Commons talk:Project scope

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.
Archives: 1, 2

Mass upload of self promotional pictures[edit]

What about pictures about a person or institution where each single picture may be considered to be within scope, but by the sheer mass the entirety of the images is clearly self-promotional? Specifically, I'm talking about the Category:Mason Ewing. More than 100 pictures in this category and its subcategories, showing this user at all possible occasions, or his drawings. In the past, I have registered the VRT release for most of these images. Now there are again three tickets in support for approval, and I have to say, in the meantime I feel abused for self-promotion in my work as a support agent. Any opinions on this?

Pinging @Ewing Mason, to give him the opportunity to comment..

Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this user seems to abuse Commons by promoting himself and their company. On the other hand, other famous businessmen/artists and their companies also have hundreds of photos... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems harmless to me. A marginally notable person, probably bordering on Wikipedia-notable. I think it would be reasonable to ask them not to do a lot more of this, but I don't think what we have is all that excessive. There are probably a few people or organizations at about that level of notability where I've done a couple of dozen photos. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused and naïve about this. The subject is apparently blind, so I can see perhaps a barrier to working with photos and/or uploading files here. But also seems to have his own account here, and the few photos I spot-checked are licensed with "Own Work". So I don't understand the burden to VRT in this case. Do we not allow most Commons users to upload "Own Work" without constantly hitting VRT? How is this a special case? Elizium23 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that perhaps Commons has a systemic problem of scale.
I can see that editors on Wikipedia encyclopedia-based projects generally get involved in improving and expanding articles, the discussions and stuff that go on to collaborate on the projects. It's very interactive and it seems enticing to want to become an administrator in that milieu, so it's likely that a certain percentage of good editors move on to become admins.
However, Commons has a completely different culture, and it's rather isolating. I can easily see plenty of Commons users just sort of interested in shoveling all their free photos onto the website without concern for what others are doing, with no sense of collaboration or community, and those users are unlikely to show any interest in volunteering or adminship.
Commons is a popular place but I've often hit bureaucratic backlogs and delays that indicate a dearth of active admins.
I'm sorry you have to deal with such things. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person has an article in 15 Wikipedias, so IMO it is sufficiently notable to have that number of pictures on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yann, although it should be noted that some of these article are automatic translations by the same user. However, I can't see his notability challenged in any Wikipedia, so he is notable enough to keep the images in spite of his promotion efforts.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the side point about his being blind, why would that be any kind of issue? Blind people have great technology for interfacing with computers and the Internet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, @Ikan Kekek, so if this user owns his own account and is uploading his own work, (although it seemed far more likely to me that photographs are the work of a sighted photographer, rather than a self-timer) why in the world does VRT even need to get involved??? Elizium23 (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few common probabilities here; forgive me for being inaccurate or insensitive to disability:
  1. Ewing takes all his own photos by self-timer and transfers copyright to his corporation. Ewing owns his own Commons editor account and uploads his own photos. This is the scenario which is indicated by the metadata they're providing. Commons:Username policy in fact requires that the owner of this account must be the person identified by that name, so presumably, Ewing has provided proof of identity to VRT as well.
  2. Ewing is photographed by third parties and they provide the photographs to him, assigning copyright to the corporation, whereby he uploads the photos here and uses COM:VRT to affirm copyright transference. This is not indicated by metadata, because no third-party "authors" are credited.
  3. Someone other than Ewing operates his Commons editor account and uploads photos on Ewing's behalf. COM:VRT is invoked as this person is a third party who affirms the proper transference and copyright, and right to upload said photos.
So, IMHO, something's not right here: either Ewing doesn't need VRT and shouldn't be burdening VRT with requests, or Ewing isn't being truthful about authorship/account ownership and we need to figure out why VRT is involved with this, if they doesn't seem to be necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think and didn't suggest that VRT needs to be involved. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello the whole Wikimedia team, I come here to clarify the situation about the pics I uploaded on the website.
  • First at all I begin at the beginning, how these pics have been taken. That’s a photographer under contract with me. Together, we determined I’m the author of the pics because I tell him what I want, the shots, the style, the place. Of course he advices me on the details (exposition balance, etc) but I take the decisions and he pushes on the button. For the whom who don’t know that, I have been a sighted person for a long time before to turn tragically blind. But I wanna precise I have a contract with this photographer and he doesn’t ask the be credited as pic’s author for the above reasons.
  • Concerning the uploading, the technology allows the disabled persons a great autonomy. That’s the same, even if some people can help sometime, I can manage a lot of aspects.

As Humanity and Inclusion ambassador, I intend to highlight that us, disabled persons wanna show to the world we can be independent. Make the same things as a sighted one is more reachable than you can believe. About the diffusion of the pics themselves on Wikimedia:

  • Fortunately, I’m far from upload all the pics I have. I don’t consider Wikimedia as a ad platform because if I wanna get ad with my pics, first at all I’ll use the provided platforms. The few I have on have been taken by photographers I don’t know.
  • Even if some ones can be surprised, I don’t flout about the Wikimedia Foundation’s community and collaborative minds. Due to my blindness, I cannot code articles, my vocal synthesis are limited. But I suggested articles to volunteers about persons marking the culture, like artists, athletes, politicians from Africa and Europe.

If I break the rules of Wikimedia, please apologize me but that’s not deliberately al all. On the other hand, I read your comments and I understand I upload so much. It seems more relevant to upload only the most important of them. Plus, I intend to highlight that the moderators of Wikimedia asked me this a day and I replied them. Finally I also wanna precise that if I put my own name of Wikimedia, that’s for transparency. For me, it seemed unwelcome to hide myself behind a pseudo/false account. I hope I replied to all your questions.--Ewingmason (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the legal intricacies of this, and this talk page is the wrong forum for hashing this all out, but if I understand correctly, this is not how Wikimedia Commons defines authorship of a photograph, but it definitely does explain why VRT is perpetually involved for every upload. Thank you for explaining. Elizium23 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage images[edit]

This has just made some poorly-worded policy worse. It now limits user images here to if you are an active, constructive participant on Commons. Which has a number of problems: it excludes those who are active on other WM projects but not Commons, and it also qualifies this to 'active' and 'constructive' editors. Editors may have been active at one time, but no longer - are their images to be deleted? Also 'constructive' is highly subjective and is formally undefined, because it's much too contentious to do so.

These might seem like small points, but this is a policy page, thus sets precedents. Can I now go through and delete all the user images for any editors whom I see as "too deletionist"? They're not 'constructive' in my opinion, and there's no better guideline to say otherwise! We already have enough problems with single editors re-writing policy pages in mid-argument to justify their 'case'. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically with Andy on this. If we want to elaborate the statement of when we do and don't allow images as a courtesy, I'd rather see that taken up on a separate page than to try to sort out a lot of subtlety here on something that is pretty tangential to the project at large. Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be broadened to any WMF wiki, but I don’t see any problem with the ‘active’ part: it says the uploading […] is allowed if you are an active […] participant (emphasis mine) – this means that you shouldn’t upload personal images if you’re no longer an active participant, but it doesn’t mean that your already-uploaded images can’t remain.
Constructiveness can (and should) be interpreted very broadly, only excluding people who do nothing but vandalize pages, do test edits, post spam etc. People who start deletion requests en masse without any grounds and any visible issues with the files/pages are not constructive, but people who create them with grounds that are not totally made up – however much you disagree with their reasoning – are constructive. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the section above, there is The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. Isn't that sufficiently clear? Yann (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on personal user pages of Commons or other projects is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on at least one project. This allows posting the images on Meta. The Meta user page appears on projects where users have no project-specific user page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's permissible wording because it's contradicted by another statement on this page, then it should be deleted as duplication. This is a policy page: it needs to state things clearly, completely and just the once. Duplication (and worse, partial duplication) is often as bad as omission. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that there's a contradiction elsewhere - COM:SPEEDY criterion F10 uses the wording "no constructive global contributions." This is significantly more permissive and, imo, preferable since it sidesteps the issues of "what about other projects" and "what if someone used to be active." It also avoids the issue of "constructive" being subjective because it's exceedingly unlikely that a non-vandal will have no constructive edits anywhere. At any rate, it seems strange that the wording on this page is narrower than the criteria for speedy deletion. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated (does not reflect current admin practices): policy amendment for in-scope exceptions[edit]

I suggest adding something like the below to the section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose":

Moreover, administrators can decide that an image is to be deleted despite being legitimately in use on another Wikimedia project site. Elaborating multiple specific realistic use-cases is also not sufficient for an image to be in scope if participants of a deletion discussion vote otherwise and a closing admin agrees. Subsequent undeletion requests can be rejected if the majority by headcount of participants vote for keeping the file deleted.

This is to reflect actions such as the deletion of these files and the rejection of their undeletion:

This seems to happening increasingly often with AI art against which there seems to be a bias. For example, a near-exact look-alike of this image was deleted despite the elaborated use-cases which may not be obvious when just briefly thinking about it (assuming we can and must always anticipate educational usefulness cases rather than realistic broad potential) as well as the most high-quality image for illustrating Category:Anachronism in art and fiction at the time. However, at the time it was not in use and no undeletion request was made. At the same time there seems to be a bias pro photographs where nearly everything is kept/not discouraged if at high-resolution even if no specific use-case is clear, there are countless photographs of the same, and no use-case gets elaborated in DRs. However, let's just focus on deletions that aren't compatible with current WMC policy here. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first example here seems rather tendentious. You added it as a second image to a Wikidata item that already had a longstanding image. Normal practice on Wikidata is to have only one image per item, and the [:File:Amazing stories 193702.jpg|existing image there] was certainly an appropriate one. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That image is low quality – low resolution and you can't even decipher what it's supposed to depict if you didn't know it beforehand. Also it's very old, doesn't necessarily look like insects, and is only a cover with text where a high-resolution image of such contents was previously missing and nicely complements it. It could probably also be useful in some Wikipedia article but why would Wikidata not be enough? It's educationally valuable, in scope, and rather unique here. Again if both neither realistical educational value (multiple have been specified) nor being in use does not matter, then the policy needs a change. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second example is beyond tendentious, into the realm of the laughable. No, these were not "high-quality medieval scenes". Leaving aside the six-fingered monarch and the based-on-roughly-nothing representation of Giovanna herself, they were at about a level suitable for illustrating a children's book, and to the best of my knowledge they were not in use by any other project (though I'm ready to stand corrected on that last point; am I wrong?). There was a strong (about 80%) consensus to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes some of these had, probably easily fixable, misgeneration issues. However, most didn't have and they weren't low quality when you compare it with other art that depicts such scenes in terms of various aspects such as within high-resolution modern/digital art. These images are not (only) about any person depicted in them despite the file/cat title. For example it can illustrate how AI art can be used to depict scenes of the past or long gone people where we only have very few (in this case one) image made during their lifetime depicting them.
So you are saying consensus overrides being in use. Again, this is not what this policy claims so it needs an update so that it means that votecounts are more important than that. However, I wouldn't call three votes (+admin) with refuted arguments "strong" consensus at all. And yes, like I said you are wrong on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we're not using user-generated AI art to illustrate historical scenes. There are serious accuracy problems with that – here is one example.
Still, I oppose the proposed policy change, because I agree with the current text of COM:INUSE: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." I think images should not be deleted as out-of-scope if they are in use on a content page of another project (except maybe some exceptional cases like obvious vandalism). —Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, certainly not in this case where it's not about specific historical scenes anyway but about artistic depictions of the past. Of course can there be accuracy problems. There can also be accuracy problems with paintings and images made with Photoshop. There clearly are accuracy problems here. However, the images are still useful. It's that people coming to this have one specific potential use-case in mind and then seeing how these images do not match their high standards for that particular usecase narrowly want it deleted. But it's not about that particular use-case(s) anyway / various assumptions are flawed. Secondarily, images that do not meet high standards can still be useful. For example: to illustrate how hamburgers are depicted in contemporary advertisements at high resolution, inaccuracy is not just common or an early fixable disclaimable issue but even required since in that case it's basically the whole point (and there was no such image before – it's different for subjects for which there are multiple equivalents). It's one thing to delete a few images out of a large set but another to delete few in-use ones so I don't see how that is possible with current policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was/is that the files were in use because Prototyperspective cynically decided to add them to other projects once it was clear no one agreed with that the files were eductional. Per the guidelines "The emphasis here is on realistic utility, either for one of the Wikimedia projects or for some other educational use. Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose. An image does not magically become useful by virtue of the argument that it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X, merely because X happens to be the subject of the photograph." Prototyperspective seems to under the false impression that them simply saying the files are eductional for "X purpose" or adding them to a sister project automatically makes them in scope. That's not how it works though. There needs to be a "realistic utility" and most people agreed there wasn't one. Partially due to the historical inaccuracy, but also because Commons just don't allow for amateur artwork by non-notable people to begin with. Again per the guidelines, "any use that is not made in good faith does not count."

That said, maybe you could argue there's a double standard when it comes to allowing for amateur photography but not artwork. That's a different discussion though and negate the fact that this whole is thing tendentious and bad faithed on its face. Especially since Prototyperspective knows COM:INUSE isn't a free pass or valid excuse to ignore consensus. Although I'd be open to discussing there being stricter rules around amateur photography, but I doubt Prototyperspective wants to do that and it probably wouldn't go anywhere anyway. That seems like the best way to balance things out if this is really such an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an admin, I usually strictly apply COM:INUSE, but of course I wouldn't necessarily see COM:INUSE as applicable if an image was added to projects in the course of a deletion discussion by a participant to make a point. Seems pretty obvious to me and I don't think that any policy changes / additions are necessary. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not added "to make a point". When specific realistic use-cases are elaborated and not addressed or even refuted afterwards as well as at least one of them implemented via the file being in-use, but the file is deleted regardless how would this be compatible with realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above scope delineations? It fails the scope definition twice. The files in use were few and the ant one was unique and the same deletion previously occurred for the only image sufficiently illustrating the modern concept of the category linked above and so on despite being a less notable subject). People just increasingly vote out by headcount various useful relatively unique images made using AI tool indiscriminately and without sufficient basis in policy and kind of ignore all realistic use-cases even when files are in use or when their later equivalents are in use. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every AI-generated image is "unique" given a sufficiently specific description of its contents. But that doesn't mean they're all useful. Omphalographer (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding the first sentence of the proposal. The other sentences are unnecessary and Commons doesn't work by voting anyway. Nosferattus (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely oppose that sentence "Moreover, administrators can decide that an image is to be deleted despite being legitimately in use on another Wikimedia project site". That would open a can of worms. There is one exception to COM:INUSE, that is copyright concerns, and this is already clear enough. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. As someone who supported the undeletion requests, this is just disrupting the Commons to make a point. COM:INUSE only applies to good-faith uses. At the time, I made a mistake and came to the conclusion that, despite your bludgeoning, your additions were good-faith uses, and supported the undeletion request on that basis. Based on your subsequent conduct, and reconsidering my view of your prior conduct, I am forced to conclude that these were not, in fact, placed in good faith, and rather that they were placed either to 'save' an image from deletion without considering the appropriateness of the placement or make a larger point about AI images. Prototyperspective: you need to drop the stick. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I see no evidence that current practise is out-of-alignment with policy, nor do I see evidence of a genuine issue requiring a policy change. Current policy requires a file be "legitimately in use." An advocate of retention slapping an unused image into a sister project during a scope DR is not legitimate--there are numerous DRs with this finding and, as a symmetrical corollary, the inverse of removing an image to influence deletion is equally illegitimate. Alternatively stated: changing an image's use to influence the outcome of a scope-related DR is not legitimate vis-a-vis INUSE. Such gaming is nothing but a disingenuous ploy, a failure to appreciate the spirit of assessing dispassionate measures of educational use. Discussions here and elsewhere suggest that the flaw lies not with policy or practise, but with Prototyperspective's (mis)understanding of "legitimate" and (in)ability to listen to the many contrary opinions. Эlcobbola talk 23:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All fine but one thing is not true at all: I did listen to the contrary opinions and directly addressed them. Besides elaborating unaddressed realistic usefulnesses, one thing I asked is simply why it would be fan art which simply wasn't answered.
    While changing an image's use to influence the outcome is not clear from the current policy phrasing, that's not what has been done; nevertheless your earlier elaborations make sense, contain good points that refer to policies, and I hope we can agree to disagree on how educational use is assessed in regards to the spirit of this policy as it's currently written. Probably last comment of mine here. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Project_scope&oldid=861767889"