| Revision as of 20:53, 18 December 2006 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,960 edits →Boilerplate text?: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, not Iowa Jima← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:27, 17 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)213 edits Undid revision 1269999479 by 102.88.111.42 (talk)Tag: Undo |
| (844 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Shortcut|WT:FUR}} |
|
==The purpose of this page== |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
I have become somewhat concerned of late that otherwise legitimate images are being tagged for deletion under I6 as not having a rationale, when the rationale ''seems'' obvious. What I would like to propose is that we come up with, in some fashion, exactly what we expect to see on the description page. Sure, there may be extenuating issues, but for 99% of the non-free images (or at least the ones that we have any business using), we can come up with a list of 3 or 4 things we want to see. |
|
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
This page is '''NOT''' a way to weasel around the new replaceability guidelines. Please don't try to turn it into such - if we are a 💕, we really don't need to be using the "I found it on the internet therefore it must be fair use" images. |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
I, for one, have no particular attachment to any particular requirement - what I did with the page and template is really intended just to be used as a starting point. I think we need to make it as simple as possible for any user to supply the required information, but I really have no attachment as to what that required information is. |
|
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Anyway ... please give this proposal your consideration and let's try to come up with some guidelines to make this thing easier. ] 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
:I will be happy to support any fair use guidelines that allow the usage of legitimate press and promophotos of living persons until and unless a quality free substitute becomes available. Until and unless that issue is resolved, any fair use proposal will fail to deal with 90% of the problems that currently exist, and have caused me and numerous other legitimate contributors to cease loading any kind of images to Misplaced Pages whatsoever. I wish you the best of luck. ] 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::That's exactly what I '''do not''' want to get into here. This guideline has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with promo photos. This guideline doesn't tell you what kinds of images you can use - it is only to assist in writing the fair use rationale. ] 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
|
|
|
:::I agree, this is a fine idea and does not '''at all''' need to be that tied up with other debates. We need a place to explain to people what a good fair use rationale is. I personally would like a place to link "fair use rationale" when I'm explaining it to someone that isn't ], which I consider to be a sort of description by 2 specific examples. If we can delete images because they have no rationale I think we can give a list of what a rationale should contain. This shouldn't be that hard. - ''']''' 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There's one huge problem with ] right now ... that text is over three years old. It predates our current image tags, CSD I6, and most of the fair use policy. So to an extent, this proposal is a recognition that it needs an update, but this is also something completely new - it is a firm set of requirements for a rationale that we as a community feel is a prima facia rationale, that is, one that can stand on its own and make the basic case that the image qualifies for fair use. ] 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Well then, if you wish to write a fair use rationale excluding the use of essentially all press and promophotos, that's your option. But if the various Misplaced Pages pages that are out there, some of which say you can use them, are not resolved and consolidated, the larger issue I pointed to above won't be addressed. I'm sure there are improvements that can be made to the "how to" of a fair use rationale, and perhaps some more detailed sample pages can be shown or pointed to. ] 19:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::BigDT, this is a good idea that you suggested. I remember some times where I had to write rationals for images that are under fair use, I had writers block and tried to put something down. Now, with this, whenever I do use a fair use photo, this could work very well. I think this will come in handy with the folks at ] so they have a clear idea of what they can do. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Some background=== |
|
|
It's probably worth pointing out that ] was once largely devoted to getting fair use rationales standardised. Proceeding from the idea that there were not really that many classes of media that were allowable, the hope was that boilerplate could be written that would cover most of them. That's the purpose of things like {{tl|albumcover}}, or {{tl|movieposter}}, for instance. Of course, if the album cover is somehow being used in some other article, for instance in an article about the album cover designer, a rationale for that article is needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose that it is true that we have largely moved away from this model, or never really got there ({{tl|albumcover}} instructs users to write a full rationale). There remains no obvious reason to hand write a new rationale every instance in which an article about an album has an unfree image of that album's cover. If this was to be sorted out, much of our unfree content wouldn't need further attention to the rationale. |
|
|
|
|
|
What's happened since we introduced ] I6 is that users have had to go through the extra hoop of writing something down that will avoid having their image flagged by OrphanBot as having no rationale. This has spawned an awful lot of nonsense fair use rationales, such as "This is from the country's government website and is therefore fair use", or "This is a picture of the person in the article and is therefore fair use" or "This image is fair use because no freely licensed image exists". The help needed in such cases is very rarely that a better fair use rationale is needed, mostly these images need deleting. |
|
|
|
|
|
There certainly are cases where particular media meets the spirit behind ] but they don't belong to one of the common classes of things that we typically claim it for, and a page to help guide the uploader into writing a sound rationale could certainly be helpful. I suggest, however, that we might want to re-examine the boilerplate idea, and we need to avoid giving the impression that meeting WP:FUC #1 / avoiding OrphanBot / responding to whatever the fair use argument of the month happens to be is the job of the rationale. ] 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree with a lot of what you are saying. One thing we could do with the template is have predefined parameters, eg, <nowiki>{{Fair use rationale|purpose=1|replaceability=3}}</nowiki> that would allow the user to create a good portion of the rationale without having to retype everything on every page. The concern I was hearing when I brought this up on the ] talk page is that some users didn't feel that the rationale was the same or obvious for, say, every logo. So by having a template with choices, we have a rationale there, but we also keep someone who isn't a copyright expert from having to come up with something from scratch for each image. ] 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ok ... so let's kick off the discussion: == |
|
|
|
|
|
I offer two questions to try and jumpstart discussion on the proposal ... |
|
|
|
|
|
===What's missing?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
* Question 1: What should be included in the rationale that I did not include? What should not be included, or should be optional, that I did include? ] 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Boilerplate text?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
* Question 2: Do we want any boilerplate text to be available or should everything be completely user-entered? |
|
|
** As an example, for "replaceability", we could allow the user to choose from choices like: |
|
|
*** "None - the image is a screenshot, logo, or box art, or a photograph which itself is iconic (ie, ]) and no such thing as a free replacement could ever exist" |
|
|
*** "Extremely unlikely - the image is a photograph of a one-time event used to identify or describe that one-time event and though someone else might have had a camera there, the chances are extremely unlikely" |
|
|
*** "Difficult - the photo is of a deceased individual, reclusive individual, band, or other organization that has disbanded and is not likely to be available for another photo" |
|
|
*** "Inconvenient - the photo is of a living person or object still in existence. Please note that this image will likely be deleted as it does not meet ] criterion #1." |
|
|
** As a second example, we could allow the user to choose for "purpose" between, "primary identification of the article subject", "illustration of a particular paragraph or subtopic", etc. |
|
|
** In both cases, providing the boilerplate text would allow us to further categorize images for the purpose of patrolling them and finding invalid examples of fair use. On the flip side, if we provide boilerplate text, then inexperienced users may be inclined to just pick something, even if it doesn't apply. Any thoughts on this issue? ] 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
