at our expense" - we get new free content, whatever audience gets the content. If you're not free to do as you wish with the information we're providing, it simply isn't free. Wily D 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I disagree on the principle of combined work being a derivative of GFDL and CC-BY-CA but I concede for now that you're probably right, legally speaking. That said, I still don't see a significant diference between CC SA and CC NC in terms of 'freeness'. Both have stipulations and requirements so neither are truly free. The difference between them is only by degrees, not by absolutes. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I re-read your first comment about requiring you to license any re-use in the same fashion, and I think I misinterpreted it when replying above. Are you saying that because some of the images might be non-commercial, that the combined content could then not be used commercially? Yes, I suppose so, but as long as only Wikipedia is publishing entire the encyclopaedia's content, I don't see this being a problem. Out of interest, how exactly does the printed book of de.wikipedia's deal with the issue of the CC-BY-SA license, which requires the publisher to both attribute the author and provide a URL to the license text. Is this done below each image on an individual basis, as I understand it should be? Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) No, the text and images here are licensed in a way that requires you to relicense derivitive content under the same license, which requires that the content be usable for anything. So in order to use the content I have made available here, for instance, you must make the whole thing GFDL, otherwise you're violating my licensing agreement and infringing on my copyright. I don't know any details about the itty-bitty of the German distribution, but that doesn't seem like it'd be hard to do. Wily D 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) That just doesn't make sense to me. As I said above, an article is not a derivative of the combination of images and text, so just because your content is GFDL, I can still license my content however I like and it can co-exist in the encyclopaedia with everything else. Otherwise (if I understand what you're saying correctly, which seems unlikely given how crazy it sounds), GFDL content would have to assimilate all other content that it comes into contact with in order to avoid a licensing conflict with itself. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Legally, the article which combines images and text is a derivative of both. (The definition of "derivative" is based on the mere inclusion of someone else's intellectual property within a newer work, and does not necessarily require that one rework that material.) The FSF, who wrote the GFDL, generally advocate that the GFDL does more or less swallow everything. Their position is that if you illustrate GFDL text then the images must be GFDL (or a highly compatible state like public domain), and likewise if an image is GFDL then any text that builds off of it must be as well. They consider their license strongly viral. If you take their position literally, CC-BY-SA is probably always incompatible with GFDL, to say nothing of CC-NC. In practice, Wikipedia has adopted a less extreme interpretation of what the GFDL requires and allows GFDL text to be mixed with non-GFDL imagery. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The FSF and the Creative Commons are working out new licence versions that'll fix that, though. Wikipedia requires GFDL-1.2 or later for everything, so if 1.3 is compatible, it'll be totally square then (yes, it's problematic now). So - uh - just use the licence from the future. Wily D 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC) "Otherwise (if I understand what you're saying correctly, which seems unlikely given how crazy it sounds), GFDL content would have to assimilate all other content that it comes into contact with in order to avoid a licensing conflict with itself." - Yes, exactly this thing has to happen. Wily D 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I see the logic of what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't believe you can force an image into a license in which it was not released even if the GFDL say so. Agreeing with what Dragons Flight has said above, essentially what would happen is that all CC-BY-SA images would not be compatible with GFDL and should therefore not have been added to content which would conflict with it. I cannot see how Wikipedia could legally assimilate the non-GFDL content simply by associating with it. This licensing thing is completely ridiculous, really. This, along with the NC issue, shows just how out of touch it all is. I know that the likely conclusion of all this will be "This is just the way it is, participate or leave", but it shouldn't have to be that way. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Err, yes, it's too late to turn back now anyhow - it has to be "participate or don't". The point is that by using an incompatible image, you're not forcing it to be compatible - you're infringing on the copyright of the material licensed under the GFDL. We can assimilate other content that allows it (for instance, you can add public domain bits - they remain public domain, but the aggregate is GFDL. The same is also fine for CC-BY, at the least). But if I use a PD image the image remains public domain, but the aggregate is GFDL. Wily D 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Stepping in to clarify: Creative Commons NC licenses are not accepted for upload at Wikimedia Commons. WMF is a nonprofit, but we do not prohibit (and cannot control) commercial reuses of the material we host. Therefore NC-licensed material must be uploaded with a nonfree use rationale, and is subject to the same policy restrictions as fully copyrighted material. I don't particularly like this situation, but understand and agree with the rationale. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) For the record, I understand the situation, but neither like it nor agree with the rationale. In the heirarchy of usability, I'd place NC above fair use. At least with NC, it provides reusers with a bright line, while figuring out whether a fair use image is reusable is often very vague. Dragons flight (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I understand and appreciate that as things stand, CC NC images are not accepted. This discussion is about why this is the case, and whether it could be reconsidered for the many reasons stated above. ;-) As Dragons flight says, I don't think that NC should be on par with fair use. I would envisage a NC license that allows Wikipedia commercial use only, which should satisfy the need for the organisation to recoup costs, without allowing everyone to profit from sale of the content. As it is, commercial publishers for magazines, books etc are using our professional quality images not for educational purposes, but for profit. They can afford to pay for these images but they choose not to because all they have to do is place a tiny attribution and license link on the page and they can take the content for free. There is a time and place for reusing Wiki content, but I don't think that is what Wiki should be about. Anyway, I'm repeating arguments, so I'll stop for now. :-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, they also have to include the full text of the GFDL and license all the rest of the magazine under the terms of the GFDL as well. It's the second part we're rather fond of. Wily D 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Well yes, if it is the case that CC-BY-SA images are automatically GFDL when added to a Wikipedia article... I don't know if we're quite at the end of that debate yet though. If we accept that the images are simply CC-BY-SA, then they could do what I describe above. Dragon's flight admits already that Wikipedia turns a blind eye to this conflict of licensing... I think we already have enough trouble with people respecting the main terms of the license, let alone the intimate details such as the licensing conflict created by GFDL. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC) The SA in CC-BY-SA means the same thing, though. If a book wants to include your CC-BY-SA image, they have to license the whole book under CC-BY-SA; you can now print and sell the book too, if you like. For some reason, this ends up meaning a lot of publishers won't want to use your image. Their loss, though. Wily D 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, Creative Commons has stated that their copyleft intention is much weaker than GFDL. Their view is that SA on an image would apply to derivative images but not to accompanying text or the larger work as a whole. It isn't entirely clear if the legal text of CC-BY-SA actually mirrors this intent, but they have discussed making the limits of their weaker copyleft more explicit in future versions of the license. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC) "this will not violate wikis principles of free knowledge " - well as I understand it the free is freedom to do with it as you will, so yes restrictions to that does violate the principles. I've an idea to go with this though, I've spend loads of my time and energy reasearching stuff, writing articles etc. Why don't we do the whole thing non-commercial so that the time I've invested in the text is not commercially exploited? What is so special about images that people think we should treat them differently? Good writers willing to work for free should be tough to find wouldn't you think? Guess they are more generous than photographers?--81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Generally a photograph is the work of one person, where as practically any wikipedia article that has been around for a while has a number of authors. It is quite possible to make money from photographs, either by working professionally as a photographer, selling prints or stock photographs. On the other hand the same really isn't true for the work done editing wikipedia articles. I'd bet that many top notch photographers would contribute content if a NC licence was available. That said, I don't see it happening. Oh, I am pretty sure combining GDFL text with images is considered an aggregate work, not a derivative work. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC) The freedom you describe can only be achieved if the content is released into the public domain since both GDFl and CC-BY-SA have some restrictions. My understanding being correct, that means wikipedia is currently not entirely free. To add to what Noodle snacks mentioned, writers don't need any special equipment to write better articles, whilst photographers invest quite a lot in equipment. I for instance, took up photography as a hobby, but if I want to upgrade the quality of my shots I need to spend more money. If I give away images for free how will I pay for my lenses? --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Has anyone every heard of text-stock site? I don't think so. I probably should read the above debate before commenting but FWIW IMO there's an enormous difference between photographic and text contributions. One key difference is that wiki has a policy of NOR, and therefore most of the text is arguably a mere regurgitation of other sources. Whereas photography is the creation of something entirely new, something that you have individually brought about. Secondly the text in articles also has almost non-existent commercial value as far as I can tell. Few if any text contributors could channel their contributions into commercial venues, whereas photographers here could. Wikipedia is, by definition, "the free encyclopedia". It's about giving people information. I'm happy to illustrate articles (and thereby inform people) with my photos. And an NC license for images in no way limits the informative value of the image - it only limits the potential for it to be exploited commercially. Finally as NS mentioned above, introducing a NC license would open the floodgates to top notch photography from skilled contributors and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. --Fir0002 09:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Two things. First, although there is still some debate about it in some quarters, in general CC NC licensing is not thought to prevent hosting on a site with advertising. So it would be possible for Wikipedia to both have NC licensed images and to have advertising. I oppose both, by the way. :-) Second, the best way to understand my position on this is to read Erik Moeller's essay.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC) With all respect to the author of the essay it strikes me as having been written from the wrong perspective and hence contains several errors. The key problem as I see it is that he's assuming contributors want their contributions to spread in numerous derivatives far beyond Wikipedia. I for one dont. I contribute to Wikipedia as I think it is a valuable resource as an encyclopedia only. I'm contributing to increase the informative value of the articles on Wikipedia, not to contribute to a general free content movement. Here's a few counterpoints to his objections: Incompatibility: From what I gather he's dealing with derivative works in the context of text contributions rather than photos. Text is obviously edited and chopped and changed a lot after it's created. However, images rarely undergo any major modifications after being created, and when those modifications are made it's very simple to upload the edit under the same license. Placing that NC image into a GFDL article is not going to cause any issues (just as using fair use images does not cause any issues). Basic Uses: As it happens I dont want bloggers and newspapers randomly using my images. If they want to use my image they at least owe me the courtesy of asking - and usually I'll give permission for it to be used. Existing copyright terms: Again yes I do want to maintain my copyright indefinitely Profit!: Essentially what he's arguing is that you may as well upload with a liberal license because you're gonna be ripped off anyway. But the people who are going to rip you off are not really in "the market" - in other words even if they cared about obeying copyright they wouldn't pay for an image; instead they would go find a different pic or just not use it at all. Large corporations you'd expect to respect copyright and would pay you in exchange for a less restrictive license. I would much rather have some level of protection and be ripped off by small-timers than none at all and ripped off by everyone. I would at least like to have the option of uploading under an NC license. A big problem with liberal licenses is that people rarely go beyond "you are free to use this commercially" and read SA terms - much less actually comply with these conditions. The "SA license will create useful derivatives under free licenses" is largely, IMO, a myth. People treat these licenses as essentially equivalent to PD - you're free to do what you want with the image and relicense as you please. At least if you explcitly say this image has rights reserved (ie you can't use it for a commercial purpose) people will pause and consider the terms before misusing the image. As far as WMF using images commercially to help run the project I don't think anyone uploading under NC would have any problem with allowing this. Conclusion: I would disagree that uploading under a free license protects you from large scale exploitation - I think every photographer has a pet story about how they got ripped - a good one would be Diliff and Apple. I think that providing photographers with this kind of basic protection and choice in how thier images get used will strongly benefit the project (and by the project I mean a free online encyclopedia) with semi-pro grade photography. --Fir0002 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Nicely put. About a month ago, I did a Google search of my username and found many instances where my images are used throughout the Internet (see here). While it's flattering, none of them asked, as is specified on the image pages themselves (granted it's not part of the license, but it's common decency). And these examples are only the ones that actually credit me. There must be many that use my images but don't mention the author. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 07:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with Fir having the ability to tag an image NC would be nice and may attract more contributors, but on the other hand there's nothing like being able to add to your portfolio that your Photograph is being used by Encycopaedia Britannica is there. Gnan garra 09:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC) But seeing EB use my images only makes me see exactly why the NC is necessary. EB should pay photographers to create professional content, if they intend to pass their encyclopaedia off as more professional than Wikipedia. EB would not allow Wiki to nick their stuff with only a brief attribution, so why should we let them? In the end, it is professional photographers that lose business from free content. The free content movement doesn't seem to be about education at all, because so many of the potential applications of its content are commercial in nature and not educational. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I agree with basically everything Fir0002 said. I was going to say something along those lines too but I had to build up the energy after the previous rounds of exchange. ;-) I suppose that once again, the answer will still be "no" as Wiki is firmly entrenched in the free-content movement, but I'm with Fir on the position that we firmly support Wikipedia as a free encyclopaedia, but don't really support the free-content movement and its goals of giving away content. Text is fine, as text is essentially just a regurgitation of facts sourced and cited from external pages and books, and really doesn't belong to anyone by the time it appears in a mature article. But photos are very different. They are the creative products of individuals and should be respected as such. And Jimbo, if you're still reading, can you respond to the allegation by WilyD above that CC-BY-SA images that appear in an article with GFDL content are either (depending on which school of thought is applied) assimilated into GFDL or become incompatible with GFDL because of the terms of the GFDL license requiring everything associated with it to also be GFDL? It seems ridiculous, but I can see how a literal interpretation of GFDL does conclude this. And how else are we to interpret legal text but literally? Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC) I was pretty much going to write what fir did. WilyD is pretty much wrong, have a look at Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License, section 7 (Aggregation with independant works), basically the viral nature only applies for derivative works, not aggregates such as an article. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You are mistaken if you think: "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an 'aggregate'... ", was ever meant to apply within a single article. The FSF position is that the text of an article is simply not "separate and independent" from its images, and vice versa. The intention of the FSF is for copyleft to apply broadly such that an article would be a derivative (sections 4 and 5) and not an aggregate (e.g. section 7). I know one often sees the aggregate argument on Wikipedia but frankly that goes against the intent of the license authors, and personally I also think it goes against the plain language of the license. So if the shit ever hit the fan and such an issue was taken to court, I would not expect to see the aggregation interpretation get very far. Dragons flight (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The FSF's position on something doesn't mean it would hold up in court. Firstly, the GDFL wikicode only links to images, the data isn't contained within the page itself. Secondly, if what you say is true, then I could add an image to an already written, featured, article and then that article would become a derivative work of my image (despite having been written before the image existed). The very definition of derivative ("Resulting from or employing derivation" or "Copied or adapted from others") precludes what you describe. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, the new version of the featured article would be a derivative. As is every new version of every page, unless you throw out all the pre-existing content. The legal definition of derivative is broader than you seem to believe. Any time a new version is created and presented to the public, you have created a work that is legally derivative of all the previously published material that it includes. You can only create that combined work if the licenses and associated rights on all the pieces allow you to do so. The FSF position, and I would argue the natural reading of the license, is that creating that new article version is only allowed if all the pre-existing pieces are licensed under the GFDL. Dragons flight (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Err lets back up a little and go beyond this NC vs GFDL standoff. If a GFDL article can host a Fair Use image then a GFDL article can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host CC-by-SA content (which is not GFDL) then it can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host PD content (again not GFDL) then it can host NC images. Wikipedia already incorporates many different copyrights into it's articles - one more is not going to make a whole lot of difference. But if this really is a make or break issue than why not get Mike to clarify... --Fir0002 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Fair use is the exception not the rule. If you look at WP:FUC it is specifically tailored to minimize the use of non-free content: "To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media." Public domain is unencumbered by copyright so that's a non-issue; derivative public domain works can be assimilated into GFDL works. In contrast an NC option would flood articles with non-free images making it impossible to reuse the articles commercially without stripping them of images, thereby diminishing value to our users. Fletcher (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Actually I can't see how that quote is tailored to minimize their use - it seems to be "we're going to use FUC to support our mission to provide perptually free content" (this doesn't make much sense but it's a relatively trivial point anyway). I don't think you can automatically treat PD the same as GFDL as GFDL creates requirements which PD doesn't have - thereby you're giving it a more restrictive license than it originally had. It doesn't make sense to say that all content in the article is currently under a GFDL as all the different licenses, are, by definition, different and distinct. But rather than trading opinions on this ad infinitum I've emailed Mike to see what the correct position is --Fir0002 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I think we have quite a bit of hubris here on the part of our photographers. While your work is appreciated, it is by no means fundamentally different than the work done by our thousands of article writers. (Collaboration doesn't somehow diminish their efforts.) Wikipedia is and always has been a free culture project. Its goal is education, yes, but it is also the creation of free content. Content that anyone can use for anything. Content whose price is the same as its marginal cost, so that it can be spread as widely as possible and bring the greatest utility to those who would benefit from employing it. Wikipedia's licensing is also forward-looking. Perhaps in a hundred years, the Wikimedia Foundation will no longer exist. Maybe no nonprofit will want to take on hosting Wikipedia, because they can't get the donations necessary to do so. Using a commercial license allows the continuation of Wikipedia content into the future, so long as someone can make a buck doing it. (And this will probably be true for a long, long time.) At this moment, there is no shortage of photographers willing to donate content under wiki's terms. There is no reason to compromise our principles here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC) This is a moot issue. The Wikimedia Foundation already has a commercial re-use agreement with PediaPress for publishing books based on Wikipedia content. The French Wikipedia also has some commercial agreement with a poster printing company whereby Wikipedia users can get posters printed of Wikipedia images (for a fee). Commercial re-use of Wikipedia content is not a hypothetical situation, it already exists. Thus non-commercial licenses are not an option. (Nor would they be appropriate for a project such as Wikipedia.) If you want compensation for your photographs, sell them, don't donate them to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC) But as as been explained over and over again, this is not about wanting compensation for photos, it is about wishing to prevent commercial interests unrelated to Wikipedia profiting from donations to Wikipedia. And a poster printing company printing Wikipedia photos is not really commercial use IMO, as long as the printing is done at the normal cost, so that any profit comes from the printing, not the providing of content. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Further to that, it's already been stated that it is unlikely that anyone uploading under NC would have any problem with WMF using their images to help fund the site through selling their content. --Fir0002 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikimedia projects are intended as a resource for others to profit from, if they want to -- "profit" is not a dirty word here. There is no limitation on how much one can charge, other than what the market will bear. Fletcher (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) That being the case, I don't see why wikipedia should release its articles under the GDFL, why not release everything into the public domain without any restrictions? --Muhammad(talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Derivatives of public domain works can be copyrighted and made non-free. Public domain also has no attribution requirement. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA are intended to protect attribution and make sure derivative works continue to be free content (free as in speech -- see also Gratis versus Libre if you don't understand the difference). That's why they are relatively complicated compared to just releasing to the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC) @Calliopejen1: I completely understand your point, but I think you're misunderstanding the position of most of the photographers making their points here. Photographs are fundamentally different. Diliff's Apple experience would never have happened if he were just an article writer. I (and I assume most everyone else here) have no problem with a teacher using my image to make class more interesting for the students. I have no problem with a blog using my image to add interest and clarification to a post. But when larger entities use these images in promotional material, it's just plain lazy. I don't disagree that they can do it, but Wikipedia and Commons were founded as a repository for information for the good of the world, not for use in monetary-based promotions of private firms. I'm not a hardcore photographer, and indeed I find it cool that some of my photos have been used on the Internet (it's flattering, really), but if I ran into a situation where I found a work done by me, used by a large corporation, I'd be downright pissed (even though they can currently do it), especially if I wasn't credited (which would technically be illegal). As for the use of an image in Encyclopedia Britannica, they should be ashamed. They make themselves out to be perfect, when it was well documented that Wikipedia competes closely with them, and they're using our content to fill their pages? For shame! What happened to an old-fashioned competition!? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC) When you say "Wikipedia and Commons were founded as a repository for information for the good of the world, not for use in monetary-based promotions of private firms," can you support that claim, or are you projecting your views onto the wiki? Because I think it's flat out wrong. Commercial use is explicitly allowed in the GFDL with no attempt to address the motives of the user. Fletcher (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think most people would think it is implied, even if it hasn't been stated as a founding principle. Jimmy Wales is quoted in the Wikipedia article as saying that Wikipedia is "...an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language", which certain sounds far more similar to the former than the latter, but I suppose we could argue about intent and semantics without really getting anywhere on that one. I'm not sure if the original intent was ever pubished in a way that discusses this issue particularly, but I could be wrong, not having done too much research. I'd certainly share his view if it was merely him projecting it and I suspect most people here would too. After all, who would willingly prefer to see private firms profit from donations than the public be educated through donations? ;-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think it is implied at all; if that were the intent it would have made no sense to choose the GFDL, and the five pillars and Wikimedia Foundation would not specifically link to free content. I think the most common view is that there are many valid, "non-evil" commercial uses, and the possibility that Mr. Burns will use the material is not seen as such a threat that it merits placing restrictions on all our users. Fletcher (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Foul play! How is one expected to respond to a legitimate claim that uses valid Simpsons references? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) The only way is to respond in kind! Fletcher (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I think the fact that Wikipedia is trying to move away from GFDL proves that it is not fit for purpose, so I wouldn't assume that just because GFDL was chosen that the founders had all bases covered and everything figured out. I know that there are numerous links to the free content within the Wiki ideology, but nowhere on that article does it tackle the issue of commercial vs non-commercial. In fact non-commercial licensing still falls squarely within the realms of free content and copyleft. And Wikipedia:Five_pillars doesn't explain anything either - it just refers back to free content. So I'm still left none the wiser as for whether commercial licensing really is a founding principle. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC) No Simpsons ref? D'oh! As I understand it, the Creative Commons license did not exist when Wikipedia was created so they chose GFDL. The GFDL is now seen as onerous, not because it allows commercial redistribution, but because its documentation requirements were designed with technical manuals in mind, not multimedia content. As you know CC-BY-SA also allows commercial redistribution. You are correct that free content doesn't explictly mention commercial re-use, though I think that could be inferred from its first sentence where it says "no significant legal restriction". Or see the footnote in that sentence which links to Stallman's essay on the GFDL where it does say commercial reuse is allowed. I think you are mistaken that non-commercial requirements can be copyleft (see Copyleft#Share-alike. It is true there are other CC licenses that blur the line between strict copyright and copyleft -- but Wikipedia does not use them. I think there is room in the ecosystem for different types of licenses, but if you contribute to a project that uses one type, perhaps you should be willing to accept its choice rather than demand it modify its philosophy to suit your needs. Fletcher (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Again you are misrepresenting me. I have never demanded that Wiki's philosophy be modified to suit my needs. I have stated my beliefs, asked whether there is any chance that a license be introduced that protected our content from commercial exploitation. As I have said so many times now, this is not just about me or the other photographers arguing from the same corner. Sure, we might benefit from the NC license, but it is ideological request aimed at benefiting all contributors, both current and potential. There is a huge difference there. Also, it seems as though the 'powers that be' - namely Jumbo and Erik - are amenable to the idea of being flexible with licensing. I'm certainly not saying that the arguments presented here have convinced them of the merits. Clearly this has been something on their minds in the past. But as I mentioned elsewhere (this thing is so huge now that I'm struggling to keep up with discussions in numerous locations!), the "you're either with us or against us" response is not helpful and perhaps not even in harmony with Wikipedia's goals, going forward. Who knows. But being closed to the ideas of the community is going to get us nowhere. Oh, and you want a Simpsons quote? I'll summarise this entire discussion: "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try...". ;-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I think what we're really seeing here is a division in ideology - it's not really about whether it would be possible for Wikipedia to have NC content and still provide free information to the world. It's becoming increasingly clear that there are two understandings of what Wikipedia is about - what Wikipedia stands for. The definition of wikipedia is very simple: Wikipedia is a free, multilingual encyclopedia project. So giving this a plain-sense reading you can get to the scope of wiki, it's the provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet. So Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a resource for people to make a profit on. It's to realize the classic "imagine a world where every person has access to the sum total of human knowledge" quote. It's also ridiculous to suggest it's a resource for others to profit from while at the same time trying to argue that we should enfore GFDL because it will ensure derivative works are kept free. A resource for profit may well be what wikipedia has turned into, thanks to liberal and misunderstood licensing, but that's not its purpose. Again I'd suggest "go thou and consider the ways of the fair use image" - why would fair use images be used if Wikipedia was in fact a resource for people to profit from? They are here because they are extremely informative and important to the articles - their existence conclusively shows that this project is about making an informative, freely available, encyclopedia. I contribute because I believe I'm working towards the "sum of human knowledge" goal. Images are crucial to this goal. I think it's great that a kid in Kenya can see what a kangaroo looks like. But I don't think it's great when people disregard my copyright and use my images left, right and centre for commercial gain. I'm sorry but the idea that we're pouring our work into a free content resource for others to exploit IMO makes the internet ~~not~~ suck. Knowledge is cool, exploitation is sucky. The reason Wikipedia works is because of cooperation. Everyone here is giving up their time and effort to the project. Wikipedia's assets are its contributors. That means it should be looking after them, not making life difficult. It should be attempting to get as many positive users onboard as it can. Allowing NC licences is not going to compromise the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, rather it is likely to be of great benefit through new users uploading commercial quality content. If people want to be part of a free content movement to upload to there's always Commons. And yes there probably are a lot of users happy to give away their photos and for them to be used as freely as possible. But by and large these people are not uploading high quality imagery. Lets be blunt here, if you haven't spent $$$ on a DSLR and decent lenses and you're not a skilled photographer you're not going to get an FP. Yes there are exceptions but by and large the people who consistently take FP quality images are those who have a spent a lot of money and have talent. These are also (by and large) the people who are then wanting to recoup some of their investment and are thus reluctant to lose the commercial value of their photos. They're happy to donate to free knowledge but not happy for people to disregard their rights and ride the back of their work for profit. If wikipedia is going to be the best it can, it needs to have FP quality images. By offering the protection of NC licensing it would be extremely encouraging for semi-pro photographers to contribute their work - which is going to be a great benefit to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. So the question really becomes what would you rather: a freely accessible encyclopedia with the best content possible (including NC), or a free content repository which (possibly) comes at the cost of commercial grade photography? I know which one I'd prefer! --Fir0002 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Damn I wish these kind of debates came up out of semester when I'd have more time!! Once again I completely agree with everything Fir0002 has already mentioned. It seems like WMF is willing to sacrifice the original primary goal of Wikipedia (which is to create the best and most complete free encyclopaedia to the best of my knowledge) in order to stick to the (IMO misguided) ideology of free content for all, regardless of purpose or intent. My original question was "is the refusal of NC licenses an ideological or commercial issue?". It sounds like the answer is both, but more so ideological. As Fir0002 said, allowing NC (with an allowance for Wikipedia's commercial use in financial emergencies) licenses would encourage better photography, and would not compromise the encylopaedia in any way, as long as distribution was limited to Wikipedia. I accept Calliopejen1's argument that at some point in the future it may become uneconomical to host the content through donations alone. I think the day that it resorted to advertising would be a sad day indeed and surely that would be a far greater compromise of Wiki's ideals than what restricting the distribution of content to non-profit utilities is to the free-content movement. Call me stone-hearted, but I'd rather see Wikipedia die a bankrupt death (and I doubt that would be allowed to happen, anyway) than to see other companies salvage all our work and "make a buck" from it. Because of what Wikipedia is, I think only a non-profit organisation has the moral compass necessary to keep it neutral and truly free. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC) If Wikipedia's ideology is "misguided" and you do not agree with it, you probably should not be contributing your photographs to it. Wikipedia has been a free culture project since it's inception. If you are not sure what that entails, please visit http://freedomdefined.org/Definition. Just as Linux is a free (as in speech) open-source software project that people can resell for profit, Wikipedia is a free (as in speech) encyclopedia that people can reuse for profit (and already do). Profit is not a dirty word. It ensures that these works will be taken care of and available for future generations (regardless of whether Wikipedia still exists). "Free license" means doesn't mean free as in "no cost", it means free as in "free speech". By insisting that your works are worthy of some sort of special protection, you are minimizing the importance of other contributors, most of which don't even expect credit for their work. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I am not minimising the importance of any other contributors. I would equally insist that all contributors have the choice to make their images NC too, if that were their desire. You continue to put words in my mouth by insinuating that I think only my works are worthy of special protection. Also, I fully understand the difference between the meanings of 'free' although I don't really think that freedom of speech is quite the same thing. Whether we restrict content with 'Attribution required' or 'Commercial user prohibited', it is still restricted in some way, so to call it truly free is wrong. The difference is only by degrees. Furthermore, your request that I stop contributing (okay, I see you toned it down a little) if I don't agree with the ideology is rather unnecessary and inflamatory. This is an open discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think my opinions should preclude me from contributing, as long as I do so within the guidelines set and I don't cause trouble. Bringing a genuine and important issue to discussion on a relevent talk page is hardly a capital offence. Even if Wikipedia isn't going to budge on this issue, I don't think that having this discussion is a waste of time. That whole "you're either with us or you're against us" is so Previous-American-President. ;-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Completely agree with that - please bear in mind that I'm not arguing for myself but for a much broader class of photographers who would find themselves in a similar position (and I'm sure Diliff is doing the same). Please don't start singling out users and turn this into a "them vs us" debate --Fir0002 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I note that when Fir0002 gave the definition of Wikipedia he omitted the wikilink of "free" to free content, which makes it very clear that Wikipedia is free as in speech, not (just) free as in beer -- free in the sense advocated by Stallman et al, where downstream users may use the content for any purpose. That is obviously ideological (sometimes annoyingly so), but it is also pragmatic that we do this, inasmuch as the project is already under copyleft licenses and can't be changed or easily merged with non-free materials. And although one can argue the free content requirement sacrifices quality for the sake of ideological purity, this is a false dilemma as proven by your own actions in uploading so many great photos! You might have an argument if Commons were filled with nothing but crappy cell phone snaps, but that is simply not the reality: people do agree to free content if they want to see their pictures on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). So if we can have our cake and eat it too, there is no good reason to undermine that philosophy. If you decide copyleft threatens your income, someone else will come along who will agree to it, though I hope that doesn't have to happen. Fletcher (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I assure you I didn't intenionally leave out that wiki-link - I just gave it the plain reading of free as in "there is no cost". However as mentioned above I really can't see any issue whatsoever of incorporating content of different licenses into an article - if there was a problem Wikipedia would already be in serious trouble. And again as I mentioned earlier I'm not simply talking about myself but photographers like me. You've only got to look at users like User:MIckStephenson, "I make photographs for a living & hence find it hard to get used to donating quality stuff to the Wiki project", to see the untapped potential for Wikipedia. And as for commons not containing crappy cell photos - you've haven't had a look through the Cat category! :) But the thing is, the people who are uploading the current content to Wikipedia under copyleft licenses aren't going to suddenly go away when you introduce NC - you'll still get that content but you'll also get the benefit of NC content. Again it seems an ideological argument rather than a practical one. As for free content - you may be well right, I might need to review my particpation in the project. Which is a shame as I've enjoyed my time here; but I've always been marching under the banner of "Wikipedia is a free (as in no cost) encyclopedia"... --Fir0002 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I wonder who is exploiting whom. So far all the prominent FPC contributors have enjoyed the exposure their work gets from appearing on the frontpage of one of the world's most popular websites. You guys already get widely idolized despite of uploading only downsampled versions of your images and clinging to the hard-to-reuse GFDL-1.2. And now you are even asking for NC licenses?! This is very disappointing. :-( --Dschwen 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You're completely missing the point too. This is not about us getting rewarded for our contributions or pressuring companies into paying us for our photos. This is about us all (not just the FPC photographers) having the choice to say that we don't want our work exploited for profit. I don't think Wiki-idolatry (whatever that is worth, I certainly don't get approached by attractive women in the street as a result of it!) compensates for this issue. You need to understand that this isn't really about us gaining in some way. I just don't like the idea that a profitable corporate (who doesn't really need to use our content) gaining financially as a result of taking the cheap option and using our content instead of paying for it like commercial users should do. This my ideological stance and I don't think it makes me exploitive at all. Non-commercial/Educational use? The more the merrier. I couldn't be happier to help those who could truly benefit from it. Education should be free to all. Business should not. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) You're also under a severe misunderstanding if you think that I particpate just to see my work appear on the frontpage of Wikipedia! The frontpage is seriously not something I attach any value to - and I too am yet to see anyone idolize me... --Fir0002 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) As an aside, many months ago I approached the Foundation about allowing NC images in place of fair use images for subjects where no truly free image exists. That is to say that NC might be allowed, but only when there was no more free alternative was available to show the same subject. Personally, I consider NC to be much clearer for reusers than fair use, since in both cases a commercial reuser may need to remove images, but NC provides a bright line while fair use is fuzzy and ought to be looked at on a case by case basis. The Foundation was open to the idea of using limited NC images at the time, provided that the community backed it. Though there would still be a tension between the desire to encourage people to create truly free content and the desire to have any photo at all of a difficult to obtain subject. Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC) There are a number of historic archives that license their photographs for free noncommercial reuse under the CC-NC licenses -- a good example is the large LA Times photo archive at UCLA. And many photographers at Flickr license their photos as CC-NC. We're missing out on a lot of good, free content by not allowing CC-NC licensed material at Wikipedia. So I'm very pleased to hear the Foundation is open to changing this policy. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify, this was an informal, in-person discussion. It should not be read as the WMF making any sort of a commitment. However, the people I talked to did seem open to giving serious consideration to whether there could be some limited legitimate uses of NC content on Wikimedia projects. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I very much doubt you'd find NC content to replace most fair use stuff anyway. Things like movie screenshots, CD covers etc etc are solid FU territory --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) It's been Wikimedia's long-standing position that allowing commercial re-use contributes to its educational mission (the negative impact of stupid commercial uses is outweighed by the positive impact of educational, commercial uses), and that position is unlikely to change. That said, I do believe we need a license that clearly has a "strong copyleft" effect on photographs and similar media, so that when they are used e.g. in newspaper articles, the surrounding articles would need to be copylefted, too. That is consistent with our licensing policy, but neither the GFDL nor CC-BY-SA have really developed clear and unambiguous language to this effect. Creative Commons is open to modifying CC-BY-SA to clarify that copyleft applies on images used in the context of other works (as opposed to only applying to modifications to the image itself). While not helping you with all use cases you're concerned about (it would still allow commercial use in ads, provided the ads are freely licensed), it should certainly limit use in ways which are consistent with our values. This is something we can continue to work on together. Beyond that, I'd encourage the people concerned about commercial use to think about Wikipedia not as their primary publishing platform, but as a way to highlight and promote some of their work, while generating revenue elsewhere.--Eloquence * 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC) How would you suggest dealing with existing CC-NC images? There's a lot of good NC-licensed content out there that we can't use at present, which weakens a lot of articles. It seems odd to allow fair-use images, but (effectively) forbid NC material -- as Dragons flight has pointed out upthread, the NC license has the big advantage of being a bright-line, compared to fair-use. One argument might be that fair use images of historical events, or images excerpted from copyrighted works like films, simply cannot be replaced by free (libre) images. I guess it's possible there are similarly valuable NC-licensed images that cannot be replaced. Maybe we should allow them. But in light of many comments above, that's not what this thread is about: it's about (some) photographers wanting to restrict our users from commercial use, either to preserve a revenue stream or because of some psychological "ickiness" about commerce they don't have control over. The images in question are, most commonly, landscapes, architecture, birds, flowers, and insects -- all replaceable by a skilled photographer. If such images are NC-licensed, we are not talking about enhancing Wikipedia with images we can't get elsewhere, but allowing non-free content to compete with and likely replace our free content. Fletcher (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I really think blocking useful content from wikipedia because of some resentment towards certain users (or a class of users) is counterproductive and a little childish. If you don't give people the options then you don't get the content and Wikipedia suffers. Sure you could get a lot of the stuff illustrated under the license of your choice - but at what quality sacrifice? I mean if Wikipedia could attract photos from the cutting floor from NG grade photographers through an NC license don't you think it should be providing that option? If professional photographer comes at the cost of NC don't you think that would be worth it? To frame it another way, if Getty or Reuters suddenly approached WMF and said to Wikipedia that we want to donate all of our images under an NC license to support the creation of a free encyclopedia, wouldn't you want the WMF to accept that offer? Again ultimately I think that question hinges on what Wikipedia's priorities are - being an encyclopedia or being a free content resource. I'd be very disappointed in the whole project if it was the latter. That's no longer making Wikipedia the best it could possibly be in terms of making the best freely (no cost) accessible encyclopedia; that's making Wikipedia as good as it can be subject to a certain ideology. If the world is to take Wikipedia seriously as a competitor to the likes of Britannica than I really think it shouldn't compromise. I'd rather see small time companies suffer (and they would suffer much anyway coz all those cell phone images would be on commons anyway) than a primary school student using Wikipedia to learn... --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Can I also just say that I'm beginning to stop assuming good faith? You continue to ignore my numerous assertions that this is not about protecting our revenue or 'psychological ickiness' towards uncontrollable commerce. I would still have the same feeling about this if I weren't a photographer. It is an issue of 'cosmic fairness' or 'karma' or however you want to describe it: Companies that exist to make a profit should not do so off the back of donations. When expressed as simply as that, I think most people would agree. There would likely be an uproar if people donated things (money, food, time, labour etc) to a charity/non-profit, only to find that these things were given away to another company who sold them and pocketed the profits. It is akin to exploiting slave-labour for profit. Obviously I'm not making a direct comparison between Wiki volunteers and slaves, but it is the exploitation of the work that I see a similarity in. This is my ideological stance and I will be very frustrated if you ignore it and try to make it sound like I'm arguing for my own personal gain again. :-P Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) if people donated things (money, food, time, labour etc) to a charity/non-profit, only to find that these things were given away to another company who sold them and pocketed the profits. A classic fallacy that frequently come up in free-content discussions, digital images are not comparable to money, food, time, labour etc. The companies are not taking the pictures away from educational use, but they give us publicity through the image credits. --Dschwen 15:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think I seriously misrepresented anyone but I think above I might have said you were making "demands" rather than just expressing an opinion which could be overstatement on my part, and I apologize. But I don't think anyone is arguing in bad faith here. However, Muhammad and Fir0002 indicated they are interested in making money from their pictures which is one reason they would like an NC option. Muhammed: "Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free. [...in subsequent post...] "I for instance, took up photography as a hobby, but if I want to upgrade the quality of my shots I need to spend more money. If I give away images for free how will I pay for my lenses?" Fir0002: "These are also (by and large) the people who are then wanting to recoup some of their investment and are thus reluctant to lose the commercial value of their photos" (assuming he includes himself in that category). Thus, I don't see how you can say "this is not about protecting our revenue", when it clearly is, and note I allowed for another explanation, pyschological ickiness, which accounts for your point of view, as admittedly I did not see you expressing that you wanted to protect a revenue stream. Maybe it sounds too critical, but "ickiness" sounds like the right word, as you haven't given a coherent definition of "exploitation" or explained in a rational way how you are harmed by commercial use of an image that you donated and weren't intending to make money from. I would suggest your reaction is understandable given that we are evolved to protect things we create -- but we evolved mostly before the Internet brought the marginal cost of certain things down to zero. This is why your comparison breaks down: yes it would be very wrong for, say, a grocer to stock his shelves with canned goods donated to a homeless shelter, but the reason is that those canned goods are rivalrous -- meaning every can of soup the grocer takes is one can less for a homeless person. If however someone makes commercial use of your image, that does not stop you or any other Wikipedia user from making use of the same image, as copies can be made at no cost. (I see Dschwen just made the same point...). Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) That is true, Fir and Muhammed did mention recouping costs, and that is part of their motivation, no doubt, but I don't think that they are specifically talking about profiting from their images on Wikipedia. They are all perfectly happy to give away their images here, but I suppose you are right that loss of income on other sites may influence their decision. And that is my point, really. There may be an unlimited number of copies possible, of any given image, but there is only a finite number of sales in the world. Consider the theoretical situation where every commercial user of images is aware of the availability of both stock photography images for a price, and Wikipedia images for free. and Every person that decides to use Wikipedia's images for free is one less person who is prepared to pay for the image, so it genuinely does have an impact on photographers that are trying to recoup their costs. Should we chastise these photographers for wanting to both donate their images for non-commercial uses (primarily education I suppose), and make a living? Again, it isn't really about protecting things we've created though. You say that I haven't given a coherent definition of exploitation (I was never asked to until now!). It is quite difficult to generally define exploitation because it is quite clearly in the eye of the beholder, and there are lots of aspects to it not relevant to this discussion. I would describe it in the context of this argument exactly as I already have done, though: Companies using content sourced through Wikipedia for free when they intend to use this content to make money. If you don't see the issue with this then I guess we just have different moral values. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) That is true, Fir and Muhammed did mention recouping costs, and that is part of their motivation, no doubt, but I don't think that they are specifically talking about profiting from their images on Wikipedia. They are all perfectly happy to give away their images here, but I suppose you are right that loss of income on other sites may influence their decision. And that is my point, really. There may be an unlimited number of copies possible, of any given image, but there is only a finite number of sales in the world. Consider the theoretical situation where every commercial user of images is aware of the availability of both stock photography images for a price, and Wikipedia images for free. and Every person that decides to use Wikipedia's images for free is one less person who is prepared to pay for the image, so it genuinely does have an impact on photographers that are trying to recoup their costs. Should we chastise these photographers for wanting to both donate their images for non-commercial uses (primarily education I suppose), and make a living? Again, it isn't really about protecting things we've created though. You say that I haven't given a coherent definition of exploitation (I was never asked to until now!). It is quite difficult to generally define exploitation because it is quite clearly in the eye of the beholder, and there are lots of aspects to it not relevant to this discussion. I would describe it in the context of this argument exactly as I already have done, though: Companies using content sourced through Wikipedia for free when they intend to use this content to make money. If you don't see the issue with this then I guess we just have different moral values. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) "Muhammad and Fir0002 indicated they are interested in making money from their pictures..." I would like to mention clearly that money making from my photos is not my objective. All pictures I take, I upload to wikipedia if they have EV and I go out of my way to do this, not to make money bur for the provision of free knowledge. Surely, I should be allowed to at least get back some of the money I invested in the equipment. Together with all the other valid reasons mentioned in this discussion, a NC will allow me to sell my pictures which in turn will allow me to upgrade my equipment and thus better pictures for Wikipedia at the end of the day. My initial post also mentioned that a NC will, "also convince professional photographers to release their work knowing that their work will not be used for commercial means and that they will still be able to make a living." SO its not just about the money. I have seen some great macro images at Flickr which we could have uploaded to wikipedia if only we had a NC license. --Muhammad(talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Should we transfer this discussion to a more appropriate forum? I'm pleased to see the issue reopened, as the no-NC policy has always struck me as a shoot-in-the-foot one for WP. It would be great to open the door for some use of NC-licensed material, and we did get Jimbo's attention here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Pete, I looked at your link to the photo LA Times photo archive above, and I'm wondering if you're right that its photos collection is under CC-NC. Their copyright page seems to say the copyrights are unknown and basically use at your own risk. Their general CC License page sounds like it applies more to content created by the library itself, "including tutorials, research guides, and subject bibliographies." However you may be more familiar with this organization than me. Fletcher (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, that page just gives the boilerplate for all of UCLA's digitized collections, and I can't find the intro page that says (ims) that all the LA Times archive is available CC-NC. But if you look at any individual LA Times photo, such as this one, all are clearly labeled as CC-NC. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Ok, thanks for looking it up. Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah you're probably right - this has probably run it's course here on FPC. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)? --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. Should we copy and paste the entire thing directly in?? That would freak a few people out. ;-) Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 13:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Well, it's a good, substantial discussion -- but would be an intimidating lump to come on cold. How about this: mark this thread closed (so we don't get two parallel discussions), and reopen it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) with a brief summary saying some editors would like to reopen the NC image policy discussion. Maybe quote some highlights, such as Jimbo's post. Here's a first draft. Thoughts? Pete Tillman (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I seemed to have ruffled some feathers when I suggested that photographers uncomfortable with commercial re-use of their photos stop contributing them to Wikipedia. I did not mean this as an us vs them comment. The reason I said this is that the issue is a frequent proposal (especially on Commons and the listservs) and both the community and the WMF have been consistently opposed to the idea from the beginning. Yet it keeps getting proposed every few months and we have to go through the same arguments over and over again. The issue of non-commercial licenses is not simply "a matter of degree", it would represent a fundamental change in the philosophy and values of both Wikipedia and the free culture movement (which Wikipedia has an integral relationship with). If you intend to continue this proposal, please familiarize yourself with the history of the issue: Jimbo's explanation (2006) Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful (Erik Moller's explanation) Towards a Standard of Freedom The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License There are also dozens of threads on Commons and the listservs, but I think the links above give the best explanations. I apologize if I was curt in my earlier comments, but hearing this proposal from photographers who are actively benefiting from their exposure on Wikipedia (judging by how many inquiries you guys have on your talk pages) seemed somewhat less than altruistic to me. I will, however, assume good faith and believe that you guys are pursuing this issue for selfless reasons ("karma", etc). Kaldari (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) On the issue of benefiting from the exposure. Yes, that is true to an extent, but exposure doesn't really translate to much in the way of tangible benefits. For example, I don't link my images or my profile page to my personal site where I sell photographs. In fact, I don't have a personal site of any kind, although I do sell photographs on stock sites. However, I wouldn't say that this exposure means I benefit in any tangible way. The vast majority of the inquiries I get are from people who want to use my images for free and are unsure of what the restrictions are. In this case, I have to take time to explain it, and I get absolutely nothing (financially speaking) in return. Occasionally I will get an inquiry from someone who insists on paying for an image out of courtesy, but this is fairly rare. Unless they specifically ask about unrestricted commercial licenses, I don't mention them and tell them I am happy for them to use the images as long as they respect the license terms. I did find it interesting (and surprising) to note that Eloquence does almost encourage us to use Wikipedia as a platform for exposure as long as we accept the current licensing, though. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification on that. Perhaps I was being a bit too hasty in my judgment. BTW, I forgot to include Jimbo's original explanation of the issue from 2005 in my links above. You may want to read that as well for some of the reasoning behind prohibiting NC on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yes it is a frequent proposal. The tension between wanting to leverage as much external content as possible to build the best possible encyclopedia and wanting to create a resource that is as free as possible has been around since the beginning. Jimbo and other early leaders won many of those fights initially. As you may be aware, non-commercial imagery was officially tolerated until mid-2005, though there are certainly even earlier examples of people disliking it. Jimbo, in his authority as God-king, ordered its removal [7]. It's never been clear to me whether the community would have embraced a blanket ban had it been handled through discussion rather than fiat. Of course, at that time the amount of explicitly non-commercial content that existed in the wild was far lower than it is today. CC-NC has been embraced by major publishing organizations such as the LA Times and Al Jazeera, and obviously discussions like the one above demonstrate significant interest from the photographic community. It also seems likely that one could talk many people into applying NC licensing to things like album covers and movie stills, where fair use is the only option available today. We are interested in freedom, but we still make compromises in the interest of encyclopedic breadth. We embrace a limited fair use scheme and we accept very draconian copyleft schemes (hopefully something that will soon improve). Given the explosion of interest in CC-NC and the potential to leverage content that is otherwise unavailable, I am inclined to wonder if a compromise is available here as well. I would use WP:NFC as my starting point. In other words, allow CC-NC only when no more free alternative exists, and largely as a replacement to fair use. I'd also consider excluding objects and places that are easily replaceable. I'd scrap the provisions of size/extent, commercial competition, and location in Wikipedia as irrelevant. Documentation needs (and the associated arguments) would be much simpler. Even if our primary usage is borrow from things like the LA Times photo archive to expand our coverage of historically significant events, I would see that as a significant boon to the quality of the encyclopedia. Perhaps Wikipedia is ready to consider something other than an all-or-nothing approach on commercial use. Given the success of CC licensing in general, and the relative messiness of fair use, I would be disappointed if we don't eventually reach some middle ground on this issue. Of course, people on the extremes are never going to satisfied (especially those who think we should eliminate fair use and strive to be even more free than we are now). Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Wow, we simultaneously added links to the same Jimbo post :) Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Regarding your points above, it should be noted that you can already add NC licensed images to Wikipedia under the conditions you are describing (historic events, non-replacable, album covers, etc.). You simply have to provide a Non-free fair use rationale and upload the image in low resolution. What Mohammad, Fir0002, and Diliff are wanting is very different - To have NC licenses treated as free licenses. Non-commercial licenses however are not free (this is a very well-established principal) and thus they should be handled the same as other fair use media. As you may know, I'm a huge supporter of Fair Use on Wikipedia and I oppose the free-license purists (with a passion). However, I think fair use and free license media are very distinct groups and the distinction between them is important. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC) :-) Yes, I know the thread started with rather different goals but I want to get us away from thinking that the only options are to accept no NC content or to accept all NC content. I'm also a big fan of exercising fair use rights and realize that much of the above can be done in a limited fashion with fair use, but that comes with a burden of low resolution, page-by-page rationales/restrictions, and generally ambiguous rights for reusers. Put another way, fair use is an 18th century solution to copyright while CC is a 21st century solution. I think borrowing more from the latter and less from the former would make things clearer and easier on everyone. Dragons flight (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) In theory, I would not be opposed to NC images being added to Wikipedia (but not Commons) as a 3rd distinct category (neither Free nor Fair Use). However, in practice I think this would be confusing to most people. Although having a wide range of different freedoms in our content is good for the encyclopedia, it's confusing for reusers and uploaders, and IMO is detrimental to the free culture goals of the project. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I won't be able to engage in this thread fully. I do want to respond to the issue of fair use vs. non-commercial imagery. Our policy towards fair use has always been to seriously limit it, and replace fair use content wherever possible. To quote the licensing policy, "such [fair use policies] must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. A [fair use policy] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under a [fair use policy] must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." [8] So while Dragons flight is of course correct that NC is preferable to fair use, the point I would make is that we consider fair use a "necessary evil", and try to eliminate fair use content wherever possible. I don't think the people arguing here for uploading NC content would want to do so under the presumption that their contributions are a "necessary evil" and will get deleted and replaced aggressively where possible, even when the replacement is of lower quality. So I think the fair use policy and the free content policy are truly distinct and separate and need to be treated as such. In general, I don't think this is an issue where you're going to be able to find a middle ground solution. As the Flickr statistics indicate, once you allow people to place restrictions on their content, many of them will choose to do so. In fact, you will probably change the dynamics of your community from a strongly freedom-oriented, sharing community to one that's more pragmatic (and to some extent self-interested). If your goal is to maximize freedom, a clear set of principles expressed through policy tends to be the best way to achieve that. The tension is one between short term and long term impact, between obvious immediate benefits and partially hypothetical ones. This is even more visible, in my opinion, in our insistence to use a format like Ogg Theora for video instead of the established proprietary Flash video formats.--Eloquence * 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Re NC as a "necessary evil": I would prefer that WP/WMF recognize the reality that, however good the theoretical arguments are against people licensing their stuff as CC-NC, an awful lot of people and archives have, in fact, already done so. So, if we want a full range of professional-quality images to use at Wikipedia, we would be wise to devise a way to use this stuff. Redefining "free content" would be one avenue to explore, however distasteful this might be to free-media purists. Once again, it would seem advisable to move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), perhaps with a introduction such as this already-outdated draft. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I think the whole discussion should be copied there so that no vital arguments are left out. --Muhammad(talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Perhaps that would be best. I'd be happy to move it, but I don't know how to close and archive this discussion! Plus I have a deadline :-\ Help? If the group agrees we should relocate? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC Yeah agreed on that - but I have serious issues with the current summary. I'll try get my own proposal up as soon as possible (hopefully in the next few hours) but I'm also tight for time at the moment :( --Fir0002 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Re NC policy as Jimbo's diktat, per Dragons flight 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC), above: -- this has stuck in my craw, too. Efforts to reopen this discussion have, in the past, been met with brisk replies that amount to "Shut up and soldier, soldier!" This is not a response likely to inspire WP's unpaid, and heirarchy-adverse, volunteers. We do need to remember that the primary objective of Wikipedia is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and figure out the best way to do this, preferably from the bottom up. I think so, anyway. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Re Licensing your own stuff: -- Dragons flight (a true Wiki star!) has done a nice job over at his Global Warming Art site, and the photographers here should take a look. Since he's too modest to tell you himself... [grin] Back to real work for me, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC) LOL. Dragons flight (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) As a FPC observer for quite some time i would just like to add that the current wikipedia policy of not accepting NC content really seams ludicrous. Basically its saying that "No, we don't want high quality content that would considerable improve the encyclopaedia because that content would not be available for the commercial use of entities completed unrelated to wikipedia". How can this be a logical position to hold for the purpose building of a great encyclopaedia? It seams the only party that this policy benefits is the commercial entities who are provided with a large repository of free content. --58.175.36.151 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Request temporary suspension of this discussion pending a move in venue to the Village pump. But before we can move we need to make a coherent and relatively breif summary of what we've gone through already (obviously we can still link back to this full discussion but lets not make it too intimidating). I propose the format here. Note that summary is fairly sketchy owing to time constraints on my part so please feel free to adjust credits and add any significant considerations or support statements that I've forgotten --Fir0002 11:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Looks pretty good and covers most, if not all, of the important points raised. I'd be happy to see it transfered to the Village Pump, to see what others think. Diliff \| (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Ok great - I'll leave it open for modification for another few hours and then transfer it over to the VP later today (I'll try do it at approx 08:00 UTC) --Fir0002 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Looks good to me too -- good add of Fir0002's counter-argument. Wish us luck... --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) This discussion has been moved to the Village Pump. All new comments should be made here --Fir0002 09:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#Proposal for introduction of NC licensed photos on Wikipedia. To read original thread, click "show".

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free. I have no problem with wikipedia or any other non-commercial organization using them, however I would not like commercial institutions to benefit at my expense. I therefore suggest wikipedia adopt a non commercial license such as CC-NC . This will not violate wikis principles of free knowledge and will convince photographers to release higher resolution pictures as well. It might also convince professional photographers to release their work knowing that their work will not be used for commercial means and that they will still be able to make a living.

I don't know if this issue has been discussed before and I know village pump would probably be the place but I wanted some feedback from the photographers before taking it there. --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

- I think it is possible to upload to wikipedia under that licence. You won't pass criterion 4 any more however. Suppose that the wikimedia foundation was unable to raise enough funds for hardware and staff. It would have to make money using advertising. The NC clause would then prohibit the use of that content. In theory, the share-alike clause does reduce the risk of exploitation by requiring that any derivative work is made available under the same terms. The trouble is that aggregate works are not subject to the same restrictions. Personally I'd be happier if I could release my content under a NC licence, but it isn't practical in this context. I just keep the higher resolution copies and let those that are interested ask. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  - The wikimedia foundation specifically wikipedia is by its nature non profit organization. Having ads to maintain the site should not make it a commercial website. However, that is yet to happen. Regarding criterion 4, perhaps a change of Image use policy? --Muhammad(talk) 06:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    - But a non-profit organisation can still be a commercial organisation. Undertaking commerce does not always imply making a profit. Most non-profit organisations obviously still need to earn money to cover expenses, whether it be through donations or through sales. As such, even remaining non-profit, Wikipedia would still need a commercial license to sell content. As I mentioned below, I personally think that a license that restricted commercial use only to Wikipedia would be a solution, but I doubt it would happen. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
      - A license that restricts commercial use to wiki would be good. What if the photograph contributors rally. Would that make a difference? --Muhammad(talk) 13:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe it has to do with the bundling of content into future and as such unconceived purposes. Like for a quick example - assume that all A rated articles were to be included in a CD-ROM that would be sold at cost to schools or something, borderline commercial use. It would be a nightmare having to remove some images from some articles that were non commercial and replace them for that one use. So simplifying to accepting content with commercial use explicitly permitted does not limit uses that may at this point not even have been invented/conceived. That is what I recall reading somewhere as an explantion, but it may be completely wrong. It sounds plausible enough. Mfield (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Won't happen per Jimbo. GFDL is good enough in preventing some commercial use because they need to put a copy of the license close to the photo (which isn't going to happen for adverts, prints, posters and all the usual photo stuff). MER-C 07:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is very unlikely to happen. The licensing structure is pretty well engrained. I'd be interested to know what Jimbo's reasoning is, though. Is it ideological or commercial in nature? What about a license that is commercial but restricts commercial use to Wikipedia and its various sites, that way Wikipedia can advertise down the track (not that I would agree with advertising except as the very last resort to remain viable, but that is another issue) without giving away content? Surely a compromise can be found that doesn't allow commercial exploitation of content by companies that are simply being cheap, rather than having a genuine educational need for the images. Because thats what I see the issue as being about. Wikipedia's purpose should be to educate the masses - not to give away media content to commercial interests. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lets invite Jimbo to this discussion. --Muhammad(talk) 13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Not a bad idea. Who's going to take the plunge and do it? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    - I did it. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
And your statement about GFDL is true, but they're making it difficult (particularly for one not as familiar with what is going on behind the scenes) to use GFDL as only option for users uploading content is GFDL 1.2 or above, which rolls over to CC-BY-SA at Wiki's discretion... The only option is to manually assign GFDL 1.2 ONLY as the license for the image, which cannot be done using the 'Upload your own work' page, as it is not available as an option to select. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
To do that, we would have to junk most of the content we already have and essentially start over. Nevermind that noncommercial licenses severely inhibit the spread of the knowledge we're creating. Inconsistant with our mission in that way. It would be easier to start a fork project, and import what scraps of content one could from here (there's bit and pieces that are public domain, or nonvirally licensed). WilyD 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you think we'd have to junk it all? The existing images could remain as-is, it would just be new images that you could optionally license as non-commercial, except perhaps for use within Wiki projects. I think that is pretty consistant with what Wiki is doing, and it would not inhibit the spread of knowledge. It would just inhibit other companies from using the images commercially. Knowledge is not the same thing as business. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Because most of the content is licensed in a way that requires you to license it the same way if you reuse it in some fashion. Everything I've contributed, for example, under the GFDL requires you to GFDL the content as well. Otherwise, you're infringing on my copyright. The same is true of most of the other content. It inhibits the spread of knowledge by making it much more difficult to re-use the content and spread it around. Consider that the Germans have made a print book of de.wikipedia's content (not all articles, and just ledes). No one would ever do that if they had to pay the cost of printing the books, and the cost of shipping them and whatnot. They can't really charge for the content anyways (since you can get it free elsewhere), but not allowing them to get paid back the cost of binding the books? WilyD 12:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    - I think you're missing my point though. I'm not proposing that Wikipedia be restricted from using the images commercially. We all acknowledge that Wikipedia may need to use them commercially in order to cover costs, and I think we trust the foundation to do so sensibly. What I am proposing is that other companies not affiliated with Wiki not be allowed to use images taken directly from Wikipedia's website (or cd-rom or whatever other soft medium) and use them commercially. And yes, that may inhibit the spread of knowledge in practical terms by a very small amount, but then so do GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses by requiring the attribution/license text to be included, so the implication that a non-commercial license is alone in doing so is false. And on the subject of knowledge, I think we need to accept that providing access to view content is different to providing access to use content. Knowledge is gained from viewing it. Profit is gained from using it. I think that is a key difference and relevent to our point. And there may well be the very occasional situation where there is a legitimate need for a third party company to use Wikipedia's images commercially, but I don't think we should open the floodgates and let anyone use the images commercially just to cover that situation. Better to make the license non-commercial when used outside of Wiki and commercial when used within Wiki. This is all just my opinion, but I think it is shared by a lot of the photographer contributors, who I think are not trying to be selfish at all - merely trying to avoid commercial exploitation of their generosity. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
      - Any company can use any of the images hosted here commercially, barring those which we're using under very restricted fair use conditions. The point, though, is that if you licensed your content non-commercially, it would be copyright infringement to combined it with my content, say, which is all GFDL'd, which requires, as part of the terms I demand for re-using the content for which I own the copyright, that any content you create from it also be licensed under the GFDL. These floodgates are already entirely open - any company can incorporate all our contributions and sell it, any artist can, whomever. If someone wanted to put this sentence on a coffeemug and sell it, they could, as long as they met the licensing conditions. It's the viral nature of the license that makes it impossible to ever restrict the content - it's free, and everything that gets done with it has to be free as well. We may loose out on some photographs - but we actually free up a lot too - I have seen many, many instances where individuals or corporations provide images, text, whatever, under a free licence because they want it included here, freeing it from them for everyone to use. In any practical sense, requiring the GFDL or a sharealike license gives us far more free content than it costs us (especially since non-commercial licenses can't really be considered free in any meaningful way.) Wily D 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        I'm not following why a non-commercial license would conflict with the existing GFDL content. You talk about your GFDL content and what it demands of derivative content', but I'm not referring to that, because a photograph is not a derivative of your text in an article or any other existing content. I'm referring to my content (for the sake of the argument) being licensed as non-commercial (and as I said, I would be more than happy to add an exception for Wiki to use it commercially). Can GFDL content and non-commercial content not co-exist within Wikipedia in the same way CC-BY-SA and GFDL do currently? And yes, I know the floodgates are already open with the existing licenses, but that is what has prompted this discussion in the first place. I am proposing that the floodgates just be a little better controlled so that good pro photographers are other media contributors can add images without fear that they will be exploited as a result. ;-) It seems that no particularly good rationale has been presented that explains exactly why Wikipedia needs to give media content away to external commercial interests as part of it its 'raison d'être'. I just don't see this as an issue of freedom, I see the current licenses as a license for commercial interests to print money at our expense, when they clearly don't need our help. I guess it is just where I personally draw the line on freedom of information, ideologically. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        The combined work is a derivitive of both, though, so it has to be licensed in a way that's compatible with both licenses. As any noncommercial licence is incompatible with the GFDL, we simply can't combine them. Yes, using GFDL and CC-BY-SA is probably a little dicey, though the organisations that maintain the licenses are working this out, and it may not be the end of the world (one might be able to sue if they really wanted though). In practice, one can't think of commercial reuse as "at our expense" - we get new free content, whatever audience gets the content. If you're not free to do as you wish with the information we're providing, it simply isn't free. Wily D 17:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        I disagree on the principle of combined work being a derivative of GFDL and CC-BY-CA but I concede for now that you're probably right, legally speaking. That said, I still don't see a significant diference between CC SA and CC NC in terms of 'freeness'. Both have stipulations and requirements so neither are truly free. The difference between them is only by degrees, not by absolutes. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    - I re-read your first comment about requiring you to license any re-use in the same fashion, and I think I misinterpreted it when replying above. Are you saying that because some of the images might be non-commercial, that the combined content could then not be used commercially? Yes, I suppose so, but as long as only Wikipedia is publishing entire the encyclopaedia's content, I don't see this being a problem. Out of interest, how exactly does the printed book of de.wikipedia's deal with the issue of the CC-BY-SA license, which requires the publisher to both attribute the author and provide a URL to the license text. Is this done below each image on an individual basis, as I understand it should be? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
      - No, the text and images here are licensed in a way that requires you to relicense derivitive content under the same license, which requires that the content be usable for anything. So in order to use the content I have made available here, for instance, you must make the whole thing GFDL, otherwise you're violating my licensing agreement and infringing on my copyright.
      - I don't know any details about the itty-bitty of the German distribution, but that doesn't seem like it'd be hard to do. Wily D 14:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        That just doesn't make sense to me. As I said above, an article is not a derivative of the combination of images and text, so just because your content is GFDL, I can still license my content however I like and it can co-exist in the encyclopaedia with everything else. Otherwise (if I understand what you're saying correctly, which seems unlikely given how crazy it sounds), GFDL content would have to assimilate all other content that it comes into contact with in order to avoid a licensing conflict with itself. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        Legally, the article which combines images and text is a derivative of both. (The definition of "derivative" is based on the mere inclusion of someone else's intellectual property within a newer work, and does not necessarily require that one rework that material.) The FSF, who wrote the GFDL, generally advocate that the GFDL does more or less swallow everything. Their position is that if you illustrate GFDL text then the images must be GFDL (or a highly compatible state like public domain), and likewise if an image is GFDL then any text that builds off of it must be as well. They consider their license strongly viral. If you take their position literally, CC-BY-SA is probably always incompatible with GFDL, to say nothing of CC-NC. In practice, Wikipedia has adopted a less extreme interpretation of what the GFDL requires and allows GFDL text to be mixed with non-GFDL imagery. Dragons flight (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        The FSF and the Creative Commons are working out new licence versions that'll fix that, though. Wikipedia requires GFDL-1.2 or later for everything, so if 1.3 is compatible, it'll be totally square then (yes, it's problematic now). So - uh - just use the licence from the future. Wily D 17:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        
        "Otherwise (if I understand what you're saying correctly, which seems unlikely given how crazy it sounds), GFDL content would have to assimilate all other content that it comes into contact with in order to avoid a licensing conflict with itself." - Yes, exactly this thing has to happen. Wily D 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        I see the logic of what you're saying, but at the same time, I don't believe you can force an image into a license in which it was not released even if the GFDL say so. Agreeing with what Dragons Flight has said above, essentially what would happen is that all CC-BY-SA images would not be compatible with GFDL and should therefore not have been added to content which would conflict with it. I cannot see how Wikipedia could legally assimilate the non-GFDL content simply by associating with it. This licensing thing is completely ridiculous, really. This, along with the NC issue, shows just how out of touch it all is. I know that the likely conclusion of all this will be "This is just the way it is, participate or leave", but it shouldn't have to be that way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
        Err, yes, it's too late to turn back now anyhow - it has to be "participate or don't". The point is that by using an incompatible image, you're not forcing it to be compatible - you're infringing on the copyright of the material licensed under the GFDL. We can assimilate other content that allows it (for instance, you can add public domain bits - they remain public domain, but the aggregate is GFDL. The same is also fine for CC-BY, at the least). But if I use a PD image the image remains public domain, but the aggregate is GFDL. Wily D 17:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping in to clarify: Creative Commons NC licenses are not accepted for upload at Wikimedia Commons. WMF is a nonprofit, but we do not prohibit (and cannot control) commercial reuses of the material we host. Therefore NC-licensed material must be uploaded with a nonfree use rationale, and is subject to the same policy restrictions as fully copyrighted material. I don't particularly like this situation, but understand and agree with the rationale. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I understand the situation, but neither like it nor agree with the rationale. In the heirarchy of usability, I'd place NC above fair use. At least with NC, it provides reusers with a bright line, while figuring out whether a fair use image is reusable is often very vague. Dragons flight (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that as things stand, CC NC images are not accepted. This discussion is about why this is the case, and whether it could be reconsidered for the many reasons stated above. ;-) As Dragons flight says, I don't think that NC should be on par with fair use. I would envisage a NC license that allows Wikipedia commercial use only, which should satisfy the need for the organisation to recoup costs, without allowing everyone to profit from sale of the content. As it is, commercial publishers for magazines, books etc are using our professional quality images not for educational purposes, but for profit. They can afford to pay for these images but they choose not to because all they have to do is place a tiny attribution and license link on the page and they can take the content for free. There is a time and place for reusing Wiki content, but I don't think that is what Wiki should be about. Anyway, I'm repeating arguments, so I'll stop for now. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they also have to include the full text of the GFDL and license all the rest of the magazine under the terms of the GFDL as well. It's the second part we're rather fond of. Wily D 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, if it is the case that CC-BY-SA images are automatically GFDL when added to a Wikipedia article... I don't know if we're quite at the end of that debate yet though. If we accept that the images are simply CC-BY-SA, then they could do what I describe above. Dragon's flight admits already that Wikipedia turns a blind eye to this conflict of licensing... I think we already have enough trouble with people respecting the main terms of the license, let alone the intimate details such as the licensing conflict created by GFDL. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The SA in CC-BY-SA means the same thing, though. If a book wants to include your CC-BY-SA image, they have to license the whole book under CC-BY-SA; you can now print and sell the book too, if you like. For some reason, this ends up meaning a lot of publishers won't want to use your image. Their loss, though. Wily D 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Creative Commons has stated that their copyleft intention is much weaker than GFDL. Their view is that SA on an image would apply to derivative images but not to accompanying text or the larger work as a whole. It isn't entirely clear if the legal text of CC-BY-SA actually mirrors this intent, but they have discussed making the limits of their weaker copyleft more explicit in future versions of the license. Dragons flight (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"this will not violate wikis principles of free knowledge " - well as I understand it the free is freedom to do with it as you will, so yes restrictions to that does violate the principles. I've an idea to go with this though, I've spend loads of my time and energy reasearching stuff, writing articles etc. Why don't we do the whole thing non-commercial so that the time I've invested in the text is not commercially exploited? What is so special about images that people think we should treat them differently? Good writers willing to work for free should be tough to find wouldn't you think? Guess they are more generous than photographers?--81.104.39.44 (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally a photograph is the work of one person, where as practically any wikipedia article that has been around for a while has a number of authors. It is quite possible to make money from photographs, either by working professionally as a photographer, selling prints or stock photographs. On the other hand the same really isn't true for the work done editing wikipedia articles. I'd bet that many top notch photographers would contribute content if a NC licence was available. That said, I don't see it happening. Oh, I am pretty sure combining GDFL text with images is considered an aggregate work, not a derivative work. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The freedom you describe can only be achieved if the content is released into the public domain since both GDFl and CC-BY-SA have some restrictions. My understanding being correct, that means wikipedia is currently not entirely free. To add to what Noodle snacks mentioned, writers don't need any special equipment to write better articles, whilst photographers invest quite a lot in equipment. I for instance, took up photography as a hobby, but if I want to upgrade the quality of my shots I need to spend more money. If I give away images for free how will I pay for my lenses? --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone every heard of text-stock site? I don't think so. I probably should read the above debate before commenting but FWIW IMO there's an enormous difference between photographic and text contributions. One key difference is that wiki has a policy of NOR, and therefore most of the text is arguably a mere regurgitation of other sources. Whereas photography is the creation of something entirely new, something that you have individually brought about. Secondly the text in articles also has almost non-existent commercial value as far as I can tell. Few if any text contributors could channel their contributions into commercial venues, whereas photographers here could. Wikipedia is, by definition, "the free encyclopedia". It's about giving people information. I'm happy to illustrate articles (and thereby inform people) with my photos. And an NC license for images in no way limits the informative value of the image - it only limits the potential for it to be exploited commercially. Finally as NS mentioned above, introducing a NC license would open the floodgates to top notch photography from skilled contributors and improve the quality of the encyclopedia. --Fir0002 09:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things. First, although there is still some debate about it in some quarters, in general CC NC licensing is not thought to prevent hosting on a site with advertising. So it would be possible for Wikipedia to both have NC licensed images and to have advertising. I oppose both, by the way. :-) Second, the best way to understand my position on this is to read Erik Moeller's essay.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

With all respect to the author of the essay it strikes me as having been written from the wrong perspective and hence contains several errors. The key problem as I see it is that he's assuming contributors want their contributions to spread in numerous derivatives far beyond Wikipedia. I for one dont. I contribute to Wikipedia as I think it is a valuable resource as an encyclopedia only. I'm contributing to increase the informative value of the articles on Wikipedia, not to contribute to a general free content movement.

Here's a few counterpoints to his objections:

Incompatibility: From what I gather he's dealing with derivative works in the context of text contributions rather than photos. Text is obviously edited and chopped and changed a lot after it's created. However, images rarely undergo any major modifications after being created, and when those modifications are made it's very simple to upload the edit under the same license. Placing that NC image into a GFDL article is not going to cause any issues (just as using fair use images does not cause any issues).

Basic Uses: As it happens I dont want bloggers and newspapers randomly using my images. If they want to use my image they at least owe me the courtesy of asking - and usually I'll give permission for it to be used.

Existing copyright terms: Again yes I do want to maintain my copyright indefinitely

Profit!: Essentially what he's arguing is that you may as well upload with a liberal license because you're gonna be ripped off anyway. But the people who are going to rip you off are not really in "the market" - in other words even if they cared about obeying copyright they wouldn't pay for an image; instead they would go find a different pic or just not use it at all. Large corporations you'd expect to respect copyright and would pay you in exchange for a less restrictive license. I would much rather have some level of protection and be ripped off by small-timers than none at all and ripped off by everyone. I would at least like to have the option of uploading under an NC license.

A big problem with liberal licenses is that people rarely go beyond "you are free to use this commercially" and read SA terms - much less actually comply with these conditions. The "SA license will create useful derivatives under free licenses" is largely, IMO, a myth. People treat these licenses as essentially equivalent to PD - you're free to do what you want with the image and relicense as you please. At least if you explcitly say this image has rights reserved (ie you can't use it for a commercial purpose) people will pause and consider the terms before misusing the image.

As far as WMF using images commercially to help run the project I don't think anyone uploading under NC would have any problem with allowing this.

Conclusion: I would disagree that uploading under a free license protects you from large scale exploitation - I think every photographer has a pet story about how they got ripped - a good one would be Diliff and Apple. I think that providing photographers with this kind of basic protection and choice in how thier images get used will strongly benefit the project (and by the project I mean a free online encyclopedia) with semi-pro grade photography. --Fir0002 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put. About a month ago, I did a Google search of my username and found many instances where my images are used throughout the Internet (see here). While it's flattering, none of them asked, as is specified on the image pages themselves (granted it's not part of the license, but it's common decency). And these examples are only the ones that actually credit me. There must be many that use my images but don't mention the author. ~ ωαdεstεr16_{♣kiss me}^{i'm Irish♣} 07:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fir having the ability to tag an image NC would be nice and may attract more contributors, but on the other hand there's nothing like being able to add to your portfolio that your Photograph is being used by Encycopaedia Britannica is there. Gnan garra 09:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But seeing EB use my images only makes me see exactly why the NC is necessary. EB should pay photographers to create professional content, if they intend to pass their encyclopaedia off as more professional than Wikipedia. EB would not allow Wiki to nick their stuff with only a brief attribution, so why should we let them? In the end, it is professional photographers that lose business from free content. The free content movement doesn't seem to be about education at all, because so many of the potential applications of its content are commercial in nature and not educational. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with basically everything Fir0002 said. I was going to say something along those lines too but I had to build up the energy after the previous rounds of exchange. ;-) I suppose that once again, the answer will still be "no" as Wiki is firmly entrenched in the free-content movement, but I'm with Fir on the position that we firmly support Wikipedia as a free encyclopaedia, but don't really support the free-content movement and its goals of giving away content. Text is fine, as text is essentially just a regurgitation of facts sourced and cited from external pages and books, and really doesn't belong to anyone by the time it appears in a mature article. But photos are very different. They are the creative products of individuals and should be respected as such. And Jimbo, if you're still reading, can you respond to the allegation by WilyD above that CC-BY-SA images that appear in an article with GFDL content are either (depending on which school of thought is applied) assimilated into GFDL or become incompatible with GFDL because of the terms of the GFDL license requiring everything associated with it to also be GFDL? It seems ridiculous, but I can see how a literal interpretation of GFDL does conclude this. And how else are we to interpret legal text but literally? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty much going to write what fir did. WilyD is pretty much wrong, have a look at Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License, section 7 (Aggregation with independant works), basically the viral nature only applies for derivative works, not aggregates such as an article. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think: "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an 'aggregate'... ", was ever meant to apply within a single article. The FSF position is that the text of an article is simply not "separate and independent" from its images, and vice versa. The intention of the FSF is for copyleft to apply broadly such that an article would be a derivative (sections 4 and 5) and not an aggregate (e.g. section 7). I know one often sees the aggregate argument on Wikipedia but frankly that goes against the intent of the license authors, and personally I also think it goes against the plain language of the license. So if the shit ever hit the fan and such an issue was taken to court, I would not expect to see the aggregation interpretation get very far. Dragons flight (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The FSF's position on something doesn't mean it would hold up in court. Firstly, the GDFL wikicode only links to images, the data isn't contained within the page itself. Secondly, if what you say is true, then I could add an image to an already written, featured, article and then that article would become a derivative work of my image (despite having been written before the image existed). The very definition of derivative ("Resulting from or employing derivation" or "Copied or adapted from others") precludes what you describe. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the new version of the featured article would be a derivative. As is every new version of every page, unless you throw out all the pre-existing content. The legal definition of derivative is broader than you seem to believe. Any time a new version is created and presented to the public, you have created a work that is legally derivative of all the previously published material that it includes. You can only create that combined work if the licenses and associated rights on all the pieces allow you to do so. The FSF position, and I would argue the natural reading of the license, is that creating that new article version is only allowed if all the pre-existing pieces are licensed under the GFDL. Dragons flight (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Err lets back up a little and go beyond this NC vs GFDL standoff. If a GFDL article can host a Fair Use image then a GFDL article can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host CC-by-SA content (which is not GFDL) then it can host NC images. If a GFDL article can host PD content (again not GFDL) then it can host NC images. Wikipedia already incorporates many different copyrights into it's articles - one more is not going to make a whole lot of difference. But if this really is a make or break issue than why not get Mike to clarify... --Fir0002 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is the exception not the rule. If you look at WP:FUC it is specifically tailored to minimize the use of non-free content: "To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media." Public domain is unencumbered by copyright so that's a non-issue; derivative public domain works can be assimilated into GFDL works. In contrast an NC option would flood articles with non-free images making it impossible to reuse the articles commercially without stripping them of images, thereby diminishing value to our users. Fletcher (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can't see how that quote is tailored to minimize their use - it seems to be "we're going to use FUC to support our mission to provide perptually free content" (this doesn't make much sense but it's a relatively trivial point anyway). I don't think you can automatically treat PD the same as GFDL as GFDL creates requirements which PD doesn't have - thereby you're giving it a more restrictive license than it originally had. It doesn't make sense to say that all content in the article is currently under a GFDL as all the different licenses, are, by definition, different and distinct. But rather than trading opinions on this ad infinitum I've emailed Mike to see what the correct position is --Fir0002 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have quite a bit of hubris here on the part of our photographers. While your work is appreciated, it is by no means fundamentally different than the work done by our thousands of article writers. (Collaboration doesn't somehow diminish their efforts.) Wikipedia is and always has been a free culture project. Its goal is education, yes, but it is also the creation of free content. Content that anyone can use for anything. Content whose price is the same as its marginal cost, so that it can be spread as widely as possible and bring the greatest utility to those who would benefit from employing it. Wikipedia's licensing is also forward-looking. Perhaps in a hundred years, the Wikimedia Foundation will no longer exist. Maybe no nonprofit will want to take on hosting Wikipedia, because they can't get the donations necessary to do so. Using a commercial license allows the continuation of Wikipedia content into the future, so long as someone can make a buck doing it. (And this will probably be true for a long, long time.) At this moment, there is no shortage of photographers willing to donate content under wiki's terms. There is no reason to compromise our principles here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a moot issue. The Wikimedia Foundation already has a commercial re-use agreement with PediaPress for publishing books based on Wikipedia content. The French Wikipedia also has some commercial agreement with a poster printing company whereby Wikipedia users can get posters printed of Wikipedia images (for a fee). Commercial re-use of Wikipedia content is not a hypothetical situation, it already exists. Thus non-commercial licenses are not an option. (Nor would they be appropriate for a project such as Wikipedia.) If you want compensation for your photographs, sell them, don't donate them to Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

But as as been explained over and over again, this is not about wanting compensation for photos, it is about wishing to prevent commercial interests unrelated to Wikipedia profiting from donations to Wikipedia. And a poster printing company printing Wikipedia photos is not really commercial use IMO, as long as the printing is done at the normal cost, so that any profit comes from the printing, not the providing of content. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, it's already been stated that it is unlikely that anyone uploading under NC would have any problem with WMF using their images to help fund the site through selling their content. --Fir0002 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects are intended as a resource for others to profit from, if they want to -- "profit" is not a dirty word here. There is no limitation on how much one can charge, other than what the market will bear. Fletcher (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That being the case, I don't see why wikipedia should release its articles under the GDFL, why not release everything into the public domain without any restrictions? --Muhammad(talk) 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Derivatives of public domain works can be copyrighted and made non-free. Public domain also has no attribution requirement. The GFDL and CC-BY-SA are intended to protect attribution and make sure derivative works continue to be free content (free as in speech -- see also Gratis versus Libre if you don't understand the difference). That's why they are relatively complicated compared to just releasing to the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I completely understand your point, but I think you're misunderstanding the position of most of the photographers making their points here. Photographs are fundamentally different. Diliff's Apple experience would never have happened if he were just an article writer. I (and I assume most everyone else here) have no problem with a teacher using my image to make class more interesting for the students. I have no problem with a blog using my image to add interest and clarification to a post. But when larger entities use these images in promotional material, it's just plain lazy. I don't disagree that they can do it, but Wikipedia and Commons were founded as a repository for information for the good of the world, not for use in monetary-based promotions of private firms. I'm not a hardcore photographer, and indeed I find it cool that some of my photos have been used on the Internet (it's flattering, really), but if I ran into a situation where I found a work done by me, used by a large corporation, I'd be downright pissed (even though they can currently do it), especially if I wasn't credited (which would technically be illegal). As for the use of an image in Encyclopedia Britannica, they should be ashamed. They make themselves out to be perfect, when it was well documented that Wikipedia competes closely with them, and they're using our content to fill their pages? For shame! What happened to an old-fashioned competition!? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 07:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "Wikipedia and Commons were founded as a repository for information for the good of the world, not for use in monetary-based promotions of private firms," can you support that claim, or are you projecting your views onto the wiki? Because I think it's flat out wrong. Commercial use is explicitly allowed in the GFDL with no attempt to address the motives of the user. Fletcher (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think most people would think it is implied, even if it hasn't been stated as a founding principle. Jimmy Wales is quoted in the Wikipedia article as saying that Wikipedia is "...an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language", which certain sounds far more similar to the former than the latter, but I suppose we could argue about intent and semantics without really getting anywhere on that one. I'm not sure if the original intent was ever pubished in a way that discusses this issue particularly, but I could be wrong, not having done too much research. I'd certainly share his view if it was merely him projecting it and I suspect most people here would too. After all, who would willingly prefer to see private firms profit from donations than the public be educated through donations? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is implied at all; if that were the intent it would have made no sense to choose the GFDL, and the five pillars and Wikimedia Foundation would not specifically link to free content. I think the most common view is that there are many valid, "non-evil" commercial uses, and the possibility that Mr. Burns will use the material is not seen as such a threat that it merits placing restrictions on all our users. Fletcher (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Foul play! How is one expected to respond to a legitimate claim that uses valid Simpsons references? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way is to respond in kind! Fletcher (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that Wikipedia is trying to move away from GFDL proves that it is not fit for purpose, so I wouldn't assume that just because GFDL was chosen that the founders had all bases covered and everything figured out. I know that there are numerous links to the free content within the Wiki ideology, but nowhere on that article does it tackle the issue of commercial vs non-commercial. In fact non-commercial licensing still falls squarely within the realms of free content and copyleft. And Wikipedia:Five_pillars doesn't explain anything either - it just refers back to free content. So I'm still left none the wiser as for whether commercial licensing really is a founding principle. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Simpsons ref? D'oh! As I understand it, the Creative Commons license did not exist when Wikipedia was created so they chose GFDL. The GFDL is now seen as onerous, not because it allows commercial redistribution, but because its documentation requirements were designed with technical manuals in mind, not multimedia content. As you know CC-BY-SA also allows commercial redistribution. You are correct that free content doesn't explictly mention commercial re-use, though I think that could be inferred from its first sentence where it says "no significant legal restriction". Or see the footnote in that sentence which links to Stallman's essay on the GFDL where it does say commercial reuse is allowed. I think you are mistaken that non-commercial requirements can be copyleft (see Copyleft#Share-alike. It is true there are other CC licenses that blur the line between strict copyright and copyleft -- but Wikipedia does not use them. I think there is room in the ecosystem for different types of licenses, but if you contribute to a project that uses one type, perhaps you should be willing to accept its choice rather than demand it modify its philosophy to suit your needs. Fletcher (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting me. I have never demanded that Wiki's philosophy be modified to suit my needs. I have stated my beliefs, asked whether there is any chance that a license be introduced that protected our content from commercial exploitation. As I have said so many times now, this is not just about me or the other photographers arguing from the same corner. Sure, we might benefit from the NC license, but it is ideological request aimed at benefiting all contributors, both current and potential. There is a huge difference there. Also, it seems as though the 'powers that be' - namely Jumbo and Erik - are amenable to the idea of being flexible with licensing. I'm certainly not saying that the arguments presented here have convinced them of the merits. Clearly this has been something on their minds in the past. But as I mentioned elsewhere (this thing is so huge now that I'm struggling to keep up with discussions in numerous locations!), the "you're either with us or against us" response is not helpful and perhaps not even in harmony with Wikipedia's goals, going forward. Who knows. But being closed to the ideas of the community is going to get us nowhere. Oh, and you want a Simpsons quote? I'll summarise this entire discussion: "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try...". ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what we're really seeing here is a division in ideology - it's not really about whether it would be possible for Wikipedia to have NC content and still provide free information to the world. It's becoming increasingly clear that there are two understandings of what Wikipedia is about - what Wikipedia stands for. The definition of wikipedia is very simple: Wikipedia is a free, multilingual encyclopedia project. So giving this a plain-sense reading you can get to the scope of wiki, it's the provision of information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet. So Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a resource for people to make a profit on. It's to realize the classic "imagine a world where every person has access to the sum total of human knowledge" quote. It's also ridiculous to suggest it's a resource for others to profit from while at the same time trying to argue that we should enfore GFDL because it will ensure derivative works are kept free. A resource for profit may well be what wikipedia has turned into, thanks to liberal and misunderstood licensing, but that's not its purpose. Again I'd suggest "go thou and consider the ways of the fair use image" - why would fair use images be used if Wikipedia was in fact a resource for people to profit from? They are here because they are extremely informative and important to the articles - their existence conclusively shows that this project is about making an informative, freely available, encyclopedia.

I contribute because I believe I'm working towards the "sum of human knowledge" goal. Images are crucial to this goal. I think it's great that a kid in Kenya can see what a kangaroo looks like. But I don't think it's great when people disregard my copyright and use my images left, right and centre for commercial gain. I'm sorry but the idea that we're pouring our work into a free content resource for others to exploit IMO makes the internet ~~not~~ suck. Knowledge is cool, exploitation is sucky.

The reason Wikipedia works is because of cooperation. Everyone here is giving up their time and effort to the project. Wikipedia's assets are its contributors. That means it should be looking after them, not making life difficult. It should be attempting to get as many positive users onboard as it can. Allowing NC licences is not going to compromise the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, rather it is likely to be of great benefit through new users uploading commercial quality content. If people want to be part of a free content movement to upload to there's always Commons. And yes there probably are a lot of users happy to give away their photos and for them to be used as freely as possible. But by and large these people are not uploading high quality imagery. Lets be blunt here, if you haven't spent $$$ on a DSLR and decent lenses and you're not a skilled photographer you're not going to get an FP. Yes there are exceptions but by and large the people who consistently take FP quality images are those who have a spent a lot of money and have talent. These are also (by and large) the people who are then wanting to recoup some of their investment and are thus reluctant to lose the commercial value of their photos. They're happy to donate to free knowledge but not happy for people to disregard their rights and ride the back of their work for profit. If wikipedia is going to be the best it can, it needs to have FP quality images. By offering the protection of NC licensing it would be extremely encouraging for semi-pro photographers to contribute their work - which is going to be a great benefit to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

So the question really becomes what would you rather: a freely accessible encyclopedia with the best content possible (including NC), or a free content repository which (possibly) comes at the cost of commercial grade photography? I know which one I'd prefer! --Fir0002 07:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Damn I wish these kind of debates came up out of semester when I'd have more time!!

Once again I completely agree with everything Fir0002 has already mentioned. It seems like WMF is willing to sacrifice the original primary goal of Wikipedia (which is to create the best and most complete free encyclopaedia to the best of my knowledge) in order to stick to the (IMO misguided) ideology of free content for all, regardless of purpose or intent. My original question was "is the refusal of NC licenses an ideological or commercial issue?". It sounds like the answer is both, but more so ideological. As Fir0002 said, allowing NC (with an allowance for Wikipedia's commercial use in financial emergencies) licenses would encourage better photography, and would not compromise the encylopaedia in any way, as long as distribution was limited to Wikipedia. I accept Calliopejen1's argument that at some point in the future it may become uneconomical to host the content through donations alone. I think the day that it resorted to advertising would be a sad day indeed and surely that would be a far greater compromise of Wiki's ideals than what restricting the distribution of content to non-profit utilities is to the free-content movement. Call me stone-hearted, but I'd rather see Wikipedia die a bankrupt death (and I doubt that would be allowed to happen, anyway) than to see other companies salvage all our work and "make a buck" from it. Because of what Wikipedia is, I think only a non-profit organisation has the moral compass necessary to keep it neutral and truly free. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia's ideology is "misguided" and you do not agree with it, you probably should not be contributing your photographs to it. Wikipedia has been a free culture project since it's inception. If you are not sure what that entails, please visit http://freedomdefined.org/Definition. Just as Linux is a free (as in speech) open-source software project that people can resell for profit, Wikipedia is a free (as in speech) encyclopedia that people can reuse for profit (and already do). Profit is not a dirty word. It ensures that these works will be taken care of and available for future generations (regardless of whether Wikipedia still exists). "Free license" means doesn't mean free as in "no cost", it means free as in "free speech". By insisting that your works are worthy of some sort of special protection, you are minimizing the importance of other contributors, most of which don't even expect credit for their work. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  - I am not minimising the importance of any other contributors. I would equally insist that all contributors have the choice to make their images NC too, if that were their desire. You continue to put words in my mouth by insinuating that I think only my works are worthy of special protection. Also, I fully understand the difference between the meanings of 'free' although I don't really think that freedom of speech is quite the same thing. Whether we restrict content with 'Attribution required' or 'Commercial user prohibited', it is still restricted in some way, so to call it truly free is wrong. The difference is only by degrees. Furthermore, your request that I stop contributing (okay, I see you toned it down a little) if I don't agree with the ideology is rather unnecessary and inflamatory. This is an open discussion and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I don't think my opinions should preclude me from contributing, as long as I do so within the guidelines set and I don't cause trouble. Bringing a genuine and important issue to discussion on a relevent talk page is hardly a capital offence. Even if Wikipedia isn't going to budge on this issue, I don't think that having this discussion is a waste of time. That whole "you're either with us or you're against us" is so Previous-American-President. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    - Completely agree with that - please bear in mind that I'm not arguing for myself but for a much broader class of photographers who would find themselves in a similar position (and I'm sure Diliff is doing the same). Please don't start singling out users and turn this into a "them vs us" debate --Fir0002 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that when Fir0002 gave the definition of Wikipedia he omitted the wikilink of "free" to free content, which makes it very clear that Wikipedia is free as in speech, not (just) free as in beer -- free in the sense advocated by Stallman et al, where downstream users may use the content for any purpose. That is obviously ideological (sometimes annoyingly so), but it is also pragmatic that we do this, inasmuch as the project is already under copyleft licenses and can't be changed or easily merged with non-free materials. And although one can argue the free content requirement sacrifices quality for the sake of ideological purity, this is a false dilemma as proven by your own actions in uploading so many great photos! You might have an argument if Commons were filled with nothing but crappy cell phone snaps, but that is simply not the reality: people do agree to free content if they want to see their pictures on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). So if we can have our cake and eat it too, there is no good reason to undermine that philosophy. If you decide copyleft threatens your income, someone else will come along who will agree to it, though I hope that doesn't have to happen. Fletcher (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you I didn't intenionally leave out that wiki-link - I just gave it the plain reading of free as in "there is no cost". However as mentioned above I really can't see any issue whatsoever of incorporating content of different licenses into an article - if there was a problem Wikipedia would already be in serious trouble. And again as I mentioned earlier I'm not simply talking about myself but photographers like me. You've only got to look at users like User:MIckStephenson, "I make photographs for a living & hence find it hard to get used to donating quality stuff to the Wiki project", to see the untapped potential for Wikipedia. And as for commons not containing crappy cell photos - you've haven't had a look through the Cat category! :) But the thing is, the people who are uploading the current content to Wikipedia under copyleft licenses aren't going to suddenly go away when you introduce NC - you'll still get that content but you'll also get the benefit of NC content. Again it seems an ideological argument rather than a practical one. As for free content - you may be well right, I might need to review my particpation in the project. Which is a shame as I've enjoyed my time here; but I've always been marching under the banner of "Wikipedia is a free (as in no cost) encyclopedia"... --Fir0002 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who is exploiting whom. So far all the prominent FPC contributors have enjoyed the exposure their work gets from appearing on the frontpage of one of the world's most popular websites. You guys already get widely idolized despite of uploading only downsampled versions of your images and clinging to the hard-to-reuse GFDL-1.2. And now you are even asking for NC licenses?! This is very disappointing. :-( --Dschwen 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point too. This is not about us getting rewarded for our contributions or pressuring companies into paying us for our photos. This is about us all (not just the FPC photographers) having the choice to say that we don't want our work exploited for profit. I don't think Wiki-idolatry (whatever that is worth, I certainly don't get approached by attractive women in the street as a result of it!) compensates for this issue. You need to understand that this isn't really about us gaining in some way. I just don't like the idea that a profitable corporate (who doesn't really need to use our content) gaining financially as a result of taking the cheap option and using our content instead of paying for it like commercial users should do. This my ideological stance and I don't think it makes me exploitive at all. Non-commercial/Educational use? The more the merrier. I couldn't be happier to help those who could truly benefit from it. Education should be free to all. Business should not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're also under a severe misunderstanding if you think that I particpate just to see my work appear on the frontpage of Wikipedia! The frontpage is seriously not something I attach any value to - and I too am yet to see anyone idolize me... --Fir0002 12:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, many months ago I approached the Foundation about allowing NC images in place of fair use images for subjects where no truly free image exists. That is to say that NC might be allowed, but only when there was no more free alternative was available to show the same subject. Personally, I consider NC to be much clearer for reusers than fair use, since in both cases a commercial reuser may need to remove images, but NC provides a bright line while fair use is fuzzy and ought to be looked at on a case by case basis. The Foundation was open to the idea of using limited NC images at the time, provided that the community backed it. Though there would still be a tension between the desire to encourage people to create truly free content and the desire to have any photo at all of a difficult to obtain subject. Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of historic archives that license their photographs for free noncommercial reuse under the CC-NC licenses -- a good example is the large LA Times photo archive at UCLA. And many photographers at Flickr license their photos as CC-NC. We're missing out on a lot of good, free content by not allowing CC-NC licensed material at Wikipedia. So I'm very pleased to hear the Foundation is open to changing this policy. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this was an informal, in-person discussion. It should not be read as the WMF making any sort of a commitment. However, the people I talked to did seem open to giving serious consideration to whether there could be some limited legitimate uses of NC content on Wikimedia projects. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt you'd find NC content to replace most fair use stuff anyway. Things like movie screenshots, CD covers etc etc are solid FU territory --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been Wikimedia's long-standing position that allowing commercial re-use contributes to its educational mission (the negative impact of stupid commercial uses is outweighed by the positive impact of educational, commercial uses), and that position is unlikely to change. That said, I do believe we need a license that clearly has a "strong copyleft" effect on photographs and similar media, so that when they are used e.g. in newspaper articles, the surrounding articles would need to be copylefted, too. That is consistent with our licensing policy, but neither the GFDL nor CC-BY-SA have really developed clear and unambiguous language to this effect. Creative Commons is open to modifying CC-BY-SA to clarify that copyleft applies on images used in the context of other works (as opposed to only applying to modifications to the image itself). While not helping you with all use cases you're concerned about (it would still allow commercial use in ads, provided the ads are freely licensed), it should certainly limit use in ways which are consistent with our values. This is something we can continue to work on together. Beyond that, I'd encourage the people concerned about commercial use to think about Wikipedia not as their primary publishing platform, but as a way to highlight and promote some of their work, while generating revenue elsewhere.--Eloquence * 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest dealing with existing CC-NC images? There's a lot of good NC-licensed content out there that we can't use at present, which weakens a lot of articles. It seems odd to allow fair-use images, but (effectively) forbid NC material -- as Dragons flight has pointed out upthread, the NC license has the big advantage of being a bright-line, compared to fair-use.

One argument might be that fair use images of historical events, or images excerpted from copyrighted works like films, simply cannot be replaced by free (libre) images. I guess it's possible there are similarly valuable NC-licensed images that cannot be replaced. Maybe we should allow them. But in light of many comments above, that's not what this thread is about: it's about (some) photographers wanting to restrict our users from commercial use, either to preserve a revenue stream or because of some psychological "ickiness" about commerce they don't have control over. The images in question are, most commonly, landscapes, architecture, birds, flowers, and insects -- all replaceable by a skilled photographer. If such images are NC-licensed, we are not talking about enhancing Wikipedia with images we can't get elsewhere, but allowing non-free content to compete with and likely replace our free content. Fletcher (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I really think blocking useful content from wikipedia because of some resentment towards certain users (or a class of users) is counterproductive and a little childish. If you don't give people the options then you don't get the content and Wikipedia suffers. Sure you could get a lot of the stuff illustrated under the license of your choice - but at what quality sacrifice? I mean if Wikipedia could attract photos from the cutting floor from NG grade photographers through an NC license don't you think it should be providing that option? If professional photographer comes at the cost of NC don't you think that would be worth it? To frame it another way, if Getty or Reuters suddenly approached WMF and said to Wikipedia that we want to donate all of our images under an NC license to support the creation of a free encyclopedia, wouldn't you want the WMF to accept that offer? Again ultimately I think that question hinges on what Wikipedia's priorities are - being an encyclopedia or being a free content resource. I'd be very disappointed in the whole project if it was the latter. That's no longer making Wikipedia the best it could possibly be in terms of making the best freely (no cost) accessible encyclopedia; that's making Wikipedia as good as it can be subject to a certain ideology. If the world is to take Wikipedia seriously as a competitor to the likes of Britannica than I really think it shouldn't compromise. I'd rather see small time companies suffer (and they would suffer much anyway coz all those cell phone images would be on commons anyway) than a primary school student using Wikipedia to learn... --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I also just say that I'm beginning to stop assuming good faith? You continue to ignore my numerous assertions that this is not about protecting our revenue or 'psychological ickiness' towards uncontrollable commerce. I would still have the same feeling about this if I weren't a photographer. It is an issue of 'cosmic fairness' or 'karma' or however you want to describe it: Companies that exist to make a profit should not do so off the back of donations. When expressed as simply as that, I think most people would agree. There would likely be an uproar if people donated things (money, food, time, labour etc) to a charity/non-profit, only to find that these things were given away to another company who sold them and pocketed the profits. It is akin to exploiting slave-labour for profit. Obviously I'm not making a direct comparison between Wiki volunteers and slaves, but it is the exploitation of the work that I see a similarity in. This is my ideological stance and I will be very frustrated if you ignore it and try to make it sound like I'm arguing for my own personal gain again. :-P Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

if people donated things (money, food, time, labour etc) to a charity/non-profit, only to find that these things were given away to another company who sold them and pocketed the profits. A classic fallacy that frequently come up in free-content discussions, digital images are not comparable to money, food, time, labour etc. The companies are not taking the pictures away from educational use, but they give us publicity through the image credits. --Dschwen 15:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I seriously misrepresented anyone but I think above I might have said you were making "demands" rather than just expressing an opinion which could be overstatement on my part, and I apologize. But I don't think anyone is arguing in bad faith here.

However, Muhammad and Fir0002 indicated they are interested in making money from their pictures which is one reason they would like an NC option. Muhammed: "Having recently invested quite a lot in photographic gear, I am reluctant to give away my images for free. [...in subsequent post...] "I for instance, took up photography as a hobby, but if I want to upgrade the quality of my shots I need to spend more money. If I give away images for free how will I pay for my lenses?" Fir0002: "These are also (by and large) the people who are then wanting to recoup some of their investment and are thus reluctant to lose the commercial value of their photos" (assuming he includes himself in that category). Thus, I don't see how you can say "this is not about protecting our revenue", when it clearly is, and note I allowed for another explanation, pyschological ickiness, which accounts for your point of view, as admittedly I did not see you expressing that you wanted to protect a revenue stream. Maybe it sounds too critical, but "ickiness" sounds like the right word, as you haven't given a coherent definition of "exploitation" or explained in a rational way how you are harmed by commercial use of an image that you donated and weren't intending to make money from.

I would suggest your reaction is understandable given that we are evolved to protect things we create -- but we evolved mostly before the Internet brought the marginal cost of certain things down to zero. This is why your comparison breaks down: yes it would be very wrong for, say, a grocer to stock his shelves with canned goods donated to a homeless shelter, but the reason is that those canned goods are rivalrous -- meaning every can of soup the grocer takes is one can less for a homeless person. If however someone makes commercial use of your image, that does not stop you or any other Wikipedia user from making use of the same image, as copies can be made at no cost. (I see Dschwen just made the same point...). Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true, Fir and Muhammed did mention recouping costs, and that is part of their motivation, no doubt, but I don't think that they are specifically talking about profiting from their images on Wikipedia. They are all perfectly happy to give away their images here, but I suppose you are right that loss of income on other sites may influence their decision. And that is my point, really. There may be an unlimited number of copies possible, of any given image, but there is only a finite number of sales in the world. Consider the theoretical situation where every commercial user of images is aware of the availability of both stock photography images for a price, and Wikipedia images for free. and Every person that decides to use Wikipedia's images for free is one less person who is prepared to pay for the image, so it genuinely does have an impact on photographers that are trying to recoup their costs. Should we chastise these photographers for wanting to both donate their images for non-commercial uses (primarily education I suppose), and make a living? Again, it isn't really about protecting things we've created though. You say that I haven't given a coherent definition of exploitation (I was never asked to until now!). It is quite difficult to generally define exploitation because it is quite clearly in the eye of the beholder, and there are lots of aspects to it not relevant to this discussion. I would describe it in the context of this argument exactly as I already have done, though: Companies using content sourced through Wikipedia for free when they intend to use this content to make money. If you don't see the issue with this then I guess we just have different moral values. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Muhammad and Fir0002 indicated they are interested in making money from their pictures..." I would like to mention clearly that money making from my photos is not my objective. All pictures I take, I upload to wikipedia if they have EV and I go out of my way to do this, not to make money bur for the provision of free knowledge. Surely, I should be allowed to at least get back some of the money I invested in the equipment. Together with all the other valid reasons mentioned in this discussion, a NC will allow me to sell my pictures which in turn will allow me to upgrade my equipment and thus better pictures for Wikipedia at the end of the day. My initial post also mentioned that a NC will, "also convince professional photographers to release their work knowing that their work will not be used for commercial means and that they will still be able to make a living." SO its not just about the money. I have seen some great macro images at Flickr which we could have uploaded to wikipedia if only we had a NC license. --Muhammad(talk) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we transfer this discussion to a more appropriate forum? I'm pleased to see the issue reopened, as the no-NC policy has always struck me as a shoot-in-the-foot one for WP. It would be great to open the door for some use of NC-licensed material, and we did get Jimbo's attention here.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I looked at your link to the photo LA Times photo archive above, and I'm wondering if you're right that its photos collection is under CC-NC. Their copyright page seems to say the copyrights are unknown and basically use at your own risk. Their general CC License page sounds like it applies more to content created by the library itself, "including tutorials, research guides, and subject bibliographies." However you may be more familiar with this organization than me. Fletcher (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that page just gives the boilerplate for all of UCLA's digitized collections, and I can't find the intro page that says (ims) that all the LA Times archive is available CC-NC. But if you look at any individual LA Times photo, such as this one, all are clearly labeled as CC-NC. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking it up. Fletcher (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right - this has probably run it's course here on FPC. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)? --Fir0002 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should we copy and paste the entire thing directly in?? That would freak a few people out. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a good, substantial discussion -- but would be an intimidating lump to come on cold. How about this: mark this thread closed (so we don't get two parallel discussions), and reopen it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) with a brief summary saying some editors would like to reopen the NC image policy discussion. Maybe quote some highlights, such as Jimbo's post. Here's a first draft. Thoughts? Pete Tillman (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I seemed to have ruffled some feathers when I suggested that photographers uncomfortable with commercial re-use of their photos stop contributing them to Wikipedia. I did not mean this as an us vs them comment. The reason I said this is that the issue is a frequent proposal (especially on Commons and the listservs) and both the community and the WMF have been consistently opposed to the idea from the beginning. Yet it keeps getting proposed every few months and we have to go through the same arguments over and over again. The issue of non-commercial licenses is not simply "a matter of degree", it would represent a fundamental change in the philosophy and values of both Wikipedia and the free culture movement (which Wikipedia has an integral relationship with). If you intend to continue this proposal, please familiarize yourself with the history of the issue:

There are also dozens of threads on Commons and the listservs, but I think the links above give the best explanations. I apologize if I was curt in my earlier comments, but hearing this proposal from photographers who are actively benefiting from their exposure on Wikipedia (judging by how many inquiries you guys have on your talk pages) seemed somewhat less than altruistic to me. I will, however, assume good faith and believe that you guys are pursuing this issue for selfless reasons ("karma", etc). Kaldari (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of benefiting from the exposure. Yes, that is true to an extent, but exposure doesn't really translate to much in the way of tangible benefits. For example, I don't link my images or my profile page to my personal site where I sell photographs. In fact, I don't have a personal site of any kind, although I do sell photographs on stock sites. However, I wouldn't say that this exposure means I benefit in any tangible way. The vast majority of the inquiries I get are from people who want to use my images for free and are unsure of what the restrictions are. In this case, I have to take time to explain it, and I get absolutely nothing (financially speaking) in return. Occasionally I will get an inquiry from someone who insists on paying for an image out of courtesy, but this is fairly rare. Unless they specifically ask about unrestricted commercial licenses, I don't mention them and tell them I am happy for them to use the images as long as they respect the license terms. I did find it interesting (and surprising) to note that Eloquence does almost encourage us to use Wikipedia as a platform for exposure as long as we accept the current licensing, though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

- Thanks for the clarification on that. Perhaps I was being a bit too hasty in my judgment. BTW, I forgot to include Jimbo's original explanation of the issue from 2005 in my links above. You may want to read that as well for some of the reasoning behind prohibiting NC on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a frequent proposal. The tension between wanting to leverage as much external content as possible to build the best possible encyclopedia and wanting to create a resource that is as free as possible has been around since the beginning. Jimbo and other early leaders won many of those fights initially. As you may be aware, non-commercial imagery was officially tolerated until mid-2005, though there are certainly even earlier examples of people disliking it. Jimbo, in his authority as God-king, ordered its removal [7]. It's never been clear to me whether the community would have embraced a blanket ban had it been handled through discussion rather than fiat. Of course, at that time the amount of explicitly non-commercial content that existed in the wild was far lower than it is today. CC-NC has been embraced by major publishing organizations such as the LA Times and Al Jazeera, and obviously discussions like the one above demonstrate significant interest from the photographic community. It also seems likely that one could talk many people into applying NC licensing to things like album covers and movie stills, where fair use is the only option available today.

We are interested in freedom, but we still make compromises in the interest of encyclopedic breadth. We embrace a limited fair use scheme and we accept very draconian copyleft schemes (hopefully something that will soon improve). Given the explosion of interest in CC-NC and the potential to leverage content that is otherwise unavailable, I am inclined to wonder if a compromise is available here as well. I would use WP:NFC as my starting point. In other words, allow CC-NC only when no more free alternative exists, and largely as a replacement to fair use. I'd also consider excluding objects and places that are easily replaceable. I'd scrap the provisions of size/extent, commercial competition, and location in Wikipedia as irrelevant. Documentation needs (and the associated arguments) would be much simpler. Even if our primary usage is borrow from things like the LA Times photo archive to expand our coverage of historically significant events, I would see that as a significant boon to the quality of the encyclopedia.

Perhaps Wikipedia is ready to consider something other than an all-or-nothing approach on commercial use. Given the success of CC licensing in general, and the relative messiness of fair use, I would be disappointed if we don't eventually reach some middle ground on this issue. Of course, people on the extremes are never going to satisfied (especially those who think we should eliminate fair use and strive to be even more free than we are now). Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, we simultaneously added links to the same Jimbo post :) Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your points above, it should be noted that you can already add NC licensed images to Wikipedia under the conditions you are describing (historic events, non-replacable, album covers, etc.). You simply have to provide a Non-free fair use rationale and upload the image in low resolution. What Mohammad, Fir0002, and Diliff are wanting is very different - To have NC licenses treated as free licenses. Non-commercial licenses however are not free (this is a very well-established principal) and thus they should be handled the same as other fair use media. As you may know, I'm a huge supporter of Fair Use on Wikipedia and I oppose the free-license purists (with a passion). However, I think fair use and free license media are very distinct groups and the distinction between them is important. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) Yes, I know the thread started with rather different goals but I want to get us away from thinking that the only options are to accept no NC content or to accept all NC content. I'm also a big fan of exercising fair use rights and realize that much of the above can be done in a limited fashion with fair use, but that comes with a burden of low resolution, page-by-page rationales/restrictions, and generally ambiguous rights for reusers. Put another way, fair use is an 18th century solution to copyright while CC is a 21st century solution. I think borrowing more from the latter and less from the former would make things clearer and easier on everyone. Dragons flight (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I would not be opposed to NC images being added to Wikipedia (but not Commons) as a 3rd distinct category (neither Free nor Fair Use). However, in practice I think this would be confusing to most people. Although having a wide range of different freedoms in our content is good for the encyclopedia, it's confusing for reusers and uploaders, and IMO is detrimental to the free culture goals of the project. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't be able to engage in this thread fully. I do want to respond to the issue of fair use vs. non-commercial imagery. Our policy towards fair use has always been to seriously limit it, and replace fair use content wherever possible. To quote the licensing policy, "such [fair use policies] must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. A [fair use policy] may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under a [fair use policy] must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." [8]

So while Dragons flight is of course correct that NC is preferable to fair use, the point I would make is that we consider fair use a "necessary evil", and try to eliminate fair use content wherever possible. I don't think the people arguing here for uploading NC content would want to do so under the presumption that their contributions are a "necessary evil" and will get deleted and replaced aggressively where possible, even when the replacement is of lower quality. So I think the fair use policy and the free content policy are truly distinct and separate and need to be treated as such.

In general, I don't think this is an issue where you're going to be able to find a middle ground solution. As the Flickr statistics indicate, once you allow people to place restrictions on their content, many of them will choose to do so. In fact, you will probably change the dynamics of your community from a strongly freedom-oriented, sharing community to one that's more pragmatic (and to some extent self-interested). If your goal is to maximize freedom, a clear set of principles expressed through policy tends to be the best way to achieve that. The tension is one between short term and long term impact, between obvious immediate benefits and partially hypothetical ones. This is even more visible, in my opinion, in our insistence to use a format like Ogg Theora for video instead of the established proprietary Flash video formats.--Eloquence * 19:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re NC as a "necessary evil": I would prefer that WP/WMF recognize the reality that, however good the theoretical arguments are against people licensing their stuff as CC-NC, an awful lot of people and archives have, in fact, already done so. So, if we want a full range of professional-quality images to use at Wikipedia, we would be wise to devise a way to use this stuff. Redefining "free content" would be one avenue to explore, however distasteful this might be to free-media purists.

Once again, it would seem advisable to move this discussion over to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), perhaps with a introduction such as this already-outdated draft. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole discussion should be copied there so that no vital arguments are left out. --Muhammad(talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be best. I'd be happy to move it, but I don't know how to close and archive this discussion! Plus I have a deadline :-\ Help? If the group agrees we should relocate? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC

Yeah agreed on that - but I have serious issues with the current summary. I'll try get my own proposal up as soon as possible (hopefully in the next few hours) but I'm also tight for time at the moment :( --Fir0002 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re NC policy as Jimbo's diktat, per Dragons flight 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC), above: -- this has stuck in my craw, too. Efforts to reopen this discussion have, in the past, been met with brisk replies that amount to "Shut up and soldier, soldier!" This is not a response likely to inspire WP's unpaid, and heirarchy-adverse, volunteers. We do need to remember that the primary objective of Wikipedia is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, and figure out the best way to do this, preferably from the bottom up. I think so, anyway. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Licensing your own stuff: -- Dragons flight (a true Wiki star!) has done a nice job over at his Global Warming Art site, and the photographers here should take a look. Since he's too modest to tell you himself... [grin] Back to real work for me, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. Dragons flight (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As a FPC observer for quite some time i would just like to add that the current wikipedia policy of not accepting NC content really seams ludicrous. Basically its saying that "No, we don't want high quality content that would considerable improve the encyclopaedia because that content would not be available for the commercial use of entities completed unrelated to wikipedia". How can this be a logical position to hold for the purpose building of a great encyclopaedia? It seams the only party that this policy benefits is the commercial entities who are provided with a large repository of free content. --58.175.36.151 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Request temporary suspension of this discussion pending a move in venue to the Village pump. But before we can move we need to make a coherent and relatively breif summary of what we've gone through already (obviously we can still link back to this full discussion but lets not make it too intimidating). I propose the format here. Note that summary is fairly sketchy owing to time constraints on my part so please feel free to adjust credits and add any significant considerations or support statements that I've forgotten --Fir0002 11:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good and covers most, if not all, of the important points raised. I'd be happy to see it transfered to the Village Pump, to see what others think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok great - I'll leave it open for modification for another few hours and then transfer it over to the VP later today (I'll try do it at approx 08:00 UTC) --Fir0002 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me too -- good add of Fir0002's counter-argument. Wish us luck... --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to the Village Pump. All new comments should be made here --Fir0002 09:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable FP

Can some one explain how this became an FP? There was no consensus and it doesn't say it was promoted. Any ideas? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣

It was promoted previously to that so it looks like that FPC was just abandoned. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/October-2004#Kepler.27s Supernova. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be a candidate to delist given how small it is. Fletcher (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nom'ed it for delist. Thanks for the help, guys. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible delist?

This image does not meet the current size requirements, but only just barely. I would be bold and suggest a delist, but it seems too close for me to do that. At the time, I assume it met size requirements. What should be done? ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Same goes for this. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Both meet current size guidelines - recheck the criteria. As I said on another delist nom, I don't regard size as a reason to delist anyway, at least not in itself, unless it's extreme (and other than videos and animations which seem to play by their own rules, I suspect anything 'extreme' has already been delisted). The daisy one is pretty low quality however. --jjron (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And all this time, I thought it was 1000×1000. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Maritana

I'd appreciate any additional comments. Thanks! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More input

Comments here and here would be appreciated. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What are we doing here?

I understand and support nominating and discussing photos taken by Wikipedians, but what's the point when the photos come from external sources? Do we really want to all sit and talk about photos one by one? There are millions of photos that would qualify as FPs, of which some significant portion would be free-licensed.

This image brought it home. I thought it was a wikipedian's photo - great. But if it's just a stock photo...why are we taking all the time and effort to drip feed them in? We'd be much better off organising to get thousands in at once. And then save our breath for discussing locally generated content. Stevage 01:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all stock photos have the necessary enc. (and sometimes quality, for example, somthing cut-off) to be an FP. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Stevage and have said similar things many times. Unless it's mindblowing, and that's pretty rare, I usually refrain from voting on these ring-ins. I realise Durova, and possibly Shoemaker, have made strong arguments about the externally sourced images that they spend a lot of time editing to improve for WP, and that does make a bit of sense, but a lot stuff from external sources is just dumped on here as it came, and as Stevage says I can't see the point in tagging this stuff as FP. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It does sound we've never really agreed on a policy of what FPC images are. Sure, we know they should be enc, high quality, etc but nothing has ever spelled out if they should be user-created only, or not. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't matter where the content came from, as long as it is of sufficient relevance to Wikipedia, but I can certainly appreciate why others disagree and I have to admit that I find a lot of the NASA/historical images less interesting to vote on. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the dividing line is between original creations and archival material, so much as between experienced FP contributors and inexperienced ones. We see just about as much original photography that doesn't make the grade. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we consider splitting FPC into an "original content" (or significant work in improving externally sourced content), and "other"? FPC should partially be about showing off what the Wikipedia community has achieved. What's the point of showing off someone else's material? By all means, gather the high quality stuff, and mark it as such (so that people just looking for some nice photos can find them)...but why "feature" it? Anyone interested in coming up with a proposal? Stevage 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing FPC with WP:FP: FPC does not show off anything, but is simply a place to discuss nominations. If you browse the various sub-pages at WP:FP you will see that images by Wikipedians are already segregated from images created by others. I don't see a good reason to have separate nomination pages for different types of content. Further, I don't think the goal of the project is to highlight the work of any particular creator. The goal is to highlight the image itself and its contribution to an article. I agree the process is more fun when you see images created by Wikipedians, but if an image created by someone else meets all the criteria and makes a strong contribution to an article, why not feature it? Fletcher (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Deprecating GFDL 1.2 for future use

See here. I wonder why this was not mentioned during the extensive discussion we had above. --Muhammad(talk) 07:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already deprecated on de.wp. GFDL-1.2-only images will be removed there. --Dschwen 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a very worrying development. If it happens on Commons a lot of featured images on En are going to vanish overnight. I am not convinced by this march to forward compatible licenses and I am certain I am not alone in that. I also think it is a real shame that that discussion which will significantly impact contributions is confined to template talk and does not seem to have attempted to solicit opinions in other directly relevant forums like this one. Mfield (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be more rigourous in reviewing images

I've been suspecting this for a while but today's closures confirm it. Our standards are slipping. Two examples:

File:Libya 4985 Tadrart Acacus Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg - I'm quite surprised nobody (of nine) mentioned the CA. It made me think twice about the promotion but wasn't that significant to warrant failing an unanimous nomination (unlike the next case...)
File:Lomatium parryi.jpg - The level of artifacting in the image isn't acceptable, yet was overlooked by seven people. The image was edited significantly twice without disclosure.

So be sure to review those images at full size and tell us about any problems you find. MER-C 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the CA is significant or distracting in the first image. I'm not saying it isn't there, just not enough to oppose it. I've seen far worse in professional grade lenses before. Artifacting/sharpening haloes in the second image is quite bad though, and I would have opposed it if I had voted on that image. I do still think (as per our convo on your talk page) that when you go against the consensus then you are treading on dangerous ground. I know there clearly were issues with that second image that certainly should have prompted some further discussion, but leaving it open and asking existing voters to respond to the issue of artifacting would probably have been better than just rejecting the consensus... Just my opinion. Not to say I don't value your efforts here in any way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really know much about photographs. I'm more knowledgeable about engravings and such. Feel free to take my reactions to photos with a grain of salt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that the second one is a mess after the editing. Mfield (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pardon me for asking, but what is CA? CA didn't link to anything relevant. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Chromatic aberration aka purple fringing. Stevage 02:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy artifacts! I honestly did not know the recent edits to the Lomatium image would worsened the grainess. I agree with Diliff, you should of mentioned the artifacting before rejection. I reverted the edits because I prefer the image with less grain effects than the changes I made to it. Probably too late now, but thanks for discussing this. If I hadn't seen this, I would have never known. Zoo Fari 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Three more:

File:Camponotus sp. ant.jpg - species not identified
File:Keplers supernova.jpg - seems upsampled, at least in the reds (might be due to difference in resolution due to wavelength)
File:Cathédrale de Nantes - nef.jpg - perspective distortion. A no-no for architectural photos.

I think I'll fail only the egregious ones on sight from now on but I would like the certainty that any debate held up in this manner would not be closed in the meantime. MER-C 04:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the chromatic aberration in the first and artifacts in the second should preclude both from being a FP. I have not been reviewing as much as I did in the past but should get back to it. Chillum 04:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

About File:Camponotus sp. ant.jpg, replied here --Muhammad(talk) 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tameing a Shrew; or, Petruchio's Patent Family Bedstead, Gags & Thumscrews

This entire conversation is a lengthy attack on everything related to restoring images. PNGs are attacked, higher-resolution is attacked, and work spent cleaning dirt is ignored, treating an unrestored colour-adjusted version as the equal of a five-hour cleaning job.

If it was simple opposes because of the image tself, that would be one thing, but instead, after spending hours working on something, I woke up the next day to find out I had been brutally and publicly attacked for preparing a cleaned, higher-resolution version, and that not one person thought that maybe they should step in and deal with the situation.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The accusation is inaccurate and unfair. After reading the whole discussion carefully, I can't see any deliberate attack against restorers or their work, only comments about image formats, captioning, colour reproduction, etc. Images are promoted, or not, depending on their enc value, not on the number of hours spent in their creation. That is true with photographers, who may spend several hours being eaten alive by mosquitoes while wainting for some weird creature to show up, as well as with illustrators, who may take several days working on a single drawing which will later offered to the Wikimedia community. I went once against a proposal (of yours?) for positive discriminating old engravings and restorations in Commons FPC, and still have the same opinion. Sorry, but those repeated comments about the hard work of restorers look like self indulgence to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Positive discrimination"? You mean me pointing out that your proposal to up the number of votes needed when only photographs were generally getting the number of votes you proposed would cause non-photographs to never be promoted, and showing evidence of these numbers? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  - This might sound blunt, but Lack of votes = lack of interest. --Dschwen 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    - However, Commons FP is intended to highlight content useful in all-language Wikipedias. If the process is broken so that subjects like literature, art, history and the like - core subjects to an encyclopedia - cannot get featured because people feel that FP should be for photos alone, then the process is broken in fulfilling its purpose of helping maintain an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    - One again, facts do not upport the thesis that such subjects are ignored by reviewers. I went through all nominations of the last three months and the promotion rate of old engravings is overwhelming (more than 80%?), when compared with other subjects. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      - Sorry, perhaps all the harassment campaigns make the numbers appear worse. I'm sure that photographers are told all the time Oppose "Just a copy of some old picture. Great for the Xerox company competition", or are accused, without the person actually checking, of nominating everything they upload. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker, recently I've started offering lower resolution courtesy copies at most new restorations over 10MB. The second version is downsampled with 1500 pixels on the long axis. That might help. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- - - - What are you talking about?! Nowadays FPC is nothing but bug-macros and vintage images (so called restorations). And a good part of these is getting solid support. Please stop alledging harassment campaigns, and please try not taking yourselves so gosh darn serious for a minute. FPC used to be so much fun. --Dschwen 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        On Commons FPC, laddie. I can point you to a few incidents if necessary. Most notably one in which a user accused every single person who had nominated a vintage image of nominating too much work, even if they had just nominated their first image, or their first image in several weeks.And what the hell is that "so-called" nonsense? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
        Oh please, "laddie", give me a break! I'd call it original research only it has nothing to do with research, it is more guesswork. How many times have I read now how you carefully adjusted the whitebalance. That is the "nonsense". You make assumptions about yellowing of paper, you guess original colors, you assume the color balance of the ink ages the same way as the paper (which is a ridiculous notion and has resulted in so-called restorations with paper looking like fresh out of the papermill with ink looking a 100 years old). You go on and on how many hours of work it takes. Sorry, but I just don't value mechanical use of the clone tool that high. Some people remove dust, which is great (but does it constitute a featureworthy act? come on!), some go ahead and remove woodfibers from the paper (what's the deal with that?). Sorry, but combined with the gross sense of self-importance it does not make me wonder one bit why you are getting adverse reactions. --Dschwen 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        I'm sorry, but you evidently cannot tell me and Durova apart, as you're assigning Durova's philosophy of restoration to me. I don't think there's any point continuing this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Durova, first I'd like to thank you for taking this step (given I think you started doing it thanks at least partly due to my bleating ;-) ). I have looked at a couple of your noms in the downsampled version, but don't really feel I can vote fairly in most cases without viewing the (inaccessible) 'big one'. However can I make two suggestions. Firstly, put the downsampled version as an image in the 'Other versions' section of the image page - the text description and link hardly hits you in the eye! (Would you mind if I edited the description of File:Currier and Ives Brooklyn Bridge2.jpg to show you what I mean?). Secondly, as a long time image reducer from the old days of the web, I would personally prefer it if you offered a downsampled version (i.e., higher jpg compression) rather than the downsized version. With the far smaller image size you feel you're missing out on something, but if it was the same size but lower quality you wouldn't really feel that way, if you get what I mean. For example, I'm pretty confident the above file could be reduced from over 40MB to comfortably under 5MB (possibly 2-3MB) while keeping the same res and with only relatively minor loss of quality. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question

Who, when or what is EV? Seems like EV is the magic that gets a picture promoted but I can't find any ref. Ronnotel (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an acronym and stands for Encyclopaedic Value. Basically what makes it add to the article it is in, in some way. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with exposure value, another common term in photography. Seems like the large majority of the time on FPC it means what Diliff says. Fletcher (talk)

Also called 'enc'. EV/enc is the difference between a pretty picture and a useful picture. A sunset is pretty, but is not all that useful. A highly detailed picture of a famous landmark may not be all that beautiful, but has high enc. Pretty+enc=fp. Stevage 02:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedic value is not magic pixie dust. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

I'd appreciate some more comments on this FPC. Thanks! Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 16:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked, but found nothing useful to say. Chillum 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

PNG vs. JPG, and why it matters

PNG is the lossless file type that all serious restoration needs to be saved in, but Wikipedia's thumbnailing software handles it extremely poorly. I think we have a problem here.

A bug report has been filed as https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18014 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug aside, I don't really have the patience to download 15mb pngs on a regular basis, and I am on 11mbit or so. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I know it would be great if one file suited every use on Wikipedia, but it tends to not be the case a lot of the time. Given the current situation, maybe it is best just to upload both the PNG file AND a downsampled and compressed (if necessary) jpeg file for the less critical applications such as use on article pages, and then link the two on the image page? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Actually I disagree, PNG as a must-have for quality is a bit of a myth - it only makes sense in theory. In reality jpg compression will do the job just fine. Check this out; one of the four was originally saved at 12 quality jpg (this is still overkill IMO but reduced the 3.99mb PNG significantly to 2.14mb) and then added to three direct crops from the PNG (no resaving). The image was then increased to 200% (to facilitate pixel peeping) and then resaved in PNG (to protect against the dreaded introduction of artefacts :)) --Fir0002 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
    - Fir0002, that preference may have something to do with differences in the types of image work we do. Preparing historic material typically takes hours or days, and may need more than one pair of eyes to reach its best effect. So although I have no objection to compressed formats for pure viewing, and have recently started supplying downsampled copies with restorations over 10MB in size, it's also very important for the wiki process to have the capability to collaborate without loss of data. Maybe not so much for new photography, because there's less back-and-forth with your work. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
      - Plus the continuous saves when doing healing and cloning work. Jpeg is fine for the end result but often restoration is ongoing or performed by more than one person, or may want to be continued much later down the line and switching in and out of lossless is unacceptable. Jpeg is a one way street. Mfield (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply consider the ratio between "some damage" and "no damage". <DIVISION BY ZERO ERROR!> Chillum 15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though. In the future we will resize PNGs better, but the JPEG will still be damaged. If we are going to bypass this bug by using jpegs, be sure to keep the PNG on wiki too and link to it. If it ever needs to be edited again a lossless copy is needed. Chillum 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will also say that the jpeg thumbnail above is riddled with artifacts, and the PNG version is not. Rather ugly damage. Chillum 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say riddled with artifacts per-se, but it obviously suffers from the strong sharpening applied. Thumbnails are really the product of a compromise between accuracy, sharpness and file size, but I certainly wouldn't say I prefer the PNG thumbnail. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this debate relevant to FPC? In my opinion, the best version of the image (high resolution PNG) should be featured, even if a smaller JPEG is used in the article. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all have a TIFF

Great news, fellow image folks. Wikimedia Commons has started accepting TIFF files. The larger ones don't thumbnail (yet). More information at my blog.[9] Durova^Charge! 14:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy! Chillum 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why you liked TIFFs, when PNGs are equally lossless and much smaller, to be honest. (And TIFFs are such an open file format, that you can actually have LZW-compressed TIFFs, which are lossy!) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LZW is lossless actually. Fletcher (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? So what's the one used in GIFs and JPEGs? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

JPEG is its own compression algorithm. I wasn't sure about GIF but the article says it uses lossless LZW. Fletcher (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

GIF uses lossless LZW but only after reducing the image to at most 256 colors which is very lossy. Dragons flight (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a long time since I've used a GIF for anything. Fletcher (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Holding nominations for more feedback

The basic idea of holding nominations for more feedback is a useful one: it helps to ensure that all nominations receive enough reviews to establish consensus. Yet some of our nominations seem to be getting held for longer than necessary. For instance, an image that has been up since March 6 has 7 supports, 1 weak oppose, and 1 oppose (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mission San Juan Capistrano, 1899). To be candid, it makes me less likely to go and review the other holdovers when this happens, because it leaves me wondering whether the section is getting tended closely enough so I go and prioritize other things. Unless there's a rationale for the holdover that hasn't been articulated? Durova^Charge! 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no objective rule, Durova. That was the theme of an hard discussion I started some time ago, with no visible results. Like it is now, the field is clear to any kind of arbitray decisions on closing (or not). "It is not enough for Caesar's wife to be serious, she must also look serious" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain? Durova^Charge! 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You have your reason above - essentially my confidence in the process to screen out unsuitable images has plummeted. That one has questionable enc for the reasons given. And please, let's not start this stupid drama again. MER-C 08:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see below. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Gasshukoku_suishi_teitoku_kōjōgaki_(Oral_statement_by_the_American_Navy_admiral).png

Just a heads up: This was one of my first colour FPs, and I'm now incredibly embarrassed by it, so I'm doing a major re-edit. I'll put it up for re-confirmation as FP after I'm done. In the meantime, I've uploaded a partially restored version, just to get rid of the appalling restoration I did before. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's now up as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki. Due to a possible front page run soon (and t the encouragement of Howcheng) I've put the restored version in the old file slot. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off topic again, but CC-BY-SA licensing question...

I've been approached by someone wanting to use my photo, but they are requesting to only include the CC-BY-SA logo/mark instead of a link/URL to the license text. I don't mean to be a pain but as I understand it, this is not acceptable, as the license states under 4a: "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.". Can anyone confirm this? This person has contacted the CC office in Taiwan who advised them to include the mark insgead of the license link, but it still seems wrong to me as not everyone who sees the mark will recognise it or understand the terms, and only a link to the license text would allow them to. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. It should strictly provide a link to the license, but I'm sure I've read a less mandatory version of that which says "wherever practical" or somesuch. At the end of the day, the 3.0 licenses allow for flexibility in these things, as long as you (the author) agree in writing to waive one or more specific requirements. Will the byline link back to the source image? If it does I'd be happy with that arrangement, personally. --mikaul^talk 07:31, 19 MaThe use in question is in a book or magazine or something, so there is no way to hyperlink the image to the license text, which is the source of the issue. I agree, if it were hyperlinked somehow, then using the mark instead of the URL as text wouldn't be as much of a problem. As I said though, with just the mark and no link, a casual viewer would not necessarily understand the licensing that the image is released under. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of an odd license to be releasing it under, if you don't mind me saying. Share-alike terms don't really have much relevance to non-digital image reproduction so it seems like the best you can leverage (apart form a monetary donation..) is a decent credit. Does it matter that viewers understand the licensing terms? Not being a digital copy, it's less important that "everyone who sees the mark will recognise it", unless you're concerned that the printed version might be copied elsewhere? The existing SA terms just don't work, so I'd release it under a normal non-exclusve single-use license, maybe get a descriptive byline (like your phone number or the url to your userpage or your name: always worth asking) but at a minimum get them to print © Diliff on it and be done with it. It's hard to put myself in your shoes without knowing more about the usage, but that's my 2¢ based on what you've said. --mikaul^talk 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, but I guess I like the fact that if someone is going to use a photo on Wikipedia and not be prepared to pay for it, the least that I can do is make perfectly clear to their intended audience that they have used a free license. If they're going to be cheap, then I want them to appear cheap. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds vindictive.. I'm really not! But I won't hide my displeasure at the idea of commercial use of my images either. I know that goes against the apparent ethos of free-content on Wikipedia, but so be it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. It's entirely up to you. If they don't want to pay it may be that they have no money, or will make no money once they cover costs, but I think you're right to insist that they adhere to the CC terms as closely as possible. It's tough second-guessing their motives; otoh if you can establish that they're using a number of CC images, maybe sourced here, you might gently suggest a small donation either to WP or the CC, who provide easy-to-follow links on their home pages for the purpose. FWIW, I'd be inclined to see this sort of thing as a profile-raising opportunity, no matter how insignificant it might seem. This is how free content "works" and I not only admire your zeal, I think you're doing the movement a service in sticking to it. --mikaul^talk 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspended nominations

Currently hosting three images, but no reason given for why they are suspended, who suspended them, or what needs to happen to get them unsuspended. Noms in the "additional input required" section have a brief comment for why. This needs to be provided for suspended noms too. --jjron (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is obvious from the contents of the debate, as in two of the three nominations. As for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lockstitch, there are concerns there that should probably be addressed for promotion. MER-C 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C, I tried to raise this discreetly with Papa Lima Whiskey, but apparently it needs to be stated openly. For a week and a half he has ignored my request that he move his off-topic commentary from one of the nominations currently suspended. See User_talk:Papa_Lima_Whiskey#FPC_3. In particular, compare the timing of my requests against his editing activity[10]. He was actively editing every day in March until 01:49, 7 March 2009[11], and I posted to his talk page on 02:13, 7 March 2009. Following that request he made no edits at all for six days, and he returned to make one edit only on the last day of the normal candidacy in order to oppose it.[12] He posted again to the candidacy on March 15, questioning a supporter,[13] while still neither complying with or responding to my post at his user talk--which by then he had obviously seen. So I posted a second time, requesting the courtesy of a reply, at 23:32, 15 March 2009. He had been editing steadily on March 15 up until 23:18, but went on another unexplained wikibreak for three days after I posted, and although he has returned he has not responded. Three days before this candidacy opened I posted Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Disruption above, which gives some of the background for concerns about his conduct. He openly admits that he can be overly sarcastic, and now it strongly appears that he is dodging me. If you discount his participation here as disruptive distraction, then the image would have been promoted long before now. Durova^Charge! 16:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that nom was ever actually suspended, but the points raised are still valid and relate directly to why a reason needs to be given - there are often several discussions in a nom, how do we know which one has made someone say "that needs further development"? We need to know why things are suspended (and don't forget it may be someone other than you, MER-C, who suspends it). And if it's always so obvious why things are suspended, explain this message from only a week ago from one our longest serving contributors who had no idea why his own photo was suspended... What's obvious to one person isn't necessarily obvious to all. --jjron (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. MER-C 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, in my first post to PLW's user talk I offered to answer his questions if he would move his off-topic memorial to retired Wikipedians, since that part really had nothing to do with the nomination. It looks very much that he stalled and evaded that reasonable request rather than comply with it, and in doing so successfully sank the nomination. What do fellow FPC reviewers suggest for that sort of thing in future? I have offered mediation, attempted discreet dialog, etc. As noted above, am on the verge of filing conduct RFC but really would rather resolve things amicably. It is indeed frustrating, after three quarters of a year, to put long work into limited supplies of historic imagery and watch this happen. Durova^Charge! 03:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've suggested to PLW a few times that you'll only continue discussion off the FPC page. IMHO that is the wrong approach - it makes it look like you've got something to hide and don't have any good responses, and others don't follow the discussion to see your rebuttal. I usually think it's better to keep those things in the open. Just my opinion. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a surprise to see that it looks that way. Other than asking PLW to move his off-topic memorial to retired Wikipedians, and offering mediation after multiple discussions veered off topic over histograms (debates which were primarily between PLW and two other contributors), what do you have in mind? There are times when it's appropriate to suggest branching a discussion to a different location; it keeps focus on the nomination. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your point, but it's a double-edged sword. Regulars may realise why you are asking to move the conversation, but to not-so-regulars it may look like you're trying to dodge the question/discussion as I suggested above. I know others have had serious discussions/disagreements with PLW on various of their noms, Fir and Diliff spring to mind, but I believe they've kept it on the page and ultimately I can't readily think of a nomination that is has 'sunk'. It's certainly true that those extended and at times OT conversations can have a knack of greatly reducing other contributions to the nom though. --jjron (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be very hard to tell for sure if nominations have been sunk, but I've been in chat with newcomers and heard how their voices sink when they see his posts. Makes it harder to grow the volunteer pool. Went to his talk page on exactly two occasions: once following a post he made to a Calliopejen nomination where he admitted he was being sarcastic, and this time. Efforts to resolve conduct problems without dispute resolution haven't worked, and if that's reached the point of diminishing returns then (ugh) RFC might really be necessary. Would welcome advice on any workable alternative. He does contribute productively sometimes. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More input please

More input in a few of my nominations here and here would be appreciated. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 06:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you can list such nominations on Template:FPC urgents. MER-C 10:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --Muhammad(talk) 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured/Valued picture series

The following proposal was made on WT:FP, a page that isn't read as much as we'd like. :)

Has there been any thought to creating a featured/valued picture series, which would be analogous to the featured/good topics?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have featured picture sets, for example Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Early flight 02562u.jpg. howcheng {chat} 06:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Though some oppose the idea and hence will oppose all such nominations. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more like a set of pictures that illustrates a series of articles. Suppose there were a set of individual images of the first family that were all FP/VP or a set of images of the Wonders of the World that were all featured. I did not mean a literal picture set like you showed, but rather individual images a that are nominated separately that form a set. That could encourage picture taking much like FT and GT spur editorial activity to complete sets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments? MER-C 11:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, by its necessity, it would be more loosely defined, but if I succeed in my goal for get an FP for every G&S opera, it'd be nice to have it recognised.

That said, we'd need to have reasonably strict rules on what kind of grouping merits the name of series. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the known factual errors in our largest existing featured picture set, I'm wary of the idea. We ought to screen what we have better before expanding that idea. Durova^Charge! 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What is being proposed is a separate featured content process, very much like FT. Each picture of a featured picture series will have to be nominated at FPC/VPC individually (and hopefully not all at once), then the group would be considered under a FPS nomination. The consequences for us will be increased volume and increased participation (which tends to mean lower standards) but hopefully we will get some serious reviewers out of this. MER-C 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the point of this. I also fear that FPC/VPC will be flooded with substandard images, and ring-in voters from various wikiprojects will drift in to mass support to "complete the set". The proposer of this has flooded Wikipedia:Picture peer review with about 40 of his own images in the last week and a half and seems to be struggling to understand what the projects are looking for - is this what we can expect to come out of this proposal? --jjron (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure the point is any more sensible than having WP:FT or WP:GT. However, both of those processes seem to inspire productive contribution. I will most likely have my third GT before Memorial Day and in each case I created several WP:GAs that I would not have to make a complete set. My objective with FPS would be to inspire the same productive effort. I am not a person likely to ever achieve an FPS or a VPS. However, I think the process would be good.

In terms of objecting because of a fear of ringers, reduced quality, etc. why not WP:AGF. You can halt any improvement to WP by creating fear of a perverse outcome. However, I think both FA and GA have benefited by the FT/GT system. I see no reason why FP/VPIC would not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow the GT/FT process (didn't even know they existed to be honest) but contributions of images and articles are not necessarily paralleled. Consider - if I want to create a FT for the seven ancient wonders I can go off and do research and get all the articles up to scratch. But for photos/images you can't necessarily do so, you have to work with what exists. For modern wonders, again I could go off and research, but to get photos I would have to do a world tour and get top photos of them all at just the right time. We see a bit of special pleading that "this is the best we're likely to get" at FPC at the moment, I can just see that greatly increasing when people are saying "we only need two more for the set, and we can't get any better". Call me a blocker or naysayer or whatever you want - and you may be right that it would work wonderfully well - but I've been around a bit and have to put the potential negatives out there. --jjron (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point. However, my first two GTs were "local" GTs. I did the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park, which is a topic about the most important park in Chicago, and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Washington Park, Chicago, which is an article about one of the four Chicago neighborhoods that will host the Olympic games if the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid is successful. It is where the proposed 2016 Olympic Stadium and 2016 Olympic Aquatics Center would be. In each case, I had a natural interest in creating at least half of the articles. When I realized I could get a GT I created the rest. Suppose I noticed I had FPs or VPICS for over half of either of these topics. I would likely go out and attempt to create pics for the rest if an FPS process existed. Currently, at Wikipedia:FT#Media you will see several topics that include articles that we can not yet expect GAs because they are situations where an upcoming season has an article already. In the case of Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Hockey League awards, It is expected that it could be years before a couple of articles could possibly pass review. The "we can't get any better" argument doesn't really screw up the process that bad. You just have to get strict. I think the first of my two topics would have several omissions as an FPS because they are works of art where no image could be eligible for review. The main benefit is the creation of good images where one would not have been created. My next GT is an example. I will likely do a GT for

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. I have already created

Manny Harris,

DeShawn Sims and

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball. However, I would not have taken the time to beef up

John Beilein had it not been for the GT process. Note that in this case, there are 12 non-notable team members who will not have articles. Thus, this is a series that has 12 "We can't get any"s which is even worse than 12 "We can't get any better"s. WP will soon benefited by getting an extra quality article. In fact, if I were doing an FPS on the team, I could have gone to the Michigan game against the Northwestern Wildcats men's basketball team here in Chicago in Feb to take any missing images. Yes there will be limitations, in cases where complete sets are not really possible. The best you can do is set good rules and change them to accomodate problems that arise through experience.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

N.B. In the case of 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, an FPS would require 15-18 images (players, coaches, and assistant coaches), although the FT only requires 5 articles. In some cases more images would be needed than articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some volunteers wish to create new image processes to parallel each of the article processes. In principle that's not necessarily a bad idea. But do we have enough knowledgeable people to fill all of those areas? Durova^Charge! 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are wondering what Jjron is talking about, have a look at the McCain nomination. The nomination was posted on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and ended up on several member user pages and other pages designed to increase participation. I count 3 supports and 0 opposes that wouldn't have happened otherwise. They are good faith editors yet I doubt (strongly) as to whether they are able to review images to the standard that FP requires. MER-C 13:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this point is that sometimes people WP:CANVASS and thus FPS would not work. If people canvass for FPs, that is not a statement againsts FPS. People canvass for FAs too, but that does not discredit the FT and or GT process. FPS has a better chance at integrity in fact because VPS requires consensus support whereas GA does not. Imagine a VPC process where any one person could promote the image and then imagine an FPS system where 2/3rds of the FPS could come from such a process. That would be a real problem. In this case the process is protected by the fact that VPICS require consensus as well as closing reviewer approval. It seems that the McCain pic might even fail to get the reviewer even if canvassing causes apparent support. I am not a picture guy and am just trying to be helpful. I think you might want to conduct an experiment and see what happens at least.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this proposal is that there's no particular endpoint for a lot of them. For instance Thespis (opera) has only four known contemporary images, and we have one FP from that, and the rest are decent but not great. But what if we looked at the incredibly popular H.M.S. Pinafore, where hundreds or thousands of images exist. Where would the Feature Picture Set end? If we decided to do a Featured Picture set on Gilbert and Sullivan, how would I choose which of the hundreds of images should represent Pinafore? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the "problem" you present. Are you saying that to get an FPS on G&S you would be required to clean up 100 images? Heck no. First a set would probably require at least three logical images, which is like a topic that requires at least three logical articles. As I understand Gilbert and Sullivan they are a group of two and thus would not be expansive enough for a set. Gilbert and Sullivan collaborations could be a logical set. It would require one VPICS or FP image from each collaboration that logially falls under this topic. I don't know if that is five, dozens or hundreds. If it is the latter then the topic is too broad for a set and would need to be narrowed into subsets of collaborations. For example, Madonna songs is too broad for a topic. A particular Madonna album and its songs would be a good topic. A Madonna song would be too narrow for a topic. Thespis might be too narrow a topic for a set. I think it would be too narrow a topic for a FT. I don't know that Thespis would be eligible for a set, but naming topics that are ineligible is not really a good way to analyze the proposal. There are a ton of topics that are not eligible either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an example higher up at this talk page of what some of us are talking about:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Aeronautics_featured_picture_set. A high resolution set of chromolithographs got published in the 1890s about early balloon aviation. Most of the events were over 50 years old when that set was published and some of the events were over 100 years old. Although they're meritorious in pure artistic terms, it appears on technical points that at least some of them contradict the known reliable sources and the contemporary illustrations. Will the urge to 'complete a set' lead to unacceptable compromises in quality? Durova^Charge! 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your point is that if an FPS system is not set up correctly it could compromise both FP and VPICS. I'll return to my examples of GTs. I have two or three articles that are GAs, that might not be were it not to complete a set and I know it. AT&T Plaza and Chase Promenade are weak members of my first GT. I am not so sure that either Schulze Baking Company Plant or Washington Park Court District would have passed if people were not aware I was shooting for a second GT. So yes reviewers may be a little lax. However, none of these articles would be more than a five line stub were it not for the GT process. Suppose we were to put articles on a scale where you hope quality of 75 out of 100 make GA but sometimes 65s make it and sometimes 85s fail, with a GT process you will find a lot of high 60s getting passed. However, without the process these articles would be 20s or 30s if not redlinks. That is how it really works. I don't think FT has the same problem because there is no pressure to promote something from GA to FA for sake of an FT, IMO, although I may be wrong. Thus, I think in truth you might find you get some 60s pics getting through VPICS for sake of a VPS. However, the project would probably be without pics for most of the subjects that are getting pushed through on the low side of the borderline. I think that is the truth. I think the project would be better getting a bunch of high 60s pics where none existed. Actually, I think my third prospective GT will be completely legitimate if it passes, BTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think each of the article four weak articles above resulted from GTC discussions, which essentially said if you want a GT you have to create these articles to complete the set. In each case, I was surprised I could get anything close to a GA quality article out of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST Review department

MER-C makes a cogent comment above, in a slightly different direction. Do FPC regulars resent the MILHIST review department? It's been my impression that the project's main response to FPC has been polite apathy. But if it's actually resented, ought to be discussed. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more on this please. As a MilHist coordinator, I have tried to start raising the project's awareness about relevant FPs (not just FPCs), but as a reviewer at FAC, I too am concerned about well-meant supports that may not address the relevant criteria for promotion. Is there a specific problem with MilHist supports, or are !votes from new faces raising concerns of insufficient familiarity with the criteria? Durova: on the related issue of "polite apathy" at MilHist (which is an apt description, if not too forgiving even), I broached this at your talk some time ago, and think it was missed in a flurry of other edits. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

So you did! There are drawbacks to having a high traffic user talk. Not sure what to do about that, actually. The focus of MILHIST is so text-oriented. If people wanted to join this they could start on World War II photos, which are relatively simple, and advance from there. If only there were willing hands, we could restore period maps from nearly every major battle of the American Revolution and American Civil War (a number of which are high resolution manuscript scans). That didn't spark much interest, so I don't know what would. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Durova makes a fair comment that milhist is text-content focused. I also suspect that since FAs don't require FPs, many editors would not see the point in going the extra mile. An interest in military history does not necessarily equate to an interest in military photos (for my part, I'd rather see a useful svg map or two that would aid my understanding of an article than a restored image that, while decorative, might not). However, it might be worth raising Maralia's proposal again after the elections? I'd try to help out if we get anything going, though my time is as limited as my restoration 'expertise' (basically cropping and applying the filters available in GIMP...) EyeSerene^talk 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a new page at Commons:Potential restorations. Under 'tinted lithographs' it has two very well preserved examples from the Crimean War. Haven't made a regular announcement of the potential restorations page yet; will post below in a few moments. Durova^Charge!

United States Twelfth Army position map, from the close of D-Day.

Regarding utility, there's a separate value to period maps as opposed to SVG graphics based upon the best modern research. Usually the commanders were not in possession of that much information and based their decisions upon estimates. Our period map of D-Day positions displays what was known at Allied headquarters at the close of the day. If you want to know where the troops actually were, other illustrations are superior. But if you want to know what information Eisenhower had at hand when he issued orders for the next day, it's quite powerful. The two matters each hold interest in different ways. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point (and a fascinating map!), though such maps might have a limited application in our articles unless our text is discussing those same issues. However, good-quality images have an innate value in themselves as well as adding value to the articles they're in, so per Maralia I hope we can try again to generate some interest at milhist in working on these. EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I read this is that our adding of FPCs to the milhist template is the issue since it promotes canvassing, but if that be the case then why was this issue not brought to MilHist's attention back when initially added. It sounds more like some people our upset that the process we use to inform others of content under review invites input from those who do not look at all possible details before lending a support or oppose !vote. 129.108.225.235 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, at the specific nomination mentioned above, two of the three MilHist editors that !voted appear to be at least semi-regular participants at FPC. If those individuals' application of criteria (or lack thereof) is a problem, perhaps they need to be addressed directly. If there is an ongoing broader issue, though, I'd certainly like to address it. Maralia (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the FPC process, but we regularly spam many review process noms to both the task-force and main project talk-pages at milhist. We are sensitive to giving the appearance of canvassing (the subject was raised recently here), but we've had no complaints that I'm aware of - as Roger says in my linked thread, "there's such a chronic shortage of reviewers it's difficult to know what else to do". I'd hope any problems are outweighed by the additional interest and reviews generated; no-one can ensure every !vote will be robust, whether it's come in via milhist or not. As Maralia says though, if there's a broader problem and it's something we can help to address, we'd like to know. Betraying my ignorance: does FPC have a director responsible for promotion, per Sandy and co at FAC? EyeSerene^talk 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C does most of the closing, but others do help, I think. 129.108.64.101 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Obviously I asked because if the closer is permitted some discretion, unsafe !votes can be appropriately taken into account when deciding on the review outcome, which (if it doesn't already happen) might be one way to address the issue. EyeSerene^talk 21:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with any WikiProject notification, impartial or not, which is designed to be seen by a lot of people (I picked on MILHIST because there was a current example). Problematic notifications include templates, general noticeboards and project talk pages. In MILHIST's case the ones I object to are the notice on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements and wherever it is transcluded e.g. Portal:War. (The review page is fine because it appears to have a limited audience.)

Here's another example: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg: posted on a project talk page => 4 project originated pretty picture supports.

There is no formal directorship, but I close 90% of the nominations. I exercise some discretion (I had to fail a 7/0 nomination recently) but probably won't be able to get away with it for an extended period or for egregious cases. MER-C 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume editors coming to you via our review page would be our regular reviewers anyway, so familiar with how to apply review criteria; I can understand why other less-informed input can be problematic though. I'm sure it's been raised before, but might it be worth appointing a director or two? Anyway, I've opened a thread on the milhist coordinators' talk-page (here); any interested parties, please feel free to comment ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to make the FPC criteria more prominent - at present editors need to go a bit out of their way to find them. It seems to be a bit wrong headed to worry about notifications attracting poor quality reviews given that the availability of reviewers shouldn't be taken for granted - surely its a better idea to provide editors who take time to review photos with guidance on the criteria they should consider. As an idea, have you considered using a nomination form where nominators have to explicitly state why they think that the image meets each of the criteria? This would act as a prompt for reviewers to also consider the criteria and would hopefully deter editors from nominating nice-quality snapshots because they didn't realise that very high standards apply to FPCs. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you'd be suggesting a template that had all nominators do a checklist along the lines of this current nom? But as with this nom, any time I've seen anyone fill out a nom in this manner, the nom almost invariably fails because it in fact doesn't meet all the criteria that have been ticked. I've wondered many times whether the criteria should be on the FPC page itself, rather than just linked from it, but to an extent the criteria can only give a guideline to what is required/expected here anyway. A fair bit of experience is required to really contribute effectively. As with this nomination, the nominator - not an FPC regular - has in good faith thought the image meets the criteria, which he's obviously checked quite thoroughly, but obviously none of the reviewers agree. IMO, it would greatly increase the work in creating a nomination for all users, most of the time all people would be saying would be 'yes it does' (how many time do you have to say your images have a free license for example?), and I honestly can't see it would have a great impact on increasing the quality of noms or votes from non-regulars. --jjron (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the checklist annoying, mainly for that reason. And besides, we're the only featured content process to have "read the criteria" in bold red text. I've thought about it a bit more - it's about attention to visual detail, which is one of the things we cannot easily impart using cluebats. MER-C 09:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed update and upgrade of the Commons {{Assessments}} template

It has been proposed that the Commons {{Assessments}} template be upgraded and updated. This is being done the right way (especially due to prior drama), such that everyone interested can have their say and no user will go off and implement this template against (or without) consensus. So, the proposal is that a new template be made which incorporates information about an image that the community deems useful. This will all be done in one template, similar to the current template. In a perfect world, I would like to see this template replace the current en:wiki FP template, which is redundant of the Assessments template. This version of the template will take into account the wishes and goals of local language wikis, which was not the case when the current version was created. This way, we can get many ideas flowing for the project and make it as universal as possible. Please visit and comment at the current ongoing discussion. Help may be needed with coding, so help from anybody with that background and the interest would be really appreciated.

On more of a side note, it should be noted that I went through all FPs on en:wiki and tagged them with the Assessments template if they didn't have it. There was mention previously that some users think the Commons template is redundant of our template here at en:wiki. I disagree. In working at the es:wiki, I've found it invaluable to use the Commons template since it is viewable at any/every other wiki, while the en:wiki template only exists here. One argument presented was that there are FPs here that are not at Commons due to copyright. This is true, but I only found seven (i.e. a local template can be made for these very few exceptions). I've been trying to keep up with newly promoted FPs, adding the template so all our FPs are tagged. I also moved every eligible FP to Commons if it was hosted here (see my list of completed work). This means if/when a new template is completed, a bot can retag all images currently tagged with Assessments, therefore covering almost all en FPs. Two things a Commons template can't do: add the FP star to the top corner of an en:wiki FP, and add an image to a category at en:wiki. To solve that, I would propose keeping the current FP template, but only using it to include the star and cat.

This is not a formal proposal of replacing the current en:wiki FP template, just a request for input at the Assessments template. When its replacement is up, running, and stable, hopefully we can have the conversation about decommissioning the redundant en:wiki template. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that hard work. There's something to be said for centralizing FP notations at Commons. Even if it doesn't help our own project specifically, it does make it easier for volunteers from other languages to find images that have been featured here for potential use at their own projects. If it helps other wikis and does us no harm, and you're willing to put in the legwork, then wonderful. Anyone see an objection? Durova^Charge! 06:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should continue to categorise images here, and to get that little star in the upper right is going to need a local template. That said, I've actually been considering suggesting adding a mention of tagging the images at commons as well as here to the closing instructions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that I have to watch the current archive to see when new additions are made, then add the template at Commons, it would be a breath of fresh air to me if adding the Commons template would be part of the closing procedure here. I'll point out that Spanish FPC (CID) doesn't have a local template, but requires the Assessments template be updated at Commons; so they don't even have the star or the category. But I'm still in favor of keeping them either way; just pointing out how another wiki does it. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can look into adding a task for DustyBot to take care of Commons template updates. Wronkiew (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Bots/Requests for flags/DustyBot. Wronkiew (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. Thank you. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential restorations

There's a new page at Wikimedia Commons for people who are interested in image restoration. It contains several dozen images that are suitable for novice to intermedite level restoration projects, all prescreened for quality and difficulty and uploaded with source documentation. Selections cover a wide variety of media and interests, with more coming. :)

To join, select a favorite image and remove it from the galleries. Sign at the bottom of the page with the filename of the image you've selected. Basic restoration tips are at a Wikiversity course, with more assistance available upon request. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Gasshukoku_suishi_teitoku_kōjōgaki

The bot removes delists from the Urgents template, so I'll put this here.

The image is scheduled to run on the 31st, so we kind of need to sort it by that date, if possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll look into adding delist processing in the next couple of days. Wronkiew (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. The delist nom is now included in the urgents template. Wronkiew (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

April Fool!

Hurry: express your opinions on the suggested MainPage featured picture candidates for April Fool's Day (April 1) at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Today's Featured Picture, or nominate other suggestions. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pity the chewing gum picture wasn't better (cbf taking another), it'd work pretty well, and its actually pretty informative imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added this picture to the nominations. --Muhammad(talk) 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)