It is an example of Wikipedia editors forgetting that the vast majority of Wikipedia use is at the hands of non-editors who have no idea what "No free image" means. "Do you own one?" Please. Ugly image. Ugly idea. Let's put an end to it. --AStanhope07:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they won't. The page they click through to has no meaning whatsoever to the average Wikipedia user - not editor. Somebody needs to build a bot to strip the confusing eyesores from every article in which they appear. --AStanhope (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the intent is for it to be used as a placeholder in infoboxes as well as helpful in informing casual readers who are likely already interesting in the person that if they have a photo they can upload their own. That seems doubly useful to me. DoubleBlue (Talk)00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that probably close to 0% of non-editor Wikipedia users who click through to such an article will be willing/able to prepare and upload such a picture, including, don't forget, proper licensing justification. Encouraging non-editors to upload photos always results in copyright issues. --AStanhope (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging people to edit the wiki always results in vandalism, copyright issues, trolling and so forth. Your argument isn't one, and is fundamentally at odds with the fact that Wikipedia is a wiki - a placeholder encourages participation the same way "Edit this page" does. And the image patrolling (see below) is a heck of a lot easier - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think these no free image boxes are lame. I highly doubt that they will do anything more than cause more copywrited images to pop up on articles which will then have to be removed. This is just a headache for every editor out there and I hope we get rid of them sooner than later.Nrswanson (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this image (male also) should be used everywhere that there is no image. There are a great number of articles on historical figures (pre-1900) where advertising for a non-free image adds clutter and gives the impression that one exists but we just haven't found it. — ERcheck (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC
How do we start a vote to shut down this and the male equiv? This takes Wikipedia down from a quality encyclopedia, all the way to a cheesy webpage. No picture is better than this horrific picture that says "Wikipedia is Hokey". Hopquick (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either find free content images for all these celebrities or convince the Wikimedia Foundation to repeal their rule against "with-permission" images (publicity photos). — Omegatron23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove the IFD tag; IFD has been closed as borderline disruptive (the strain on the servers will be enormous if it was deleted). Will(talk)15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this actually is useful or not is up for debate (current rules - subject to change with the winds - have rendered it impossible for most users to respond to the request), but the silhouette to be blunt looks stupid. I would much rather a simple grey box be used instead. Plus it's also factually incorrect to use a female silhouette or articles on male subjects. The idea behind it isn't the issue, it's the poor execution. Lose the image; it's not needed - the text is sufficient to get the message across for those five or six editors who are actually able to comply. There is no need for this placeholder to incorporate any image of its own. 23skidoo (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the type of box you get on HMS Trenchant (S91) isn't much of a improvement. If you see a female silhouette on a male bio change it. The number of editors able to comply appears to have been far higher than three so far.Genisock2 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the note in the image box in the HMS Trenchant article is not ideal. It says that their is no picture available. In fact, it might be the case that there are no images uploaded to Wikipedia, but images do exist. — ERcheck (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So all women have hairstyles like that now? Boo. We are in the 21st century, and it is sexist and culturally insensitive and even ethnocentric to suggest that not only should we have a different image placeholder for women than for men, but that it should look like this with that 1950s housewife hairstyle. I know other websites do the same, but Wikipedia is not "other websites". Even Youtube has generic figures for people who have not uploaded profile pictures, if Youtube is past sexism, Wikipedia should be lightyears ahead. --24.251.67.67 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our male pic (initially our only pic) drew complaints when used for women and our gender neutral option Image:Replace this image1.svg has never had wide popularity. You complain about hairstyles but are you suggesting as our gender neutral image would that everyone has a precisely oval and shaved head?Genisock2 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kleinzach! I am not aware of the Biography Project being involved in the rogue decision to start including these images. It appears to be a well-intentioned but sadly misguided project taken on independently by a small group of users. I feel very, very strongly that the use of the image is wasteful and counterproductive. First, there is no requirement for every article to include an image. Second, these "no free image" placeholder images in the absence of real images are ugly. Third, "No Free Image, Click Here if you Own One" is meaningless to 99.9% of Wikipedia users - and probably 95% of Wikipedia editors. Those people who understand that what a "free image" constitutes don't need the silly "no free image" placeholder to remind them. I would like to see a formal project enacted to remove these dumb images from everywhere they appear within the Wikipedia. Surely the editors who are responsible with placing them on misc. bio pages could use their time to perform far more valuable and important tasks here on the Wikipedia. --AStanhope (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The opposition to these graphics seems clear and well-articulated. Can we hear from pro-graphic editors? Can someone answer the questions I've asked? Also is AStanhope correct in saying that only a 'small group of users' are involved? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1)no wikiproject was involved. 2)No closest would be Wikipedia:Fromowner_documentation#Notes_on_use 3)male would be ultimately derived from the work of Linda Salzman Sagan. Female head would be the work of editor at large. Created to deal with complaints about the male head in female bios.4)Image is an SVG so talking about size doesn't make a hudge amount of sense. Nominal size is 150*150px which is rather less than the default thumb size. 5)it isn't.Genisock2 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about an image with a punch? I think that use of images such as this is obnoxious and stupid. But hey, if you disagree and want one, why not do it in style? Hoary (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]It's odd to talk about enacting a project (starting up a bot, maybe?), but otherwise I agree with Astanhope. I'm puzzled by the opposition further above to this particular silhouette: IFF you're going to have a generic "Replace me!" image, then this silhouette strikes me as actually rather good: it clearly announces its own stupidity. But a generic "Replace me!" image is indeed a dumb idea, as Astanhope says. -- Hoary (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another vote for removing the image (along with the male version) or placing it only on talk pages. It doesn't convey anything about the subject of the article and it is more confusing than anything for most readers. -- Myke Cuthbert(talk)06:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also opposed to this image (and its male counterpart). I think we should always think of what we are doing from the point of view of the random reader who visits our site, and not our own convenience. A Wikipedia reader who stumbled on this image would naturally think it was ugly and pointless, and would wonder why WP editors can't keep their dirty laundry in private. Opus33 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
imdb has a lot of ads, logos and yellow buttons. The 'No Photo Available' picture doesn't look out of place amongst all of them. Here at wikipedia, the garish ghost head image really dominates an article when its present.DavidRF (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a world beating collection of stub notices and article tags. And again there don't appear to be any complaints from readers.Genisock2 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we waited for "complaints from readers" then the quality of this encyclopedia would be quite low. (Plus, I'm a reader and I'm complaining!) The maintenance tags are extremely subtle compared to a giant garish ghost head! The tags also often serve to warn readers that are new to wikipedia that the content on the page may currently under be debate. On the other hand, the "garish ghost head" doesn't single readers that anything is wrong with the article at all. The big head reminds me of the ugly cartoons that high school yearbooks would use for seniors who didn't have their senior picture... serving to punish kids for not showing up on photo day and also serving to motivate future classes to not make the same mistake. We should [ed: not] do that to people here. Imagine being a noteworthy person, being told that you have a wikipedia article and then seeing the giant ghost head dominating the page. Anyhow, that's my rationale for voting "oppose". DavidRF (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are dealing with a style issue more than a content issue with people repeatly commenting on impact on readers. Garish would generaly imply high contrast colours which none of the placeholder images posess. The head isn't giant it is 150*150. The size in it appears in articles tends to be based on infobox defaults or your preference settings. We do not write articles for the benifit of their subjects and well they are free to create a free image should they wish to. We get a fair number of free uploads through the system that we would not otherwise have got. Find a way to get more and we can consider changes.Geni22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to suspending any further use of this graphic or any other graphic (male, female, or unisex) inviting replacement by another graphic in any article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as originally stated. I think the objections given above are stated clearly and are important. Geni/Genisock2's casual, almost glib responses fail to convince me. Opus33 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
objections may be well stated but since they appear not to be based on evidence they have little weight.Geni01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recognise the authority of any vote on this page to make such a delaration. Make a logical and evidence based case for your position on the image.Geni00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that such a vote carries authority and of course you may do what you feel is right. However, as a matter of Wikipedia:Etiquette I think a brief obstain would be beneficial for the purposes of this discussion, regardless of its ultimate outcome. It is simply a matter of respecting other people. Ultimately Geni, if you are right then you will get to add and keep adding as many free image tags as you want. Of course no one can make you do it.Nrswanson (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the account is called genisock and both userpages say it is my sock it is probably fairly safe to assume that both accounts are mine yes. I use genisock2 for processing uploaded images so it doesn't flood and make useless the contribution history of my primary account. This use is well known and widely accepted. Since the relisationship between the two accounts is completely open this is not regarded as a problem.Geni01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not well-known by me. You used both usernames in the discussion above giving the impression that two different users were commenting. That is a problem. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry are you suggesting that it didn't occure to you that an account call "genisock2" might be a sock of a user called geni? Don't userpage page comments like "my sock.Geni 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" give a further hint? Okey perhaps I don't know you missed all of that. Not a problem we have a fallback User:Geni#My_socks. If anyone missed all those hints I don't think I can help them.Geni01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well most people work it out from the usernames so the userpage comments are only backup really. If people get confused and don't make even the minimum effort to work things out there isn't much I can do.Geni01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unnecessary? You have a better way to get readers to upload free images? As for the apearence well nothing stopping you or anyone else from provdeing a better one. For the time being it appears to be the best we have.Geni01:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my better way is patience. But if you want to sock it to the readers (at least for slebs and others who hang around waiting to be photographed), then you could always use my new image (see above). -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
patience? groovy so you will be patient while we wait for the placeholder to be replaced by a free image?Geni03:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I agree with Geni. Also, as I stated several months ago above, it is doubly useful as a placeholder in infoboxes and helpful in informing casual readers who are already interested in the person that if they have a photo they can upload their own and contribute to improving Wikipedia. Further, since they have been placed on pages by someone, I would argue that the person who added it thinks it is useful and, if it stays, then no one has seriously objected. I think the image is perfectly fine as a placeholder but if you can make a better one, great. I have seen some pages that make this image too big and that can be corrected by changing the "image width" or "image size" parameter in the infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk)02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images are always up for being made less garish. I've actually been replacing some absolutely hideous placeholder images with the less garish washed-out versions (which is quite different from adding new ones) - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The placeholder does violence to articles and makes them appear silly and amateurish. The lack of a photo (and the "reqphoto" tag on the discussion page) makes it apparent that a photo is needed. Badagnani (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - There are compelling objections to the image, though the accompanying technology (simplifying image uploads) seems compelling. I believe the best course of action is to suspend the placement of the image, broaden the discussion, and seek a wide and meaningful consensus regarding future action. -Pete (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it distracts from the content of the page(s) rather than adds to it. Coming close to vandalism, in my opinion. - fchd (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, if only because the system demonstrably works — as one can see by browsing Category:Images replacing placeholders and its subcategories. There does seem to be a small but persistent set of people who vehemently dislike these images, but I've seen no real indication that the average reader would mind, at least not enough to offset the clear and tangible utility of having more free images in our articles. I do think it would be worth exploring alternatives and improvements to this system: one possibility that comes to mind is that, since most infoboxes already make heavy use of ParserFunctions, it might be possible to introduce a special parameter value (like "image = MISSING") that replaced the image with an unobtrusive text link to the upload wizard. The link could even be marked invisible when printed using CSS, just like section edit links and such are. However, I see absolutely no need to suspend the current working system while such improvements are developed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real evidence that these Images replacing placeholders do in fact increase the number of useful pictures uploaded to Wikipedia. On the other hand there are serious concerns that these placeholders detract considerably from articles and are generally a waste of space. Wikipedia should not look like a billboard. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit clash with S.dedalus] Let's refine the cat and look instead at Category:Images of people replacing placeholders. I see a pile of photos there. One surprised me: if it wasn't taken with a large-format camera, it was photoshoplifted to look that way. Copylefted, too. But look further and you see that the right of the self-described author to claim it as theirs is questioned. I looked at several more; a number were good, but most of them were uploaded by the people photographed -- couldn't they have been contacted in other ways? (Such requests are made.) At least one photo is unlinked, perhaps meaning that it's in the wrong category, perhaps that it was for a page subsequently deleted. I wonder how many images we are looking at that are welcome and that wouldn't have been uploaded in the absence of the nagging graphic. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit better, but when I see how many of these aren't even of people, I wonder about the filtering. (There are also some huge files of dubious merit. If server space and bandwidth are that cheap, why does Wikipedia routinely appeal for more dosh?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filtering is copyright based only. The file size isn't a problem since most people don't look at the large version. The problem is more than when you get the kind of traffic wikipedia does even fairly small pages rapaidly add up to a lot of server load and bandwidth.Geni11:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The image is a classic case of editors forgetting that the Wikipedia is used daily by millions of regular folks - our moms and dads. "No Free Image, Click Here if You Own One" is meaningless to 99% of the people coming to the site. For the tiny percent of editors that DO understand what it means, they already understand that they can upload a free photo if they happen to "own one." There's no requirement that every biographical article include an image of the subject. --AStanhope (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The image looks like (and acts like) an advertisement, and it has no place in Wikipedia articles. Similar images are often used on commercial sites like Flixter.com and pipl.com. The visual resemblance has an effect on how readers perceive Wikipedia. When I see the image, my brain associates it with similar images I've seen elsewhere, and my subsconscious thinks, "This must be a generally unhelpful, unprofessional, flimflam website." Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about all those edit links all over every page at Wikipedia? This is the nature of the project; we are asking everyone to help out. If you think that's unprofessional, you're right; that's the point of Wikipedia. DoubleBlue (Talk)21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Wikipedia is about, thank you. Do you really want to make the argument that there's no visual difference between this image & the "edit this page" links? One looks like an ad, one does not. One uses the symbolic visual language of tacky for-profit commercial sites, the other uses the symbolic visual language of a welcoming and cleanly designed people-powered encyclopedia.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I did not intend to be condescending in the least. The point I wanted to make is that we encourage people to participate and improve articles and I think an "add free photo" link is a good thing. If you can improve the symbolic visual language, please do so; the underlying idea, however, goes with the Wikipedia philosophy, IMO. DoubleBlue (Talk)23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I do hear your point, and I agree that the underlying idea is in keeping with Wikipedia philosophy. I'm just not sure that this image (or any similar image) is a good practical application of that philosophy.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm torn. 99.99% (99.999999%?) of users will not benefit from this image or have a free image to contribute. It's basically asking our readers for help, and unfortunately almost all WP free image work is done by experienced editors. How many dial up modem readers should be inconvienced so that we can get a few more free images? There is a ratio that's acceptable but I have no idea on whether or not we're above or below it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - this image does actually work to get free content images, and to hammer home that free content is what we're about (per the Foundation's stated mission). An article on a living person with no picture is in fact incomplete, and pretending it isn't doesn't make it so - Wikipedia remains a work in progress. It does not lead to wikiprojects dealing with a flood of copyvios (from the innocent; the malicious are malicious anyway) as they go into a holding category for dealing with. Other projects are working on similar initiatives for the same reason. I certainly have no plans to stop - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: David, your argument is a straw man. I don't think anybody has said that "articles without photos are complete." We all agree that new pictures improve articles; and I think we all agree that your desire to do so is commendable. The question, though, is whether this particular technique is an acceptable way to seek them. (Of course, this is something we should discuss later, as the present question is merely whether to interrupt the additions pending a more thorough discussion.) -Pete (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to David Gerard: At the moment you are using AWB to post this graphic on a large number of articles. Do you intend to continue doing this even though the majority of editors here (and it is now 12 to 3) ask you to suspend the work pending a thoroughgoing, centralized discussion? --Kleinzach (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find an obscure unpublicised straw poll I heard about under an hour ago compelling, no. I've now been avoiding things when a wikiproject asks nicely. Start the centralised discussion and actually publicise it, I'd suggest - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give this proposal at least another two or three days so people have a chance to express their opinions. In the meantime we can think about the best place to have the centralized discussion. (As for publicizing it - I hope we can avoid the usual charges and counter-charges of canvassing etc.) Meanwhile I see you have posted the graphic onto another 25-odd articles. Editors here may regard that as disruptive. Please wait until we have gone through the process of trying to solve this problem.--Kleinzach (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, what's the downside of holding off for a few days? If the discussion goes in favor, you'll have a new and convincing consensus to point to when you get questions from other editors about the graphic. If the discussion goes against, then we'll have less work to clean up. I recognize you're just trying to improve the encyclopedia, but what's the rush? Where would you propose the centralized discussion be?Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Wikipedia articles are unfinished, messy things, and reminding our readers of this is no sin on our part. Encouraging their participation, on the other hand, is a wise move on our part. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per the summary by AStanhope. Although images of subjects are a positive addition they are not essential and I am against having ads on articles. Also there are many historical figures in history where no photographs exist and placing no image adds on such articles is frankly pointless. I do think placing a note on talk pages would be a good compromise. Also in response to "wikipedia articles are unfinished, messy things" my comment is they shouldn't be and that is what tags are for. Otherwise what are we all doing on here? However, the lack of a photo is not really a weekness in my opinion but a nice addition that isn't really necessary. And from the looks of this discussion most wikipedia editors find these no image tags to be a pain. Also, if the tags are kept, I would suggest something much less obtrusive like a normal size and shaped tag. Many wikiprojects oppose the use of info boxes so I don't think info box shaped tags should be used.Nrswanson (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNrswanson makes some excellent points here. Note that if we pick up a physical copy of a competing "brick and mortar" encyclopedia such as the Britannica, many hundreds of articles do not carry a picture of their subject. This is particularly true with historical figures for which no photographs exist. I'm not certain that soliciting an image for EVERY ARTICLE is a good idea in the first place, let alone how we go about it. Furthermore, let's be honest with ourselves. How many regular users, non-editors like our dear moms and dads, are going to see the "No Free Image - Click Here if you Own One" solicitation, understand it, click through then actually produce, upload, properly tag and place an image that satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for free and clear copyright for the use of images? There are experienced editors who spend ALL OF THEIR TIME here removing images that fail all copyright tests AND WERE UPLOADED IN GOOD FAITH. Come on, folks - it's time to stop this silly practice. It is very encouraging to see that most comments here tend towards eliminating ill-considered images and their placement. --AStanhope (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - the image simply encourages any user with an image to contribute that image to the project. It's not advertising, but an integral part of our mission to compile and disseminate free content and knowledge, and it's absolutely no different to the Special:Upload button to the left side of most pages, the Login/Register link at the top of a page or the Edit Button on the top of most articles.
Disagree – we encourage contributions from casual readers in many ways, this is just one, and they aren't ugly in themselves. It just says "we don't have a picture to put here, but we wish we did; want to help?" SamBC(talk) 15:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the image ends up staying, is there any way it can be made much smaller? Maybe 40x150 with text only (or button text). Perhaps simply "Click to Add Free Image" or something. My main objection to the image is the relatively large size and cartoonish image.DavidRF (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Damaging the appearance of article pages is not the way to handle the lack of photos. Article talk pages might be used or a project could be set up which maintains lists of pages in need of free images of individuals.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree It's so ugly that it is distracting; when I see it I tend to associate the entire article as being low-quality without a lot of solid editing; particularly on LPs. I know this is probably unfair but it's a reaction I have. CredoFromStarttalk18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We bedeck our articles with confusingly located "[edit]" tags, convoluted headnotes, images that don't work the way you expect them to, occasional unexpected metajargon, and garish messageboxes. I'm not entirely sure that the no-free-image placeholder (which has the redeeming feature of clearly being a placeholder) is somehow the weak link in our UI, or that removing it would actually help much. Shimgray | talk | 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It seems to work. It gets more people involved in Wikipedia. It lets us collect more free content. The stylistic objection is relatively weak in comparison. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I dislike it when others add this or any similar "replace me" image to articles that I work on. I think they look bad, it makes the article look unprofessional, it detracts from my contributions to the text. I think it violates WP:SELF, it is refering to the editing of the article, which should be discussed on the Talk page of the article instead. Why not just put a "Reqphoto" photo request in the Talk page of the article? P.S. By the way, I arrive here because notice of this discussion was posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Placeholder images. doncram (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree At this time, based on the statements that it works. Do we happen to have any metrics on how well its working? Lawrence § t/e22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be useful to have this information. Specifically, how many articles have the graphic (with or without an infobox), and how many usable and unusable images have been uploaded as a result of having it. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Removing it because some people think it "looks bad" isn't convincing. Tags like {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}} damage the appearance of articles more than this placeholder ever could. Most people who read those tags won't clean up an article or add references, but that's no excuse to remove it. A pic of a living person plays a big part in an article. If 300 people read an article and only one adds a free pic, it would've been worth it. Spellcast (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notices about lack of references, potential copyright violations etc. do convey useful information to readers, the placeholder does not. Some other tags like 'cleanup' and 'wikify' might well be better on the Talk page but the subject of this discussion is the placeholder graphic and its prominence at the top of the article - not the tags. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spellcast, there are three significant differences:
First, most of the templates you mention concern violations of policy or important guidelines that need to be addressed with some urgency. The lack of a photo is unfortunate, but is not as critical as a lack of citations, an article that broadly disregards WP:MOS, or an article with extensive NPOV violations.
Second, the templates you mention are minimalistic in appearance, and take up little real estate; in many cases, they are included in subsections, and do not impact the first impression of the article. These images, on the other hand, draw attention to themselves with an image that bears no resemblance to the subject of the article beyond a vague nod to the person's gender. Some consider it undue attention.
Third, I am not aware of anyone engaged in a software-assisted drive to add those templates to a significant portion of the articles on Wikipedia. In general they are added as a result of a specific editor's judgment of a specific article.
Finally, the doncram's observation above, that this template may violate WP:SELF, is a compelling one. This guideline reminds us to consider print and offline versions of Wikipedia in our edits; this image serves no purpose in such cases. -Pete (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - We have a huge number of tags, templates, and images that we use like this to indicate when our articles need work. We're not ashamed of the way our site works, and we want people who read our articles to contribute in any way that they can. Until the Wikimedia Foundation repeals their rule banning publicity photos of living people, this is one of the only ways we can get images of them. — Omegatron (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I personally think that those of you who think these tags will lead to a significant amount of legally viable photos are wrong. These tags will attract non-editors to wikipedia but most of these people (due to their inexperience) will probably add photos that are illegal. New wikipedia editors are notorious for making such mistakes. In fact I'm sure all of us made many errors when first joining the community. So I really just see this as a massive headache for those of us who have to delete copywrite violations. As for recruiting more editors, I am sure there are better ways to do it without having massive ammounts of illegal photos uploaded.Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The system has a specialized upload backend built into it that makes it possible to filter the uploads. So far filtering has not really been a problem and we've picked up a bit over 400 free images.Genisock2 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I find these images to be a great reminder, even for established editors. Whenever I see one, I hop over to flickr and do a quick search. Just tonight, I spotted the "replace me" image on Curtis Stone, searched flickr for an image, found one under an unacceptable license, contacted the flickr owner, had them switch it to a free license, and added it to the article. I am completely against suspending the use of these images, as I know they are effective. - auburnpilottalk03:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One user editor was undecided: Peregrine Fisher, and one editor Geni / Genisock2 did "not recognise the authority of any vote on this page to make such a delaration" [sic].
Those who agreed with the proposal described the following issues:
1. Placeholders are contrary to WP:SELF: "violates WP:SELF" Padraic / " . . . violates WP:SELF . . . refering to the editing of the article, which should be discussed on the Talk page of the article instead." doncram / " . . . [the] observation . . . that this template may violate WP:SELF, is a compelling one. This guideline reminds us to consider print and offline versions of Wikipedia in our edits . . ." Pete
2. Placeholders look ugly and amateurish: "It's so ugly that it is distracting" CredoFromStart/ "ugly and pointless" Opus33 / "unnecessary and ugly" S.dedalus / "they look bad, it makes the article look unprofessional, it detracts from my contributions to the text." doncram / "does violence to articles and makes them appear silly and amateurish" Badagnani
3. Placeholders are ineffective and meaningless to the general reader: "more confusing than anything for most readers" Myke Cuthbert/ "distracts from the content of the page(s)" fchd / " 99.99% (99.999999%?) of users will not benefit from this image or have a free image to contribute." Peregrine Fisher / " "No Free Image, Click Here if You Own One" is meaningless to 99% of the people coming to the site." AStanhope
4. Images are not essential to articles: "There's no requirement that every biographical article include an image of the subject." AStanhope / " Although images of subjects are a positive addition they are not essential" Nrswanson / " . . . if we pick up a physical copy of . . . encyclopedia such as the Britannica, many hundreds of articles do not carry a picture of their subject." AStanhope
5. Advertising is bad: "we should keep ads out of articles." cygnis insignis / "The image looks like (and acts like) an advertisement" Northwesterner1 / "I am against having ads on articles" Nrswanson
6. Use will encourage copyright violating photos: "likely to result in copyright violating images" Padraic / "These tags will attract non-editors . . . but most of these people . . . will probably add photos that are illegal." Nrswanson
Those who disagreed with the proposal described the following benefits:
1. Placeholders are informative: "helpful in informing casual readers who are already interested in the person that if they have a photo they can upload their own" DoubleBlue
2. Placeholders are effective at soliciting images: "system demonstrably works" Ilmari Karonen / "this image does actually work to get free content images" David Gerard / "an integral part of our mission to compile and disseminate free content and knowledge" (anon.) / "It gets more people involved in Wikipedia." Rspeer / "Effective in eliciting donations of images." Matthew Brown (Morven) / " If 300 people read an article and only one adds a free pic, it would've been worth it." Spellcast / "I find these images to be a great reminder, even for established editors." AuburnPilot
3. Placeholders are consistent with the nature of WP: "we encourage people to participate and improve articles . . . the underlying idea . . . goes with the Wikipedia philosophy" DoubleBlue / "this image does . . . hammer home that free content is what we're about" David Gerard / "Wikipedia articles are unfinished, messy things, and reminding our readers of this is no sin on our part." Phil Sandifer / "I'm not entirely sure that the . . . placeholder . . . is somehow the weak link in our UI . . ." Shimgray / " Wikipedia articles are unfinished and it doesn't hurt to say so." Matthew Brown (Morven) / " We have a huge number of tags, templates, and images that we use like this to indicate when our articles need work." Omegatron
4. Placeholders are essential for obtaining images: " An article on a living person with no picture is in fact incomplete" David Gerard / "articles on LPs are incomplete without images" Sceptre
I hope that is a fair summary of what has been said above. I've tried to get to the essential ideas that have emerged through this initial discussion so we can all try to understand each other's arguments better.
Thank you again to all of you who took part in this discussion.
Those involved in putting the image placeholders on article pages (with only one known minor exception) respected the views of those who backed the proposal. They stopped distributing it during the course of the discussion. Many thanks for that. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a policy tag to this page sense I couldn't do it to the template directly. I personally think those advocating this tag are trying to set new wikipedia policy without including the broader community. That concerns me, and hence the addition of the policy tag. I have also made a note about this debate on the wikipedia community portal.Nrswanson (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been considering how best to start a full centralized discussion about this problem. How exactly does the policy tag work? Can you give links as necessary? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest I am not sure. I have never had to add one before. lol But it is the next step listed on the arbitration ladder before mediation. The template says it's aim is to provide community wide attention. Template:RFCpolicy listNrswanson (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think RFC is the way to go -- no need to go to mediation when everyone is being perfectly civil. I would hope that we could get agreement to pause the addition of the template, considering the strong support for that position, before entering into RFC? For my part, those adding the template (David G and...others?) could agree to that, it would conclude this phase nicely and set the right tone for the next phase of discussion. -Pete (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put Pete. I have also put in a request to unprotect the page so that important tags can be added directly to the article.Nrswanson (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's quite accurate to say anyone's trying to set new policy. But the campaign to add the image to biography infoboxes affects a very large number of Wikipedia articles, making the issue worthy of a well-publicized debate.
It seems to me that those of us requesting that broad debate are not really familiar enough with the RFC procedures to do a proper nomination or proposal. Is that accurate? If so, one of us should study up, or else request assistance from somebody familiar with this stuff... yes? -Pete (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I see happening. I see a small group of motivated volunteers adding the template at lightning pace. That does not make it mandatory, and in my experience, David Gerard has been responsive to requests to remove the image from certain articles or certain groups of articles. I would say that any effort to label David's actions as "policy making" fails to acknowledge the good faith that's very apparent in his approach. We should seek a less provocative way of framing the discussion. -Pete (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say there is a mandatory inclusion of this template on bio articles. There are several people who think it is a good thing and regularly add it to appropriate infoboxes. If one disagrees with its addition to an article, one ought to remove it and/or discuss it on the article's talk page. On the other hand, If you are saying that this image should never be on an article, that would be a new policy and this discussion here is a good idea. DoubleBlue (Talk)03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well put DoubleBlue. And Pete I never said anything about David's actions in this particular discussion so I was not challenging his good faith. I was refering to editors on other pages like Barbara Bonney that have started edit wars.Nrswanson (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- David is the only one working on this that I've dealt with. I shouldn't claim that nobody has overstepped in this regard. Still, I think we're better off seeking a general consensus about what to do in the future, rather than focusing on past editor behavior. -Pete (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be ideal. However, I can't stop other editors from creating editing wars on other articles. Those discussions of course belong on those other pages and not here. I just think it is important to recognize that this issue is causing problems on other articles.Nrswanson (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal (above) has a limited purpose. If it's acceptable to everybody I intend to make a summary of the arguments in about 24 hours time (tomorrow morning GMT/UTC). At that point we can open a centralized debate. I've looked at RFC but not found anything similar to this issue. If someone can point me in a useful direction - or suggest someone to advise us - I'll be grateful. Given the interest in this, it's important to do it right. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be best to archive this page, and reformulate the most compelling arguments for (or in) the new discussion. It would be asking too much of new participants to have them read through an old discussion in detail; if we're truly looking for broad participation, I think we owe it to the larger community to make the discussion as accessible as possible. -Pete (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The female version of the placeholder box. It is hyperlinked to an image upload form targeted to new users.The male version of the placeholder box.
Replace this image female and Replace this image male are the latest versions of placeholder boxes that have been systematically added to 50,789 living biography articles lacking photos of their central subjects. The boxes link to a specialized upload form and license template system soliciting pertinent photos or illustrations from readers.
Some of these placeholder boxes have been removed from articles, and concerns and objections have been put forward. These include:
The addition of these boxes violates the WP:SELF guideline, which argues that reference to Wikipedia's editable nature should generally not take place within articles.
Most readers would not be able or willing to help; the box detracts from the article for the vast majority of readers, while being useful for only a very few.
By appealing specifically to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia's approach to copyright, the system will lead to an inordinate number of copyright violations; the fact that most uploaders are presently experienced editors is a good thing.
The system is redundant; there are already initiatives and sidebar links to encourage the uploading of photos.
The boxes are unsightly, resembling advertisements found on commercial websites with for-profit motives.
The boxes suggest the article is inadequate; Wikipedia is always a work-in-progress, but an article without a photo should not be considered inadequate (as an article that lacks references is).
Proponents of the system have stated that the system is already effective at soliciting new photos. They are in the process of documenting this claim. They state:
The simplified upload form is more user-friendly than Wikipedia's existing system (at least for new users).
The form has a system built in that eases filtering of resulting photos and illustrations for copyvios.
Concerns regarding appearance could be addressed by an understated redesign.
Pending the outcome of this discussion, some editors have agreed to suspend their addition or removal of this placeholder box pending a broader consensus.
Should the addition of this box be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?
Terminology is the key here to making this easily readable. The problem is the word image, which can refer to (a) the problematic graphic, and (b) the photos. Can we restrict it's use? Placeholder, box, photo, graphic are all unambiguous in this context - I've done a (radical) edit of the teerminology! The content and the way it's laid out is otherwise excellent. Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I offer the following as a more succinct statement of the foregoing, but given the delicacy attendant on phrasing I'll leave it to others to make the substitution, should they deem it warranted:
Replace this image female and Replace this image male are placeholder boxes recently systematically added to 50,789 living biography articles lacking photos of their central subjects. The boxes link to a specialized upload form and license template system soliciting pertinent photos or illustrations from readers. Drhoehl (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
