Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<noinclude>{{Short description|Page for discussing policies and guidelines}}{{Redirect|WP:VPP|proposals|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)}}{{village pump page header|Policy|alpha=yes|The '''policy''' section of the ] is intended for discussions about already-proposed ], as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.
<noinclude>{{Villagepumppages|Policy discussion|The '''policy''' section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines.<br>If you want to propose something new, use the '']'' section.<br>
*If you wish to propose something ''new'' that is ''not'' a policy or guideline, use ]. Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
Please see ''']''' for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
* For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many ].
|]}}
* If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the ] or the ].
* This is '''not the place to resolve disputes''' regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult ].
* For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use ].
Please see ''']''' for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after two weeks of inactivity.<!--
{{discussion top|1=There is clear consensus that participants in this discussion wish to retain the "Option 2" status quo. We're past 30 days of discussion and there's not much traffic on the discussion now. It's unlikely the consensus would suddenly shift with additional discussion. --] (]) 18:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 22:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737324070}}
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''5''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|-
|}
Discussions older than 5 days (date of last made comment) are moved ]. These discussions will be kept archived for 9 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 9 days the discussion can only be found through the page history.
<br clear="all" />
Should ] be amended to:
]
* '''Option 1'''{{snd}}Require former administrators to request restoration of their tools at the ] (BN) if they are eligible to do so (i.e., they do not fit into any of the exceptions).
]
* '''Option 2'''{{snd}}<s>Clarify</s> <ins>Maintain the status quo</ins> that former administrators who would be eligible to request restoration via BN may instead request restoration of their tools via a voluntary ] (RfA).
]
* '''Option 3'''{{snd}}Allow bureaucrats to SNOW-close RfAs as successful if (a) 48 hours have passed, (b) the editor has right of resysop, and (c) a SNOW close is warranted.
]
]
]
]</noinclude>
]
'''Background''': This issue arose in one ] and is currently being discussed in an ]. ] (]/]) 21:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)<br />
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-5 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
'''Note''': There is an ongoing related discussion at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Making voluntary "reconfirmation" RFA's less controversial}}.<br />
'''Note''': Option 2 was modified around 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC).
*'''2''' per ]. If an admin wishes to be held accountable for their actions at a re-RfA, they should be allowed to do so. ] ] 21:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Also fine with 3 ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* There is ongoing discussion about this at ]. ] (]) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
** '''2''', after thought. I don't think 3 provides much benefit, and creating separate class of RfAs that are speedy passed feels a misstep. If there are serious issues surrounding wasting time on RfAs set up under what might feel to someone like misleading pretenses, that is best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm ('''RRfA''')". ] (]) 14:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
**:{{tq|best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)"}} - I like this idea, if option 2 comes out as consensus I think this small change would be a step in the right direction, as the "this isn't the best use of time" crowd (myself included) would be able to quickly identify the type of RFAs they don't want to participate in. ] ] 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**::I think that's a great idea. I would support adding some text encouraging people who are considering seeking reconfirmation to add (RRfA) or (reconfirmation) after their username in the RfA page title. That way people who are averse to reading or participating in reconfirmations can easily avoid them, and no one is confused about what is going on. ] (]) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**::I think this would be a great idea if it differentiated against recall RfAs. ] (]) 18:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**:::If we are differentiating three types of RFA we need three terms. Post-recall RFAs are referred to as "reconfirmation RFAs", "Re-RFAS" or "RRFAs" in multiple places, so ones of the type being discussed here are the ones that should take the new term. "Voluntary reconfirmation RFA" (VRRFA or just VRFA) is the only thing that comes to mind but others will probably have better ideas. ] (]) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''1''' ] ] 21:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' I don't see why people trying to do the right thing should be discouraged from doing so. If others feel it is a waste of time, they are free to simply not participate. ] ] 21:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' Getting reconfirmation from the community should be allowed. Those who see it as a waste of time can ignore those RfAs. ] ] 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*Of course they may request at RfA. They shouldn't but they may. This RfA feels like it does nothing to address the criticism actually in play and per the link to the idea lab discussion it's premature to boot. ] (]) 21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' per my comments at the idea lab discussion and Queent of Hears, Beeblebrox and Scazjmd above. I strongly disagree with Barkeep's comment that "They shouldn't ". It shouldn't be made mandatory, but it should be encouraged where the time since desysop and/or the last RFA has been lengthy. ] (]) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:When to encourage it would be a worthwhile RfC and such a discussion could be had at the idea lab before launching an RfC. Best, ] (]) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I've started that discussion as a subsection to the linked VPI discussion. ] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''1''' <ins>or '''3'''</ins>. RFA is an "expensive" process in terms of community time. RFAs that qualify should be fast-tracked via the BN process. It is only recently that a trend has emerged that folks that don't need to RFA are RFAing again. 2 in the last 6 months. If this continues to scale up, it is going to take up a lot of community time, and create noise in the various RFA statistics and RFA notification systems (for example, watchlist notices and ]). –] <small>(])</small> 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Making statistics "noisy" is just a reason to improve the way the statistics are gathered. In this case collecting statistics for reconfirmation RFAs separately from other RFAs would seem to be both very simple and very effective. ''If'' (and it is a very big if) the number of reconfirmation RFAs means that notifications are getting overloaded, ''then'' we can discuss whether reconfirmation RFAs should be notified differently. As far as differentiating them, that is also trivially simple - just add a parameter to ] (perhaps "reconfirmation=y") that outputs something that bots and scripts can check for. ] (]) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Option 3 looks like a good compromise. I'd support that too. –] <small>(])</small> 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm weakly opposed to option 3, editors who want feedback and a renewed mandate from the community should be entitled to it. If they felt that that a quick endorsement was all that was required then could have had that at BN, they explicitly chose not to go that route. Nobody is required to participate in an RFA, so if it is going the way you think it should, or you don't have an opinion, then just don't participate and your time has not been wasted. ] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. We should not make it ''more difficult'' for administrators to be held accountable for their actions in the way they please. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Added '''option 3''' above. Maybe worth considering as a happy medium, where unsure admins can get a check on their conduct without taking up too much time. ] (] • she/her) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' – If a former admin wishes to subject themselves to RfA to be sure they have the requisite community confidence to regain the tools, why should we stop them? Any editor who feels the process is a waste of time is free to ignore any such RfAs. — ] ⚓ ] 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*I would also support option '''3''' if the time is extended to 72 hours instead of 48. That, however, is a detail that can be worked out after this RfC. — ] ⚓ ] 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per leek. ] (]/]) 22:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:A further note: option 3 gives 'crats the discretion to SNOW close a successful voluntary re-RfA; it doesn't require such a SNOW close, and I trust the 'crats to keep an RfA open if an admin has a good reason for doing so. ] (]/]) 23:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' as per {{noping|JJPMaster}}. Regards, --] (]) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (no change) – The sample size is far too small for us to analyze the impact of such a change, but I believe RfA should always be available. Now that ] is policy, returning administrators may worry that they have become out of touch with community norms and may face a recall as soon as they get their tools back at BN. Having this familiar community touchpoint as an option makes a ton of sense, and would be far less disruptive / demoralizing than a potential recall. Taking this route away, even if it remains rarely used, would be detrimental to our desire for increased administrator accountability. – ] 22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{ec}} I'm surprised the response here hasn't been more hostile, given that these give the newly-unresigned administrator a ] for a year. —] 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] hostile to what? ] (]) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2, distant second preference 3'''. I would probably support 3 as first pick if not for recall's rule regarding last RfA, but as it stands, SNOW-closing a discussion that makes someone immune to recall for a year is a non-starter. Between 1 and 2, though, the only argument for 1 seems to be that it avoids a waste of time, for which there is the much simpler solution of not participating and instead doing something else. ] and ] are always there. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* 1 would be my preference, but I don't think we need a specific rule for this. -- ] (]) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. <s>No second preference between 2 or 3.</s> As long as a former administrator didn't resign under a cloud, picking up the tools again should be low friction and low effort for the entire community. If there are issues introduced by the recall process, they should be fixed in the recall policy itself. ] (]) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:After considering this further, I prefer option 3 over option 2 if option 1 is not the consensus. ] (]) 07:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', i.e. leave well enough alone. There is really not a problem here that needs fixing. If someone doesn’t want to “waste their time” participating in an RfA that’s not required by policy, they can always, well, not participate in the RfA. No one is required to participate in someone else’s RfA, and I struggle to see the point of participating but then complaining about “having to” participate. ] (]) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' nobody is obligated to participate in a re-confirmation RfA. If you think they are a waste of time, avoid them. ] (]) 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''1 or 3''' per Novem Linguae. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 02:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''': Because it is incredibly silly to have situations like we do now of "this guy did something wrong by doing an RfA that policy explicitly allows, oh well, nothing to do but sit on our hands and dissect the process across three venues and counting." Your time is your own. No one is forcibly stealing it from you. At the same time it is equally silly to let the process drag on, for reasons explained in ]. ] (]) 03:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Update: Option 2 seems to be the consensus and I also would be fine with that. ] (]) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per Gnoming. I think 2 works, but it is a very long process and for someone to renew their tools, it feels like an unnecessarily long process compared to a normal RfA. ] (]) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*As someone who supported both WormTT and Hog Farm's RfAs, option 1 > option 3 >> option 2. At each individual RfA the question is whether or not a specific editor should be an admin, and in both cases I felt that the answer was clearly "yes". However, I agree that RfA is a very intensive process. It requires a lot of time from the community, as others have argued better than I can. I prefer option 1 to option 3 because the existence of the procedure in option 3 implies that it is a good thing to go through 48 hours of RfA to re-request the mop. But anything which saves community time is a good thing. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 04:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I've seen this assertion made multiple times now that {{tpq| requires a lot of time from the community}}, yet nowhere has anybody articulated how why this is true. What time is required, given that nobody is required to participate and everybody who does choose to participate can spend as much or as little time assessing the candidate as they wish? How and why does a reconfirmation RFA require any more time from editors (individually or collectively) than a request at BN? ] (]) 04:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think there are a number of factors and people are summing it up as "time-wasting" or similar:
*::# BN Is designed for this exact scenario. It's also clearly a less contentious process.
*::# Snow closures a good example of how we try to avoid wasting community time on unnecessary process and the same reasoning applies here. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to have a 7-day process when the outcome is a given.
*::# If former administrators continue to choose re-RFAs over BN, it could set a problematic precedent where future re-adminship candidates feel pressured to go through an RFA and all that entails. I don't want to discourage people already vetted by the community from rejoining the ranks.
*::# The RFA process is designed to be a thoughtful review of prospective administrators and I'm concerned these kinds of perfunctory RFAs will lead to people taking the process less seriously in the future.
*::] (]) 07:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Because several thousand people have RFA on their watchlist, and thousands more will see the "there's an open RFA" notice on theirs whether they follow it or not. Unlike BN, RFA is a process that depends on community input from a large number of people. In order to even ''realise that the RFA is not worth their time'', they have to:
*::* Read the opening statement and first few question answers (I just counted, HF's opening and first 5 answers are about 1000 words)
*::* Think, "oh, they're an an ex-admin, I wonder why they're going through RFA, what was their cloud"
*::* Read through the comments and votes to see if any issues have been brought up (another ~1000 words)
*::* None have
*::* Realise your input is not necessary and this could have been done at BN
*::This process will be repeated by hundreds of editors over the course of a week. ] ] 08:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That they were former admins has always been the first two sentences of their RfA’s statement, sentences which are immediately followed by that they resigned due to personal time commitment issues. You do not have to read the first 1000+ words to figure that out. If the reader wants to see if the candidate was lying in their statement, then they just have a quick skim through the oppose section. None of this should take more than 30 seconds in total. ] (]) 13:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Not everyone can skim things easily - it personally takes me a while to read sections. I don't know if they're going to bury the lede and say something like "Also I made 10,000 insane redirects and then decided to take a break just before arbcom launched a case" in paragraph 6. Hog Farm's self nom had two paragraphs about disputes and it takes more than 30 seconds to unpick that and determine if that is a "cloud" or not. Even for reconfirmations, it definitely takes more than 30 seconds to determine a conclusion. ] ] 11:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::They said they resigned to personal time commitments. That is directly saying they wasn’t under a cloud, so I’ll believe them unless someone claims the contrary in the oppose section. If the disputes section contained a cloud, the oppose section would have said so. One chooses to examine such nominations like normal RfAs. ] (]) 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Just to double check, you're saying that whenever you go onto an RFA you expect any reason to oppose to already be listed by someone else, and no thought is required? I am begining to see how you are able to assess an RFA in under 30 seconds ] ] 23:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Something in their statement would be an incredibly obvious reason. We are talking about the assessment whether to examine and whether the candidate could've used BN. ] (]) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] let's not confuse "a lot of community time is spent" with "waste of time". Some people have characterized the re-RFAs as a waste of time but that's not the assertion I (and I think a majority of the skeptics) have been making. All RfAs use a lot of community time as hundreds of voters evaluate the candidate. They then choose to support, oppose, be neutral, or not vote at all. While editor time is not perfectly fixed - editors may choose to spend less time on non-Misplaced Pages activities at certain times - neither is it a resource we have in abundance anymore relative to our project. And so I think we, as a community, need to be thought about how we're using that time especially when the use of that time would have been spent on other wiki activities.Best, ] (]) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Absolutely nothing compels anybody to spend any time evaluating an RFA. If you think your wiki time is better spent elsewhere than evaluating an RFA candidate, then spend it elsewhere. That way only those who do think it is a good use of their time will participate and everybody wins. You win by not spending your time on something that you don't think is worth it, those who do participate don't have ''their'' time wasted by having to read comments (that contradict explicit policy) about how the RFA is a waste of time. Personally I regard evaluating whether a long-time admin still has the approval of the community to be a very good use of community time, you are free to disagree, but please don't waste my time by forcing me to read comments about how you think I'm wasting my time. ] (]) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I am not saying you or anyone else is wasting time and am surprised you are so fervently insisting I am. Best, ] (]) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I don't understand how your argument that it is not a good use of community time is any different from arguing that it is a waste of time? ] (]) 09:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I don't mind the re-RFAs, but I'd appreciate if we encouraged restoration via BN instead, I just object to making it mandatory. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 06:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Banning voluntary re-RfAs would be a step in the wrong direction on admin accountability. Same with SNOW closing. There is no more "wasting of community time" if we let the RfA run for the full seven days, but allowing someone to dig up a scandal on the seventh day is an important part of the RfA process. The only valid criticism I've heard is that folks who do this are arrogant, but banning arrogance, while noble, seems highly impractical. ] </span>]] 07:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Option 3, 1, then 2, per HouseBlaster. Also agree with Daniel Quinlan. I think these sorts of RFA's should only be done in exceptional circumstances. ] (]) 08:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''' as first preference, option 3 second. RFAs use up a lot of time - hundreds of editors will read the RFA and it takes time to come to a conclusion. When that conclusion is "well that was pointless, my input wasn't needed", it is not a good system. I think transparency and accountability is a very good thing, and we need more of it for resyssopings, but that should come from improving the normal process (BN) rather than using a different one (RFA). My ideas for improving the BN route to make it more transparent and better at getting community input is outlined over on the ] ] 08:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''', though I'd be for '''option 3''' too. I'm all for administrators who feel like they want/should go through an RfA to solicit feedback even if they've been given the tools back already. I see multiple people talk about going through BN, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's way less watched than RfA is. However I do feel like watchlist notifications should say something to the effect of "A request for re-adminship feedback is open for discussion" so that people that don't like these could ignore them. <span>♠] ]</span>♠ 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' because ] is well-established policy. Read ], which says quite clearly, {{tpq|Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process.}} I went back 500 edits to 2017 and the wording was substantially the same back then. So, I simply do not understand why various editors are berating former administrators to the point of accusing them of wasting time and being arrogant for choosing to go through a process which is ''specifically permitted by policy''. It is bewildering to me. ] (]) 09:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 & 3''' I think that there still should be the choice between BN and re-RFA for resysops, but I think that the re-RFA should stay like it is in Option 3, unless it is controversial, at which point it could be extended to the full RFA period. I feel like this would be the best compromise between not "wasting" community time (which I believe is a very overstated, yet understandable, point) and ensuring that the process is based on broad consensus and that our "representatives" are still supported. If I were WTT or Hog, I might choose to make the same decision so as to be respectful of the possibility of changing consensus. ] (]) | :) | he/him | 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', for lack of a better choice. Banning re-RFAs is not a great idea, and we should not SNOW close a discussion that would give someone immunity from a certain degree of accountability. I've dropped an idea for an option 4 in the discussion section below. ] (]) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' I agree with Graham87 that these sorts of RFAs should only be done in exceptional circumstances, and BN is the best place to ask for tools back. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I don't think prohibition makes sense. It also has weird side effects. eg: some admins' voluntary recall policies may now be completely void, because they would be unable to follow them even if they wanted to, because policy prohibits them from doing a RFA. (maybe if they're also 'under a cloud' it'd fit into exemptions, but if an admins' policy is "3 editors on this named list tell me I'm unfit, I resign" then this isn't really a cloud.) {{pb}} Personally, I think Hog Farm's RFA was unwise, as he's textbook uncontroversial. Worm's was a decent RFA; he's also textbook uncontroversial but it happened at a good time. But any editor participating in these discussions to give the "support" does so using their own time. Everyone who feels their time is wasted can choose to ignore the discussion, and instead it'll pass as 10-0-0 instead of 198-2-4. It just doesn't make sense to prohibit someone from seeking a community discussion, though. For almost anything, really. ] (]) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' It takes like two seconds to support or ignore an RFA you think is "useless"... can't understand the hullabaloo around them. I stand by what I said on ] regarding RFAs being about evaluating trustworthiness and accountability. Trustworthy people don't skip the process. —] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> (] · ]) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - Option 2 is a waste of community time. - ] (]) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why? ] (]) 15:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' is fine. '''Strong oppose''' to 1 and 3. Opposing option 1 because there is nothing wrong with asking for extra community feedback. opposing option 3 because once an RfA has been started, it should follow the standard rules. Note that RfAs are extremely rare and non-contentious RfAs require very little community time (unlike this RfC which seems a waste of community time, but there we are). —] (]) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''', with no opposition to 3. I see nothing wrong with a former administrator getting re-confirmed by the community, and community vetting seems like a good thing overall. If people think it's a waste of time, then just ignore the RfA. ] (]) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2''' Sure, and clarify that should such an RFA be unsuccessful they may only regain through a future rfa. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' If contributing to such an RFA is a waste of your time, just don't participate. ] (]) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No individual is wasting their time participating. Instead the person asking for a re-rfa is ''using'' tons of editor time by asking hundreds of people to vet them. Even the choice not to participate requires at least some time to figure out that this is not a new RfA; though at least in the two we've had recently it would require only as long as it takes to get to the RfA - for many a click from the watchlist and then another click into the rfa page - and to read the first couple of sentences of the self-nomination which isn't terribly long all things considered. Best, ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree with you (I think) that it's a matter of perspective. For me, clicking the RFA link in my watchlist and reading the first paragraph of Hog Farm's nomination (where they explained that they were already a respected admin) took me about 10 seconds. Ten seconds is nothing; in my opinion, this is just a nonissue. But then again, I'm not an admin, checkuser, or an oversighter. Maybe the time to read such a nomination is really wasting their time. I don't know. ] (]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm an admin and an oversighter (but not a checkuser). None of my time was wasted by either WTT or Hog Farm's nominations. ] (]) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. Maintain the ''status quo''. And stop worrying about a trivial non-problem. --] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''2'''. This reminds me of banning plastic straws (bear with me). Sure, I suppose in theory, that this is a burden on the community's time (just as straws do end up in landfills/the ocean). However, the amount of community time that is drained is minuscule compared to the amount of community time drained in countless, countless other fora and processes (just like the volume of plastic waste contributed by plastic straws is less than 0.001% of the total plastic waste). When WP becomes an efficient, well oiled machine, then maybe we can talk about saving community time by banning re-RFA's. But this is much ado about nothing, and indeed this plan to save people from themselves, and not allow them to simply decide whether to participate or not, is arguably more damaging than some re-RFAs (just as banning straws convinced some people that "these save-the-planet people are so ridiculous that I'm not going to bother listening to them about anything."). And, in fact, on a separate note, I'd actually love it if more admins just ran a re-RFA whenever they wanted. They would certainly get better feedback than just posting "What do my talk page watchers think?" on their own talk page. Or waiting until they get yelled at on their talk page, AN/ANI, AARV, etc. We say we want admins to respect feedback; does it '''have''' to be in a recall petition? --] (]) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:What meaningful feedback has Hog Farm gotten? "A minority of people think you choose poorly in choosing this process to regain adminship". What are they supposed to do with that? I share your desire for editors to share meaningful feedback with administrators. My own attempt yielded some, though mainly offwiki where I was told I was both too cautious and too impetuous (and despite the seeming contradiction each was valuable in its own way). So yes let's find ways to get meaningful feedback to admins outside of recall or being dragged to ANI. Unfortunately re-RfA seems to be poorly suited to the task and so we can likely find a better way. Best, ] (]) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Let us all take some comfort in the fact that no one has yet criticized this RfC comment as being a straw man argument. --] (]) 23:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No hard rule, but we should socially discourage confirmation RfAs''' There is a difference between a hard rule, and a soft social rule. A hard rule against confirmation RfA's, like option 1, would not do a good job of accounting for edge cases and would thus be ultimately detrimental here. But a soft social rule against them would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that is not one of the options of this RfC. In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. (Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here.) That takes some introspection and humility to ask yourself: is it worth me inviting two or three hundred people to spend part of their lives to comment on me as a person?{{pb}}A lot of people have thrown around ] in their reasonings. Obviously, broad generalizations about it aren't convincing anyone. So let me just share my own experience. I saw the watchlist notice open that a new RfA was being run. I reacted with some excitement, because I always like seeing new admins. When I got to the page and saw Hogfarm's name, I immediately thought "isn't he already an admin?" I then assumed, ah, its just the classic RfA reaction at seeing a qualified candidate, so I'll probably support him since I already think he's an admin. But then as I started to do my due diligence and read, I saw that he really, truly, already had been an admin. At that point, my previous excitement turned to a certain unease. I had voted yes for Worm's confirmation RfA, but here was another...and I realized that my blind support for Worm might have been the start of an entirely new process. I then thought "bet there's an RfC going about this," and came here. I then spent a while polishing up my essay on editor time, before taking time to write this message. All in all, I probably spent a good hour doing this. Previously, I'd just been clicking the random article button and gnoming. So, the longwinded moral: yeah, this did eat up a lot of my editor time that could have and was being spent doing something else. And I'd do it again! It was important to do my research and to comment here. But in the future...maybe I won't react quite as excitedly to seeing that RfA notice. Maybe I'll feel a little pang of dread...wondering if its going to be a confirmation RfA. We can't pretend that confirmation RfA's are costless, and that we don't lose anything even if editors just ignore them. When run, it should be because they are necessary. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:And for what its worth, support '''Option 3''' because I'm generally a fan of putting more tools in people's toolboxes. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers.}} Asking the community whether you still have their trust to be an administrator, which is what an reconfirmation RFA is, ''is'' a good reason. I expect getting a near-unanimous "yes" is good for one's ego, but that's just a (nice) side-effect of the far more important benefits to the entire community: a trusted administrator.
*:The time you claim is being eaten up unnecessarily by reconfirmation RFAs was actually taken up by you choosing to spend your time writing an essay about using time for things you don't approve of and then hunting out an RFC in which you wrote another short essay about using time on things you don't approve of. Absolutely none of that is a necessary consequence of reconfirmation RFAs - indeed the response consistent with your stated goals would have been to read the first two sentences of Hog Farm's RFA and then closed the tab and returned to whatever else it was you were doing. ] (]) 09:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:WTT's and Hog Farm's RFAs would have been completely uncontentious, something I hope for at RfA and certainly the opposite of what I "dread" at RfA, if it were not for the people who attack the very concept of standing for RfA again despite policy being crystal clear that it is absolutely fine. I don't see how any blame for this situation can be put on WTT or HF. We can't pretend that dismissing uncontentious reconfirmation RfAs is costless; discouraging them removes one of the few remaining potentially wholesome bits about the process. —] (]) 09:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@] Would you find it better if Watchlist notices and similar said "(re?)confirmation RFA" instead of "RFA"? Say for all voluntary RFAs from an existing admin or someone who could have used BN?
*:As a different point, I would be quite against any social discouraging if we're not making a hard rule as such. Social discouraging is what got us the opposes at WTT/Hog Farm's RFAs, which I found quite distasteful and badgering. If people disagree with a process, they should change it. But if the process remains the same, I think it's important to not enable RFA's toxicity by encouraging others to namecall or re-argue the process in each RRFA. It's a short road from social discouragement to toxicity, unfortunately. ] (]) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes I think the watchlist notice should specify what kind of RfA, especially with the introduction of recall. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1'''. Will prevent the unnecessary drama trend we are seeing in the recent. – ] (]) 07:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''' if people think there's a waste of community time, don't spend your time voting or discussing. Or add "reconfirmation" or similar to the watchlist notice. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' (which I think is a subset of option 2, so I'm okay with the status quo, but I want to endorse giving 'crats the option to SNOW). While they do come under scrutiny from time to time for the extensive dicsussions in the "maybe" zone following RfAs, this should be taken as an indiciation that they are unlikely to do something like close it as SNOW in the event there is <em>real and substantial</em> concerns being rasied. This is an okay tool to give the 'crats. As far as I can tell, no one has ever accused the them of moving too quickly in this direction (not criticism; love you all, keep up the good work). ] (]) 17:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 3 or Option 2'''. Further, if Option 2 passes, I expect it also ends all the bickering about lost community time. A consensus explicitly in favour of "This is allowed" should also be a consensus to discourage relitigation of this RFC. ] (]) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''': Admins who do not exude entitlement are to be praised. Those who criticize this humility should have a look in the mirror before accusing those who ask for reanointment from the community of "arrogance". I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention in parentheses that the RFA is a reconfirmation (watchlist) and wouldn't see any problem with crats snow-closing after, say, 96 hours. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I disagree that BN shouldn't be the normal route. RfA is already as hard and soul-crushing as it is. ] (]) 20:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Who are you disagreeing with? This RfC is about voluntary RRfA. -- ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 20:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know. I see a sizable amount of commenters here starting to say that voluntary re-RfAs should be encouraged, and your first sentence can be easily read as implying that admins who use the BN route exude entitlement. I disagree with that (see my reply to Thryduulf below). ] (]) 12:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::One way to improve the reputation of RFA is for there to be more RFAs that are not terrible, such as reconfirmations of admins who are doing/have done a good job who sail through with many positive comments. There is no proposal to make RFA mandatory in circumstances it currently isn't, only to reaffirm that those who voluntarily choose RFA are entitled to do so. ] (]) 21:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know it's not a proposal, but there's enough people talking about this so far that it could become a proposal.<br />There's nearly nothing in between that could've lost the trust of the community. I'm sure there are many who do not want to be pressured into ] without good reason. ] (]) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Absolutely nobody is proposing, suggesting or hinting here that reconfirmation RFAs should become mandatory - other than comments from a few people who oppose the idea of people voluntarily choosing to do something policy explicitly allows them to choose to do. The best way to avoid people being pressured into being accused of arrogance for seeking reconfirmation of their status from the community is to sanction those people who accuse people of arrogance in such circumstances as such comments are in flagrant breach of AGF and NPA. ] (]) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, I’m saying that they should not become preferred. There should be no social pressure to do RfA instead of BN, only pressure intrinsic to the candidate. ] (]) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Whether they should become preferred in any situation forms no part of this proposal in any way shape or form - this seeks only to reaffirm that they are permitted. A separate suggestion, completely independent of this one, is to encourage (explicitly not mandate) them in some (but explicitly not all) situations. All discussions on this topic would benefit if people stopped misrepresenting the policies and proposals - especially when the falsehoods have been explicitly called out. ] (]) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I am talking and worrying over that separate proposal many here are suggesting. I don’t intend to oppose Option 2, and sorry if I came off that way. ] (]) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. In fact, I'm inclined to ''encourage'' an RRfA over BN, because nothing requires editors to participate in an RRfA, but the resulting discussion is better for reaffirming community consensus for the former admin or otherwise providing helpful feedback. --] (]) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' ] has said "{{tq|Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA...}}" for over ten years and this is not a problem. I liked the opportunity to be consulted in the current RfA and don't consider this a waste of time. ]🐉(]) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. People who think it’s not a good use of their time always have the option to scroll past. ] (]) 01:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''2''' - If an administrator gives up sysop access because they plan to be inactive for a while and want to minimize the attack surface of Misplaced Pages, they should be able to ask for permissions back the quickest way possible. If an administrator resigns because they do not intend to do the job anymore, and later changes their mind, they should request a community discussion. The right course of action depends on the situation. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. I've watched a lot of RFAs and re-RFAs over the years. There's a darn good reason why the community developed the "go to BN" option: saves time, is straightforward, and if there are issues that point to a re-RFA, they're quickly surfaced. People who refuse to take the community-developed process of going to BN first are basically telling the community that they need the community's full attention on their quest to re-admin. Yes, there are those who may be directed to re-RFA by the bureaucrats, in which case, they have followed the community's carefully crafted process, and their re-RFA should be evaluated from that perspective. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. If people want to choose to go through an RFA, who are we to stop them? ] (]) 10:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' (status quo/no changes) per ]. This is bureaucratic rulemongering at its finest. Every time RFA reform comes up some editors want admins to be required to periodically reconfirm, then when some admins decide to reconfirm voluntarily, suddenly that's seen as a bad thing. The correct thing to do here is nothing. If you don't like voluntary reconfirmation RFAs, you are not required to participate in them. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I would probably counsel just going to BN most of the time, however there are exceptions and edge cases. To this point these RfAs have been few in number, so the costs incurred are relatively minor. If the number becomes large then it might be worth revisiting, but I don't see that as likely. Some people will probably impose social costs on those who start them by opposing these RfAs, with the usual result, but that doesn't really change the overall analysis. Perhaps it would be better if our idiosyncratic internal logic didn't produce such outcomes, but that's a separate issue and frankly not really worth fighting over either. There's probably some meta issues here I'm unaware off, it's long since I've had my finger on the community pulse so to speak, but they tend to matter far less than people think they do. ] (]) 02:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Option 1''', per ], ], ], ], and related principles. We all have far better things to do that read through and argue in/about a totally unnecessary RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process and waste of community time and productivity. I could live with option 3, if option 1 doesn't fly (i.e. shut these silly things down as quickly as possible). But option 2 is just out of the question. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Except none of the re-RFAs complained about have been {{tpq|RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process}}, you're arguing against a strawman. ] (]) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's entirely a matter of opinion and perception, or A) this RfC wouldn't exist, and B) various of your fellow admins like TonyBallioni would not have come to the same conclusion I have. Whether the underlying intent (which no one can determine, lacking as we do any magical mind-reading powers) is solely egotistical is ultimately irrelevant. The {{em|actual effect}} (what matters) of doing this whether for attention, or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done, is precisely the same: a showy waste of community volunteers' time with no result other than a bunch of attention being drawn to a particular editor and their deeds, without any actual need for the community to engage in a lengthy formal process to re-examine them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tqb|or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done}} I and many others here agree and stand behind the very reasoning that has "confused" such candidates, at least for WTT. ] (]) 15:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. I see no legitimate reason why we should be changing the status quo. Sure, some former admins might find it easier to go through BN, and it might save community time, and most former admins ''already'' choose the easier option. However, if a candidate last ran for adminship several years ago, or if issues were raised during their tenure as admin, then it may be helpful for them to ask for community feedback, anyway. There is no "wasted" community time in such a case. I really don't get the claims that this violates ], because it really doesn't apply when a former admin last ran for adminship 10 or 20 years ago or wants to know if they still have community trust.{{pb}}On the other hand, if an editor thinks a re-RFA is a waste of community time, they can simply choose not to participate in that RFA. Opposing individual candidates' re-RFAs based solely on opposition to re-RFAs in general ''is'' a violation of ]. – ] (]) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But this isn't the status quo? We've never done a re-RfA before now. The question is whether this previously unconsidered process, which appeared as an ], is a feature or a bug. ] <sup>]</sup>] 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There have been lots of re-RFAs, historically. There were more common in the 2000s. ] in 2003 is the earliest I can find, back before the re-sysopping system had been worked out fully. ] back in 2007 was snow-closed after one day, because the nominator and applicant didn't know that they could have gone to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. For more modern examples, ] (2011) is relatively similar to the recent re-RFAs in the sense that the admin resigned uncontroversially but chose to re-RFA before getting the tools back. Immediately following and inspired by HJ Mitchell's, there was the slightly more controversial ]. That ended successful re-RFAS until 2019's ], which crat-chatted. Since then, there have been none that I remember. There have been several re-RFAs from admins who were de-sysopped or at serious risk of de-sysopping, and a few interesting edge cases such as the yet no-consensus ] in 2014 and the ] case in 2015, but those are very different than what we're talking about today. ] (]) 00:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::To add on to that, ] was technically a reconfirmation RFA, which in a sense can be treated as a re-RFA. My point is, there is some precedent for re-RFAs, but the current guidelines are ambiguous as to when re-RFAs are or aren't allowed. – ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Well thank you both, I've learned something new today. It turns out I was working on a false assumption. It has just been so long since a re-RfA that I assumed it was a truly new phenomenon, especially since there were two in short succession. I still can't say I'm thrilled by the process and think it should be used sparingly, but perhaps I was a bit over concerned. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 or 3''' per Gnoming and CaptainEek. Such RfAs only require at most 30 seconds for one to decide whether or not to spend their time on examination. Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. Voluntary reconfirmation RfAs are socially discouraged, so there is usually a very good reason for someone to go back there, such as accountability for past statements in the case of WTT or large disputes during adminship in the case of Hog Farm. I don't think we should outright deny these, and there is no disruption incurred if we don't. ] (]) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' but for largely the reasons presented by CaptainEek. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·''' ] '''·''' ]) 21:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2 (fine with better labeling)''' These don't seem harmful to me and, if I don't have time, I'll skip one and trust the judgment of my fellow editors. No objection to better labeling them though, as discussed above. ] (]) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' because it's just a waste of time to go through and !vote on candidates who just want the mop restored when he or she or they could get it restored BN with no problems. But I can also see option 2 being good for a former mod not in good standing. ] (]) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:If you think it is a waste of time to !vote on a candidate, just don't vote on that candidate and none of your time has been wasted. ] (]) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' per QoH (or me? who knows...) ] • ] • ] 04:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Just because someone may be entitled to get the bit back doesn't mean they necessarily should. Look at ]. I did not resign under a cloud, so I could have gotten the bit back by request. However, the RFA established that I did not have the community support at that point, so it was a good thing that I chose that path. I don't particularly support option 3, but I could deal with it. --] 16:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Asking hundreds of people to vet a candidate who has already passed a RfA and is eligible to get the tools back at BN is a waste of the community's time. -- ] (]) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' Abolishing RFA in favour of BN may need to be considered, but I am unconvinced by arguments about RFA being a waste of time. ] ] 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' I really don't think there's a problem that needs to be fixed here. I am grateful at least a couple administrators have asked for the support of the community recently. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. Keep the status quo of {{tq|any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process}}. Voluntary RfA are rare enough not to be a problem, it's not as though we are overburdened with RfAs. And it’s my time to waste. --] (]) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Option 2 or Option 3'''. These are unlikely to happen anyway, it's not like they're going to become a trend. I'm already wasting my time here instead of other more important activities anyway, so what's a little more time spent giving an easy support?{{pb
}}<span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#000000">] ]</span> 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' Agree with Daniel Quinlan that for the problematic editors eligible for re-sysop at BN despite unpopularity, we should rely on our new process of admin recall, rather than pre-emptive RRFAs. I'll add the novel argument that when goliaths like Hog Farm unnecessarily showcase their achievements at RFA, it scares off nonetheless qualified candidates. ] ( ] ) 17:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Option 2''' per Gnoming /CaptainEeek ] (]) 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Use of international wheelchair symbol ==
*'''Option 2''' or '''Option 3''' - if you regard a re-RfA as a waste of your time, just don't waste it by participating; it's not mandatory. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed in a number of places, notably ], but I'd like to get broad community input on this issue.
The issue concerns the use of the ] (ISA) outside its article. The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. However, the symbol is copyrighted <s>and so derivative works are not permitted.</s>
:UPDATE: Some derivative works are permitted, see the last bullet point on ] —] <sup>(])</sup> 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Until recently, the ISA was used in places such as ] to illustrate handicapped accessibility. It has been replaced with a crudely drawn (but freely licensed) alternative, ]
So, here is the question: '''Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates?''' Please continue the discussion in this section, and then indicate your position in the poll below. —] <sup>(])</sup> 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm confused as to why it is in debate. Yes, it isn't a free image, but any concievable adaptation of the encyclopedia by any entity could use it the way we do, because it may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. Last I checked, it's pretty unambiguous that "This image may be freely used in situations X, Y, and Z" copyrights are allowed. -] <small>]</small> 05:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
=== Poll: Should we permit use of the ISA to illustrate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates? ===
==== Yes, permit use in articles and templates to illustrate handicapped accessibility ====
# —] <sup>(])</sup> 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# ]. This is such a non-issue that it shouldn't even have to be up for discussion. Let's return to creating great content. ] 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# gives permission to use the symbol "to promote and publicize accessibility of places, programs and other activities for people with various disabilities" and encourages visitors "to place these symbols next to the relevant information in all publications and media". The fact that the image is copyrighted is irrelevant: there is no such thing in Europe as a copyright-free image, except for those on which copyright has expired. The license granted isn't entirely free, but it's about as close as you get. ] 07:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# Yes. Here we have a prime example of image-license wikilawyering being bad for the encyclopedia. ] / ] 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# Of course yes. Ridiculous copyright hysteria run amok. ] ] 08:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# Yes. I have worked with people with disabilities in the past, and have found that badly thought-out or stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offence, and therefore the most prudent option is to stick to official symbols. – ]<small> ]</small> 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. –] 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#I believe that it makes sense to slightly modify or clarify our ] to indicate that a limited number of "official symbols" like the ] are not replaceable and do not require specific rationales for each use. This appears to be in line with what Jimbo implied (see below). --] 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
#It's ''the'' symbol for handicapped accessibility, and is freely usable within that context. (You can even profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.) The arguments against using it sound like the sort of thing I might say if I was trying to make a ] against overly strict interpretation of the image use criteria. If this requires a one sentence addition to the fair use policy saying that we can use universal standard symbols for their intended purpose without fear of repercussion, which should be obvious anyway, then so be it. --] <small>]</small> 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#This is very much like Crown Copyright, which provides explicit permission provided the material is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading depiction. The ISA is ''universally recognised'' as the symbol for accessibility. Some random vector someone whipped up in Inkscape is not. This is very much a case where we need to interpret our rules in ''spirit'', and not in ''letter''. There is no violation of copyright law here, as any use to designate accessibility is not only fair, but ''expressly permitted''. ] <small>] </small> 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#It appears from the discussion below that this is a ] of Misplaced Pages policy. However, I believe that the policy is intended as a way to ensure that we don't run afoul of copyright law, not as an end in itself. Given our confidence that we are not in fact violating the copyright, and given that there is no reasonable alternative to use of this image, this is an ideal time to ] and do the right thing. ] 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#Seems like this is a good time to make one of our rare exceptions to the fair-use policy. --] 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
#An exception should be made in this case. We need to be as disability friendly as we possibly can. This is easily within our abilities to do, so we should do it. The reasons against seem to be that it's against the rules, nothing more. That means the rules are wrong or incomplete. Using a poor alternative is doing a poor job of being disability friendly. - ] 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#Although voting is, of course, evil, I think it's important to point out that the on the subject of nonfree content allows for exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". This is a prime example of the sort of use which should be allowed. Even if the image is technically "unfree", the intent of the copyright holder is clear. If we need to add a sentence to ] to cover this sort of thing, so be it.—] <small>(] • ])</small> 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
# See my comment below. Yes this image can be used, as long as it's usage is properly documented and discussed. We don't need to change WP:FU for just one exception, as long as the rationale of it's usage is properly noted, the image properly categorized, this discussion is referenced, and enough users sign off on it. --] (] • ] • ]) 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
##I would like to point out that the scope of the usage of the image should be clearly defined. We cannot use it everywhere, but to say we can't use it ANYWHERE is just stupid --] (] • ] • ]) 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
# This discussion is ] at this point. There's clearly the ''ability'' to change policy when needed and rational, and people are arguing that we can't change it because... it's not been changed? get over yourselves. -- '']']'' 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes. The image is free (as a speech) to use for the purpose we want to use it. It is forbidden to use for the other purposes for the damn good reason. It is morally wrong and probably illegal to use something else for the purpose we intend to use it. What elase can I say? ] 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes. I think some people (below) are being way too anal in insisting on policy for policy's sake. Using this image for this purpose is perfectly legal and moral, and doesn't violate either the letter or the spirit of its license or result in anybody being under any risk of being sued. It's technically "unfree" because there are conditions attached to the image, but they are conditions that no reasonable reuse of Misplaced Pages content would violate. ] 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
# What a fine showcase of ridiculous copyright paranoia. ] 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
#Create the appropraite exception document and/or modify the policy to celarly permit this any any simialr logos to be used even though copyrighted, provifed that the license or other legal basis for sue is spelled on on the relevant image page (or its talk page), and provided that any such license is complied with, and provided that the rights granted are broad enough that any plausible non-valdalism use on Misplaced Pages will be legal. ] ] 06:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
#Since ''any'' potential redistributor can use this symbol to illustrate handicapped accessibility, it's really pointless to say that we can't because it has a non-free license. -] <small>]</small> 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
#Yes, allow its use. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for ''libre'' images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. ]\<sup>]</sup> 06:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes, obviously. But more importantly, ] should be deleted as an unauthorized derivative work, unless is willing to argue that Wheelchair.svg is a protected work, such as a work of ]. The current situation is akin to replacing all our images of ] with a user's hand-drawn "Ricky Rat", and then claiming that "Ricky Rat" is in the public domain. That's simply untrue, and the action violates the original work's copyright. --] 09:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes, as it is an international standard, which should preempt our copyright concerns, given the fact that we only intend to use the image in an approved context. —]] 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
#Yes, we use a similar symbol to denote Wikipedians in wheelchairs. Why not other areas of Misplaced Pages?--] 07:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
#Yes, I think it should be alright to use in the template, no I am not going to debate about it, this is just my thought. Next up maybe I'll spark up another huge debate whether or not ] can be used in the template as well ;) --] 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes. I also think it is ironic that we allegedly cannot use this, as it is a symbol if accessibility, meaning anyone can access. -] 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
# Yes, per everyone but especially TenOfTrades's Q&A, and TSP's argument about the Euro symbol. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
# Absolutely. The Foundation has recently clarified that we can decide, as a project, whether we want to allow certain types of non-free content in ], as long as such use is legal where the project content is predominantly accessed. This is a perfect example of a case where this is a good idea. We should not allow a minority agenda to derail our project's fundamental educational mission. — ] 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
==== No, display the symbol only to illustrate the symbol, do not use it to illustrate handicapped accessibility ====
#Since it appears we are not allowed to use other licences which allow free use of images but do not allow modification, at least on articles of living people (and I'm thinking of ] here), I can't see why we should use this. I don't agree with the policy, but we should enforce it equally.-<font face="cursive" color="#808080">]</font> 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
==== No, do not have the poll ====
First, we do not vote over policy proposals. Second, this is an issue of copyright law, which is obviously not trumped by consensus. Third, we have rather stringent "fair use and free images" rules for reasons imposed by the board, which means we're not going to use a copyrighted image on templates. I suggest you ask Jimbo to make an exception but he likely won't. By the way there is too "something in Europe as a copyright-free image", for instance those in the public domain or those licensed under the GFDL or somesuch. ] 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Totally agree with Radiant here. ] ] 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Fully agree with Radiant. —]<sub>]</sub> 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
<small>''Small correction: GFDL content is copyrighted, GFDL is a license for distributing copyrighted information. --] 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)''</small>
:This is not an issue of copyright law, it is an issue of Misplaced Pages policy. We may <u>legally</u> use the image to indicate handicapped-accessible railway stations, Disney rides, etc. The copyright holder explicitly allows the symbol to be used in this way. The question is do we <u>want</u> to do that.
:This poll is to give us a general idea of what members of the community think. No, we don't vote on policy, but a vote can help us get a general idea of where the community stands. —] <sup>(])</sup> 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not asking for free reign to use this as though it were licensed under a free as in freedom license — I am not asking for permission to use this on userboxes or in talk pages. I'm asking whether the community feels that limited use to illustrate handicapped accessibility is (or should be) acceptable. —] <sup>(])</sup> 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:Jimbo has been asked: ]. His comments seem to imply that if our fair use policy is changed, we can use it under fair use; but right now, our fair use policy prevents us from using it because it's replaceable and needs a rationale for every use. --] 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
::This discussion may result in a slight change to the fair use policy, whether it be the letter of the policy or the interpretation. Again, I don't want us to go wild over the use of the wheelchair symbol, but limited use where appropriate would be nice. —] <sup>(])</sup> 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:::In the event of the "fair use" policy being changed, it would be good to see that change applied to similar cases - as Gadfium pointed out, Crown Copyright (UK, NZ and other Commonwealth nations), is an analagous situation of reproduction allowed with no modification , and 500 plus images are threatened by recent spate of deletions of crown copyrighted material by free use ideological purists.
:::The present ''Fair Use'' policy is based on US copyright law with some additional restrictions. Unfortunately this
::::1. tends to exclude images from other jurisdictions so increasing the present US content imbalance and
::::2. provides a false sense of security that users of Misplaced Pages images are not breaking copyright or other laws, (some of the crown copyright images have been allowed because they fit within "fair use", when their use could break other nations laws).
:::There appears to be no reason to consider US law superior to that of most other OECD nations, nor for a policy to be based on anyones law at all.
:::The reason/retrospective excuse for a policy based only upon US intellectual property law is that[REDACTED] servers are based in the US, and "fair use" provides protection for the Misplaced Pages Foudnation against breaches of other nations copyright laws. This reasoning has two flaws - firstly, it does not protect users, as against the foundation, secondly, it does not protect either against laws other than copyright (e.g. defamation).
:::Ultimately I think we need international lawyers involved in a rethink of the whole policy from the ground up. In the mean time, for the little it is worth, my opinion is a common sense solution might be a relaxation the ideological purity of complete "Free use" position. Reuse without modification is hardly the most onerous requirement, and simply tagging this on the image should warn users of the danger and protect Misplaced Pages from liability.
:::If policy in this area is changed a change I would like to see is the abandonment of the Orwellianly loaded terms "Fair Use" and "Free Use", - it appears to me that discussion of change has been chilled because the policy contains the warm and fuzzy but not particularly accurate words "Fair" and "Free". I suspect if a newbie had renamed these policies they would promptly have been deemed POV and reverted :-) Seriously, attempting to discuss the policies seems to provoke at least some readers into irrational knee jerk assumption any one questioning Fair and Free use must be against fairness and freedom. ] 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
This poll is funny, and it won't change anything. We can't use the symbol, and people would rather argue to use it than make a better looking free version. Holy crap, people, it's not that freaking hard. I mean, just freaking look at it! We can't use the international one, it's painfully clear, deal with it. This isn't even close to being one of those grey areas we usually discuss here, not by a long shot. This is one of the ''most'' obvious situations of when to not use fair use that I've ever seen. -- ] 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:The question is not "can we?" It's "should we?" We may legally use the image. This poll, so far, has shown great support in favor of using the image, no matter whether the policy currently allows this or not. —] <sup>(])</sup> 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Any free alternative is inherently going to not be an internationally recognized symbol. Thus, any free replacement will be inferior to the International Symbol of Access. —] <sup>(])</sup> 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Legal issues don't matter, our policy, our non optional policy, says no. Being "inferior" is an absurd thing to say. How is it inferior? It might not look as pretty, but that's not significant. It doesn't matter how many people disagree with the policy, it's our policy, and it's been set by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. It's out of your hands, and the poll completely lacks the authority to do anything about the matter. Sorry, but that's the way things are. -- ] 07:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::We're talking about adjusting our policy. Again, the only argument against is that our rules say so. If there's no other reasoning, we should change our rules. The poll will be a good thing to take to the foundation, if they're the ones who have to decide. Finally, the free image is inferior because it isn't a recognized symbol. - ] 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I doubt anyone won't understand what the free image is implying, and because of that we don't ''need'' an internationally recognized symbol. We're not actually helping handicapped people by using this image, and we shouldn't be. Misplaced Pages is not a directory, or a guide for the handicapped. People don't need to use Misplaced Pages to see if handicapped parking is available at some train station. Even if they do use it, which we can't really stop people from doing, it's plain as day what the free image means. -- ] 07:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::But hey, whatever, if you guys want to give the Foundation your poll results, ok. But until they change our policy (which is not limited to just Misplaced Pages, but to all Wikimedia projects), we can't use the image. -- ] 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A passionate defense of nonsense, Ned; appropriate for April 1st... Side note: Is this not the classic case of ]? Aren't we supposed to use independent thought to judge and balance these issues? Shouldn't, in this one case, ] trump ]? ] ] 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:No, IAR is not a loop hole that anyone can just use when they don't get what they want. Free content is the very reason Misplaced Pages (and it's predecessor, ]) was started. Asking to be exempt for such minor situation in face of that is just absurd. Continue to discuss if you want, but those who violate our policies will be dealt with accordingly. -- ] 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Dealt with accordingly??? Accordingly to what? And by who? You? Oh, dear god, PLEASE sign me up for an accordingly dealing. (Does it involve Jimbo reading me the from "Freedom Defined" over and over again until my ears bleed? (Its hysterical (in every sense) reference to "God-like creators" seems to indicate ] is certainly not in effect there...)
::I love that ] is a policy... which, apparently, is only a joke, and is NEVER supposed to be actually used. "Heh, heh, you don't really believe all that stuff about ignoring stupid rules to help make Misplaced Pages better, do ya?" Uh, yeah, I do. That's why ] is a policy -- and asking you to have an original thought about this matter has apparently scared you so much, you can only fall back on another policy, which you must believe is somehow "immune" from the reach of ]. I'm not talking about using ] to turn Misplaced Pages in to the world's number one fan site; I'm talking about a one-time use of a sensible "check" on the insane dedication to a contradictory and messy set of unencyclopedic fair use standards. A dedication which is, in this case, emperically HURTING Misplaced Pages, by making it non-standard, non-International, and disabled unfriendly. But how can you process any of that? I mean, you have a very simple "program" - "Copyright = bad. No use on Misplaced Pages." Which is fine, and all, but both common sense and the law would permit the ISA's use on Misplaced Pages. I urge you to stand with common sense and the law, and perhaps, just maybe, realize that the answers to all of life's problems can't be found in ]. ] ] 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It means you'll get banned for breaking the policy. If you use the copyrighted image, get reverted, and keep trying to use it, you will be blocked. You obviously don't understand a fundamental point here on Misplaced Pages, that our fair use restrictions are actually more restrictive than the law requires, not because of legal issues, but because our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL. There's no major benefit to using the copyrighted image. Now you're resorting to inappropriate personal attacks on me because I'm simply telling you the facts of the situation. It's laughable to think that we would bend our fair use policy over something so trivial. You've completely missed the point. You're all hung up on something that isn't even an issue. No significant improvement will come from using the "official image" at all. Your argument is weak and lacks logic. Misplaced Pages will not be better for using another fair use image, it will be worse for using another fair use image. We are about promoting free content and using free content whenever possible, and only using copyrighted content when we have no other options. You are disagreeing with a fundamental value of Misplaced Pages. -- ] 08:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::And really, who cares if it's blue or not, or exactly the same image. It doesn't matter, EVERYONE will know exactly what it means. Are you really going to fight this tooth and nail, over something so absurdly unimportant and insignificant? You want us to bend the rules for ''this''?? Are you batshit insane? -- ] 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ned, it's not batshit insane to say that it's appropriate to use a nonfree image ''that has been released by the copyright holder for exactly this sort of use'' — especially in light of the on unfree content, which allows exceptions "to include identifying protected works such as logos". It is reasonable to say that a crudely drawn substitute is ''not'' an acceptable alternative, because the ISA ''is internationally recognized'', and the crudely drawn susbtitute is not. The Foundation's resolution says that nonfree content "must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." A reasonable argument can be made that the crude substitute ''does not'' serve the same educational purpose as the ISA. So please, refrain from calling people making reasonable arguments "batshit insane". —] <small>(] • ])</small> 09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::But this is specifically about incidental use of the symbol without any educational purpose. The issue is not to remove the symbol from ], but not to use it in an infobox of e. g. metro stations. There, the non-free symbol serves no educational purpose, which can be done just as well by a free symbol; therefore, it must be replaced. The symbol is also not an ‘identifying protected work’ in that context. —]<sub>]</sub> 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Josiah, they're talking about using the image in templates and stuff, like for train stations. I have no problem with using the image in articles that discuss the image. -- ] 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I understand that. I maintain that the use of the ISA in templates to identify handicap-accessible locations and facilities ''is'' an educational use, because it establishes in a clear, unambiguous, internationally recognized manner that the facility in question is handicap-accessible. The substitute image does ''not'' perform that function; nor would a text message, which would not be accessible to non-English speakers. Yes, we are the English Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean that we should refuse to use internationally recognized symbols which we're legally entitled to use. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::A text message in English ''would'' perform this function perfectly, since we are the English Misplaced Pages. That there are other means to express the same thing shouldn’t bother us especially if those means are in contempt of very basic policy. —]<sub>]</sub> 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm dumbfounded at your response, Josiah. Our content is supposed to be free of copyright red tape, so that you can use it for anything, educational, commercial, whatever. We don't allow educational-use only images (unless under WP:FU) or even images that people specifically for Misplaced Pages-only use (such images can even be speedy deleted). Misplaced Pages is specifically stricter than the law requires, because we're about free content. WP:FU isn't how it is because of the law, it's that way to prevent needless copyrighted images in a free-use project. This is so fundamental that it hurts my head. -- ] 20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::My point is that this is ''not'' needless — it is offensive to substitute something that looks a bit like an internationally recognized symbol but ''isn't'' it, when there is no good reason not to use the internationally recognized symbol. It's like representing a country with an image that looks a bit like its flag, but isn't. If ] were copyrighted and ] were free, would it be acceptable to use the latter in UN-related articles? After all, it looks a bit like the UN flag. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure I've covered this already, but unless you know something I don't, using an alternative image in place of the ISA will not be offensive (why the hell would you think it would be?) to people who are disabled. Disabled people don't have an attachment to that image, it's just an informational icon. It's not a flag, it's not a symbol of hope, it's just a damn icon to tell you if there's a ramp somewhere or if there's closer parking spaces. Other people and places commonly use alternative symbols to note disabled access all the time, and do so without incident. -- ] 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:It's clear that it's legal to use the ISA. It is not clear to me that it is legal to use a similar "free" image, as that might be considered a derivative work which is not allowed by the copyright holder's release. ] 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::A derivative work is just that. A work which is similar to another work but was created independently isn’t derivative. —]<sub>]</sub> 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It seems like this is a gray area where it's hard to tell if we have a derivative work or not. - ] 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not a legal expert, but the concept of a stick figure in a wheel chair is one of those things.. OfficeMax used to have a mascot that was a little stick figure, noted by a unique marking on his head. Other stick figures are ''very'' similar, but obviously OfficeMax can't make the claim that those stick figures infringe on their copyright. I'd think that same logic would apply here. -- ] 20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Does fair use even apply? If the image isn't used on a page that discusses the image, then it seems like it doesn't. We wouldn't be using the image under fair use, we'd be using it accordin to what its copyright grants. It isn't going to be released since it's copyright allows anyone to use it, as long as they're designating something that's handicapped accesible. If it were made free, it could be misused to lable something that isn't handicapped accessible, so it isn't going to be released. I wouldn't even want it released. The only change would be that people could misuse it. We should just explain its status on the image page, and then use it for anything that is handicapped accessible. There doesn't seem to be a tag for this sort of thing, so not sure what to do there. - ] 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Content on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be used for anything, educational or commercial. This is why we can't use images that allow for education use only without a fair use rational. Fair use is the ''only'' way we could use this image. -- ] 20:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Ned, we're suggesting that this image might be in a third category: unfree, but not fair use. The Foundation's allows us to create an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) for unfree content. These exemptions must be limited according to item #3 of the resolution:<blockquote>3. Such EDPs 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. An EDP 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 an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.</blockquote>The ISA is clearly an example of "identifying protected works such as logos", and we would be within our Foundation-delimited rights to include it in our EDP. At the moment, en.wikipedia's EDP is ], and obviously the vast majority of nonfree content on Misplaced Pages would be determined by our "fair use" policy — but "fair use" is immaterial to the use of this image, whose copyright ''explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it''. I, and others, are proposing that en.wikipedia's EDP explicitly allow the use of the ISA and other copyrighted international symbols whose use is uncontroversial in any other context.
::Ned, you say that you're flabbergasted by my response. I'm somewhat puzzled that you apparently don't see how using a different image in place of the ISA is problematic. If it's sufficiently unlike the ISA not to be a copyright violation, it's potentially confusing and/or offensive to disabled people, who know, use and rely on the ISA. If it's close enough not to be confusing and/or offensive, it's a derivative image. Either way, we're better off using the image itself, and adjusting our EDP accordingly. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I've explained in private to Josiah just how close I ''do'' know about disabled people. There's no risk of confusion, and the offensive concern is not an issue. I'm really not sure why one would come to the conclusion that using a different image would be offensive. I've even seen different images be used to indicate disabled parking, ramps, etc, and they're purely informational, nothing emotional or significant about them. These are not flags, and disabled people do not have an attachment to the ISA image. I don't know why anyone would come to such a conclusion, and I know you don't mean anything bad by that, but if I were disabled I'd be a little offended at your view. Why would you think that this image would be.. "holy" (or whatever) simply because it's used on maps and parking spaces? You've got it all wrong, offensiveness isn't a factor in this at all. No one's feelings will be hurt, no one will be offended. -- ] 04:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
=== Q & A ===
Is this image 'free' (in the ''libre'' sense)? Nope. There are restrictions on its use.
Is this a bad thing, or a reason not to use it on Misplaced Pages? Nope. In fact, it's what makes it worthwhile as a symbol—its meaning is clear because of its licensing terms.
Is there any reason why we would want or need to use the symbol in a way that is prohibited by its license? Nope.
Is this a 'fair use' issue? Nope. We would only be using the image in a way explicitly permitted by its license. 'Fair use' is a defence to a charge of copyright infringement; it would only be an issue if we were violating the license terms.
Wait—it's selfish to only think about our own use. What about people who redistribute Misplaced Pages materials for a profit? They're covered. The image can be redistributed in commercial materials as long as the terms of its license are followed.
Ah, but they can't freely modify the image, create derivative works, or use it without restriction. What about those people? Sucks to be them. If they want to abuse the International Symbol of Access to fuck with the mobility challenged, screw 'em. Misplaced Pages tolerates hundreds (thousands? more?) of Crown Copyright images which are free for use in educational materials, but require permission for commercial redistribution. Misplaced Pages tolerates thousands of non-free, copyrighted images under very tenuous 'fair use' claims. We expect that when people make copies or derivatives of articles incorporating these images, those people will take appropriate care to check the licensing of all the images on the page. Here, with the ISA, we have an image being used appropriately and which will likely propagate without harm into reasonable derivative works and commercial copies. Why are we choosing to get stuck on this particular point? ](]) 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Does anyone know what tag should go on the image page? - ] 20:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:Images with ‘tenuous’ fair use claims should be tagged accordingly or sent to ]. Other crap exists, but that’s not a reason to add to it. What about people who find themselves hindered by the third ]? Well, sucks to be them. —]<sub>]</sub> 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Please explain how this is fair use. - ] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Images on Misplaced Pages are either ''free'' on ''unfree''. '''There is no inbetween'''. This is en policy and was recently clarified in the foundation's licensing resolution, which states that images must be free (as in ''libre'', which the ISA is not), or covered by an EDP, which is for the limited discussion of copyrighted works.{{unsigned2|21:57, April 1, 2007|Ed g2s}}
:Please read the Foundation resolution about what EDPs can and can't cover. As I noted above, the Foundation allows us to use nonfree content for "identifying protected works such as logos". There is no reason not to adjust our EDP to allow use of this image, in accordance with the limits the Foundation has set. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
:: is interesting. Has anything besides Free and FU been discussed before? - ] 22:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
::Our policy already allows for "identifying protected works". Its use on the ISA article is not being debated. Using it as a replacement for the text "disabled access available" is '''not''' "identifying protected work". <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] • ]</span> 01:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::We wouldn't be using it under fair use protection. We'd be using it under the rights granted to us by its copyright. - ] 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea. Let's ban the use of the ] and the ]. After all, they're subject to the and not licensed under the GFDL, so they must be worthless and a detriment to our cause of creating free content. —] <sup>(])</sup> 03:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, the Misplaced Pages logos have been removed and taken down from many pages, banners, and such for those very reasons. ] used to be the Misplaced Pages logo, but because it wasn't a free image we took it off. Most people don't realize that Misplaced Pages's logo is not free use, which is pretty much the only reason we haven't taken it down from non-official uses, or uses unrelated to guidelines, policy, etc. -- ] 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:So what's the best way to take this to the foundation? It looks like if it was up to us, we would have a consensus to use it to identify handicapped access. At the least, we have a consensus to ask. Jimbo's page doesn't seem like the best place. The last time we tried that, it devolved into snarky comments, and he seemed to tune out. We should probably include the International Symbol for Deafness, and other symbols in our request. - ] 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:: --] 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If you choose to e-mail them, please emphasize that the ICTA is not going to release this under a free license because they surely only want it used to identify handicapped accessibility. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol. That would undermine the value of the symbol as an international identifier of handicapped accessibility. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's use the mailing list. Since this is where we're talking about it, let's discuss what points need to be made. I'll try and list the pros and cons so far. Copying some of the words used in the discussion so far.
Pro:
:Using it to designate handicapped accessible objects does not violate its copyright.
:The ISA may be freely used to illustrate handicapped accessibility. The symbol's copyright is only to protect improper usage. As long as it is being used to denote a handicapped accessible facility or service, we are using it within its guidelines and not violating its copyright. It's copyright explicitly allows the uses for which we, and downstream users, would use it.
:Its meaning is clear precisely because of its licensing terms.
:Stereotyped signs, no matter how well intentioned, can often cause offense.
:It is non-replaceable, except by ] or words such as "wheelchair accessible." These are not internationally recognized symbols.
:You can profit from it. Look at those handicapped accessible restroom and parking signs companies sell.
:It is universally recognised by design and common usage over many years.
:It's use would be disability friendly.
:The wikimediafoundation does sometimes allow with an EDP, which currently is ]. FU doesn't speak to this issue.
:It would not be used in userspace.
:It is easily recognised by non-english speakers.
:Using ] may not be legal, as it may be a derivative work of the ISA.
:It is unlikely to be made free because it's copyright's only restriction prohibits its use to designate objects that are not handicapped accessible. Making it free would remove this restriction. They would not be happy if people abused the image to mark non-handicapped-accessible things with this symbol.
Con:
:It's not free, and it wouldn't be used under fair use, unlike all images on wikipedia.
:The symbol is copyrighted and so derivative works are not permitted.
:We have a substitute image ], or can use text such as "wheelchair accessible."
:It's use would be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy.
:Since we don't allow other free uses of images which which allow modification, we shouldn't do it in this case.
:While it wouldn't be used in user space, it could be used in a template, and wouldn't have a (free use?) rational for each page.
:They're may be international issues that are not raised in US law.
:Misplaced Pages is not a guide for the handicapped.
:It's use is not important.
:It serves not educational purpose.
:Our goal is to have all of our content under the GFDL, which this image would not be.
:Images on Misplaced Pages are either free on unfree. There is no inbetween.
Did I miss anything important? - ] 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::I'm still baffled by this idea that not using the ISA image would be offensive. I'm not being rude here, I honestly am baffled. Have any of you known or lived with a disabled person? Also, while the ISA owns the blue wheel chair image with a stick figure, they can't make claim to ''every'' stick figure wheel chair image. Do you think that anyone was offended/confused, or even gave 2 seconds of thought, to images like these: , , , , , ? No disabled person is going to be angry or confused when seeing these other images in real life, on streets, maps, restrooms, rides, or ramps, why would they be? You guys need a touch of reality here, and you're making an issue out of nothing. Your over anticipating and trying to preemptively be PC for someone that most people, disabled or not, never even thought was an issue. -- ] 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::First, I've never lived with a disabled person. I'm not going to say I'm offended, but the fact that our policies prevent us from using these easily understood symbols is troubling to me. My guess is that when someone sees our version of the wheelchair, they'll think that it probably means disabled access, but they won't be sure. People who don't know they can click on the image and gain additional information will remain slightly unsure.
:::Those image links you provide seem to be standard uses of the ISA. If using a red version like is legal, but not restricted by the ISA copyright, I would be cool with that. We can just use red versions of all the disabled access symbols. I think they're all just legal uses of the ISA, though.
:::Will disabled people be pissed if we don't use the standard symbols? Some yes, some no. As we know, WP is mostly edited by able bodied white mails aged 15-45, or something close to that. We're not going to be good judges of what's best for the disabled. Because of this, I think that if we go out of our way to help the disabled more than seems necessary to us, then we'll be getting closer to what's right. We discuss FU vs. Free Use all day, and that makes it seem very important. If you were disabled all day, that would seem important. - ] 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'd go farther than that and say most disabled wouldn't even give which image used significant thought. We have no evidence to show otherwise, and only wild and unproven speculation. I'm not willing to "prove" my own experiences with such situations, for privacy reasons, but this is the first I've ever heard someone even suggest that a person might be offended because the disabled icon isn't ''exactly'' the same. It's really nice that you guys want to go out of your way to help people, but doing this.. thinking that it is helping disabled people, that's not what's happening. You're not hurting them.. but it's just kind of.. null. That's like me blowing at a house that's on fire, with my mouth, thinking I'm helping. Good intent, but at the end of the day it honestly makes no difference. Really, I'm not making this up. You guys have nothing but unfounded speculation to come to these conclusions. -- ] 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'll give to you that this discussion is opinion, same as all talk page discussions. I don't know what you mean about proving your own experiences, but even if you yourself are disabled, that doesn't mean you speak for a whole segment of society. I just think we should err on the side of helping disabled people. This is something that some of us think will help disabled people, which isn't silly. Maybe this doesn't make that big of a difference in the lives of disabled people. I don't think that means we shouldn't try. Some things help the disabled a little, and some thing a lot. I say do both, if they don't hurt us. We should do everything we can, and this is easily within the power of the foundation, so we should do it. - ] 06:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::While it's true that even if I was disabled (I'm not) that I wouldn't be able to speak for all disabled people (calling them a segment of society is a very inaccurate way to profile disabled people, who are individuals and have their own views), having ''some'' experience with disabled people would seem to trump no experience whatsoever. I don't mean to try to speak with authority, I just mean to point out that there's no evidence to support that there would be any confusion or cause of any offense. Your heart is in the right place, but using the ISA image on things like templates for Disneyland is painfully insignificant to a disabled person's life. We don't bend the rules just because you mean well, because in the end you're still wrong. -- ] 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I would call all of those examples derivative works of the ISA, except and possibly . The legality of derivative works is questionable, but it doesn't look like the ICTA is concerned about them because they are only being used in the context of illustrating handicapped accessibility. Thus, the restrictions the ICTA imposes on creation of derivative works of the ISA appear to be fairly relaxed. This is another thing to mention in the case for permitting use on Misplaced Pages.
:::I doubt that any free replacement would be used outside Misplaced Pages, even if the two symbols are of comparable artistic quality. It may seem counterintuitive to readers to use a symbol completely different from the one actually used in the real world. Thus, there is value in using the internationally recognized symbol in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the world.
:::The symbol is copyrighted for a very good reason. Do you deny this? If you do not deny that it's copyrighted for a good reason, then why should we refuse to use it in our project? —] <sup>(])</sup> 06:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::::My point in showing the other images was to show that people often use images that are similar but not the exact same as the standard ISA image, and do so without any incident whatsoever. We do not need a white on blue stick figure that is exactly like the ISA one. It won't seem counterintuitive to readers, there won't be confusion, because it's so minor no one will give it any thought. You have no evidence at all to support your speculations, and are blindly ignoring common sense. -- ] 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Wow, lengthy debate here. The point is that the Foundation tells us to use free images whenever possible. We can use a free image here rather than a copyrighted one. That's the wiki philosophy. ] 09:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol, this discussion is just stupid and pointless beyond belief !!! And Jimbo saying that we can't use the image without changing the FU policy is even more STUPID (Sorry Jimbo, i really do feel so). We don't have a tag for it ? MAKE a tag !! We don't have policy that says we can use it? MAKE it a policy that we can use this specific image!!! To say that we need to explicitly have an exception to the policy is just stupid for a single image. We could have 20 respectable editors sign of on it on the Image page and say: "It's ok to use this copyrighted image, in relation to disability topic within[REDACTED] etc etc etc." Categorize it as copyrighted image, Categorize it as "free to use, not to edit" and get it done with. This is Misplaced Pages bureaucracy that is pointless and disrupting even. Get over yourselves and over Jimbe (Jimbo is not WikiGod) --] (] • ] • ]) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:By the way, if you haven't yet signed the poll, I would like it if you would do so so that we can get an idea of the number of people agreeing and disagreeing. Another way to phrase the question would be "do the benefits of using this image outweigh the copyright restrictions?" Many of us say yes, and many say no. By all means, continue to discuss the issue. However, without signing the poll, it's hard to tell whether 90% or 50% of users support using this image. This is a question hard to decide by consensus, so it would really be helpful if we could at least identify strong support for one side or the other, see ]. —] <sup>(])</sup> 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::You can't force people to use a survey. It's pretty obvious that we have tons of editors that would disagree with the usage you are trying to promote. My guess is a lot of people don't even think this is worth the trouble to talk about. It's that simple. -- ] 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually, by my estimate, approximately 75% of the Wikipedians who have took place in this discussion have supported using the ISA to indicate handicapped accessibility. If you are claiming that the silent majority supports your position, then let me reiterate to you that the silent majority is ''silent'', i.e. they haven't told us what they think.
:::I'm still waiting to hear your position on using the unfree Wikimedia logos in places such as ], ], ], ], ], and ], not to mention ''every single page on Misplaced Pages''. —] <sup>(])</sup> 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You'll have to ask the Foundation, but my guess would be that the logo can be used for operational tasks of Misplaced Pages, but not as actual article content without a rationale. But for all we know, we should take them out of those templates too. The logo was ] for years before it was finally taken out. Most people don't even know the logos are not under the GFDL.
::::As for the sidebar itself, that is not considered to be part of the article document, just a part of the page displaying the content. About.com can display their copyrighted logo along side their mirrored copy of Misplaced Pages content, because the article is not "the entire window". The entire window is just how the end product is produced, nothing more than a UI, and the article is within the UI.
::::As for the silent majority, you can't just ignore past discussions about similar issues simply because it's not in -this- discussion. We do not ignore the thoughts and concerns of our fellow Wikipedias just because they can't watch every possible discussion, especially when we know they have strong positions on such matters. Do you honestly think we can't round up an assload of Wikipedians to push that little survey the other way around by simply making this discussion better known? A poll, even if recent, does not just debunk previous discussion or well known arguments of active Wikipedians. Like I said before, no one has probably bothered to get more attention to this discussion, or has seen the discussion but passed it up, because many of us feel this is such a minor and obvious issue. Keep pushing the issue if you really want to be proven wrong so badly, but I'd rather you not, for the sake of using all of our time more wisely. -- ] 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Where are these past discussions? Who participated in them? How similar are they to this instance?
:::::You assume that these other Wikipedians support your position and that is why they are not commenting. However, Wikipedians such as ] and ] indicated the exact opposite, saying that it is very clear that we should be able to use this image. Even if the other Wikipedians are all rolling their eyes at this discussion and staying aloof from it, their disinclination to participate does not indicate support for one side or the other.
:::::You may be surprised to know that I sent out notices to several editors who participated in previous discussions about this exact same issue, and that there is currently ] open on this topic. By all means, please inform other editors who you think would like to participate. We could even open a ], although unless I misunderstand the policy, all 24 (by my count) Wikipedians who have commented would have to sign off on it. —] <sup>(])</sup> 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Guessing what wikipedians who aren't commenting think isn't binding, obviously. But, my experience with these[REDACTED] name space talk pages is that this is where the strict interpretation crowd hangs out. It would be cool if we could get a watchlist notice like WP:ATT has right now. I think the more diverse the group of people brought in, the higher the proportion of support for these images would be. The proportion of support is actually enormously high considering who traffics these page. - ] 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::A watchlist notice is an interesting idea, but we should wait until the ] controversy blows over before putting up another notice. That way, we'd be less likely to anger Wikipedians over overuse of that mechanism. And by that time, we may already have this discussion resolved. —] <sup>(])</sup> 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, we don't want to try and do the watchlist thing now. Maybe after this discussion plays out, and if we have a consensus, we should implement the changes in policy that we've been discussing. It seems like Jimbo and rest of WP didn't even notice the whole WP:ATT merge until after it was done. After that, we can discuss the watchlist notification if people have a problem. - ] 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I seriously doubt they'd make a watchlist announcement for something like this. If you guys really want to get down to business then I suggest we make this a little more organized and less poll-ish, maybe using a separate, structured discussion, RFC page (summaries on one side, structured discussion on the talk side). We might also get some good insight by asking for comments from Wikipedians listed in ]'s subcats. Feel free to even keep counts and comments that are already existing, but right now the discussion is all over the place and needs to be a little better formatted. I still think it's a waste of time, but it might be a good lesson for you guys. Remember, you can have good intentions but completely miss the point, especially when you don't have a clue about what you're talking about in the first place.. -- ] 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::An RfC might be a good idea. What's the procedure for keeping counts and comments from what's happened before? - ] 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:DJ, the issue is when the image isn't being used in articles about disability, instead being used in articles like ones for Disneyland rides (in the infobox, with only the icon being shown). -- ] 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::Disneyland rides are just one possible use, and probably a minor one. If we can get the copyright stuff figured out, we could include any of disability access symbols on appropriate pages. Things like museums, libraries, television programs, and books. - ] 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::For a moment, lets say all of these images are free use images and we have no such problem. The images are being used as if we were some kind of travel guide, rather than helping article content. Just because the ''guide'' seems like it's for a good cause doesn't make it any less of a guide. Now, I'm sure we don't need to take out stuff simply for that reason, as long as it doesn't get out of hand then who cares if Misplaced Pages helps you find a handicapped ramp, but that's a secondary concern that is outside of the article's real content. Don't forget that we are an encyclopedia, not a place to dump every possible tid bit of info. Information for disabled people is abundant and easily accessed for the kind of uses you guys are talking about, and there's no demand for us to fill this ''extra'' role. -- ] 03:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It seems like encyclopedic information to me, when used within an already encyclopedic article. A list of disability accessible whatevers would seem to be more of a guide. Also, because other sites may have similar info doesn't mean we shouldn't. - ] 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::] is an example of its use; essentially it makes the table smaller than saying "handicapped accessible". --] 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I could see how having this information for the NYC subway might be helpful to researchers of disability accessibility and as such I think it belongs in[REDACTED] --] (] • ] • ]) 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Alright, I can see that point, but that doesn't require the use of the ISA image. There's no reason, other than convenience and appearances, that we can't use text, which would tell ''everyone'' what is being noted, not just those who know what the image means (most people know it's something for disabled people, but often they think it's a wheelchair only sign, etc). The ISA image isn't the most informative option simply because it's a graphical symbol. Blind people using text readers won't be helped by the image, but I guess it's ok to ignore ''those'' disabled people. -- ] 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree. It's such an international symbol that it IS better then text. And I think it's a very bad reason to in this specific case not allow usage of such a logo just because of our Fair Use policy. Also for blind people there is the "alt" attribute of the image and the mousehover text. --] (] • ] • ]) 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Im admittedly jumping in late to the party here, but the goal of[REDACTED] is a freely reproducible, usable encyclopedia. Sure, all the uses '''we''' have for the symbol are legit, but by the GFDL we have to give all downstream users of the 'pedia the right to modify it, and this breaks that. Fair use is a neccesary evil in cases where free alternatives are available. This has a free alternative. Using this is just blatent disrespect to the liscense of our work where there need be none. And the notion that disabled people would be offended would be shocking if it werent so patently absurd. Its hyperbole from an undefensible posistion. Look in the top right corner of the page, you see our logo and the text ''Misplaced Pages: The 💕''. That doesn't mean no cost, that means freedom. Get off your mock-indignation that we actually intend to support free culture and use the freely liscensed wheelchair image. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
{| style="float:right; background:none;"
|-
{{userbox|orange|yellow|]|This image may or may not indicate disability services.}}
|}
:::::::::It's the classic free vs. encyclopedia argument. I guess you feel the free part is more important in this case. Other people here feel the free alternative (assuming it isn't just a derivative work) doesn't do the job well enough. The are free, as long as they're used to identify disability services. You can even make derivative works such as , as long as it is used to identify disability services. The reason why the real images should be used is because a person can be sure that it isn't identifying something without the correct services, precisely because of its copyright restrictions. - ] 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Thats frankly not my call to make, it's Jimbo's and he's been quite clear on that. I dont know if you remember way back, but there were fair use images everywhere till the Foundation approved rampage got most of them. It's why 'Misplaced Pages is Free content' is one of the ] deemed the core essence of wikipedia. And while you're here, its Jimbos world, you just play in it. Got a problem with it? Because of that wonderful GFDL, you are perfectly welcome to fork the project and start your own. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:We're just discussing it and hoping to get the foundation to think about it, and possibly grant us an exception for these symbols. - ] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::I thought allows each project to set its own Exemption Doctrine Policy, without nailing down firm rules about what will and will not be permitted by these policies. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Just to jump in again. Isn't our own[REDACTED] logo copyrighted ??? I mean how hypocrytical would that be. You say to use a (forbidden) derivative work of an internationally recognized logo, a logo which is internationally freely usable to identify accessibility issues, whilst not even having your own logo using the same "standard".... Sorry, but this is just laughable. You cannot say that the[REDACTED] logo not being GFDL is "rightful" and then the ISA logo, which i'm 100% sure is more free then the[REDACTED] logo is not usable. And I checked, the wikipedialogo is in use ALL OVER the place where it might not be 100% compatible with the current license for downstream usage. --] (] • ] • ]) 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Above, someone wrote, in defense of not using the ISA, ''This has a free alternative...'' Not really. Just because someone makes their own non-standard, non-Internationally accepted version of the handicapped access symbol doesn't make it an "alternative." It is, however, non-standard, and non-Internationally accepted... not unlike my own Stop Sign design I'm hoping will become the new standard. ] ] 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think that the wheelchair stick figure we created is a derivative work, although I don't know a ton about copyright law. Imagine if you put that image on a sign, and put the sign in front of a non disability accessible building. That doesn't sound legal to me. You probably can't know for sure without going to court, but people have been sued over stick figures like in the ] case. Or to think of it another way, what if Nike's symbol on their shoes was the ISA. I think they would sue you into the ground if you came out with a shoe that had our wheelchair symbol on it. - ] 03:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license? —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify something: '''we do not use non-free licenses ... EVER'''. This is Foundation-level policy. They are simply forbidden, completely. No matter how reasonable you think they are. Any argument that goes along the lines of, "but the license say we can use it for ..." should be completely ignored. It is an unfree license (per the Foundation's definition) and as such of no interest to us whatsoever.
All that is left to consider is whether it is covered by our EDP. For "identifying the protected work" on the ISA page it is. As a replacement for the ''free'' and ''adequate'' text (]#1), "disabled access available" or a footnote, it isn't. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] • ]</span> 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
‘In this freedom, it is the ''user’s'' purpose that matters, not the ''’s'' purpose’; ‘Especially, '' must not specify any usage restrictions''’; ‘All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License,’ ‘as can be found at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition’. And that’s why we don’t use ‘usable free of charge for limited purposes’ material. —]<sub>]</sub> 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:Please answer my question: What exactly do you think downstream are users going to want to do with the ISA that requires a less restrictive license?
:Also, if that's really what you think, then you should go remove the copyrighted logos from ], ], ], ], ], and ], as they are "of no interest to us whatsoever". —] <sup>(])</sup> 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::Trying to predict every possible outcome of creativity and artistic process is pointless; trying to sort such outcomes into legitimate and illegitimate ones is entirely futile. I don’t think about what downstream users are going to do with free material; I let them. I think that’s the spirit of the definition of freedom recently made official by the Foundation.
::The Foundation’s logos should be removed where they do not meet the usual criteria for non-free logos, but I’ll leave that to somebody better able to handle the ‘response’ by you-know-who and just post my opinion in the discussion. —]<sub>]</sub> 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Why do you think that the foundation refused to license the logos under the GFDL? —] <sup>(])</sup> 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been busy in real life and unable to participate in this debate as much as I would like, but after private correspondence with Ned Scott I'd like to retract my earlier claim that the ISA is like a flag and that alterations of it may be offensive to people with disabilities. This was based on a misunderstanding on my part.
However, I still think that Peregrine Fisher's concern that the substitute image may be a derivative of the ISA is an important one. If ] is a derivative image of the ISA, then if we want to use it we will have to carve out an exemption for it in our EDP — and if we did that, there would be no reason not to use the real, internationally recognized symbol instead of its derivative. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:Josiah, Do you agree with me and remember the dot, that if the ISA image needs to be an exemption by the EDP in order to be used, that the[REDACTED] and wikicommons etc logo's also need an EDP amendment ? --] (] • ] • ]) 19:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::Yes — and I think that EDP amendments ''should'' be made, both for the various Wikimedia logos and for the ISA and the other ICTA icons. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
=== We just need a new image ===
I think the problem is just that ] is too closely modeled on the ISA symbol. ''That''<nowiki>'</nowiki>''s'' the reason it looks silly. We need a totally different idea. I would suggest a direct icon of a wheelchair wheel, something like ], but optimized to be more particular to the context (perhaps an inner guide wheel, a different arrangement of spokes, whatever works).--] 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:I suggest we then just use text. There is no point in using a "comparable" image to an internationally recognized symbol, that is so different that it's not a derivative work but also still recognizable as "the international logo". That would just be a "working ourselves around[REDACTED] policies"-attempt, without having to actually think about why the policies are there. In my eyes, the policies are the problem here, not the use cases. --] (] • ] • ]) 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
::But icons are practically ''useful'' to us, and not just when they're "international standards". See all of the different icons at ]. I feel that a wheelchair wheel icon, easily recognizable as such, would help our readers, without embarrassing us with a silly image, or forcing us to give up our valuable free images policy.--] 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think we should reinvent the wheel ;-)
:::Users should be able to tell ''immediately'' what the image represents, rather than having to learn a new symbol used only on Misplaced Pages. It would be much better to use a partially unfree image than to confuse our readers. —] <sup>(])</sup> 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:Text would be better than a symbol which would be meaningless to readers. The advantage of a symbol is to convey information quickly and efficiently. The ISA does that. ] does that too, only more awkwardly and in a fashion that may be a derivative use of the ISA. ] does not — my first thought on seeing that image was of the ] in the middle of the ]. (Do we want to say that a given railway station or Disneyland ride is accessible to Indians?) I don't see how the icon of a wheelchair wheel, of whatever design, will convey what the ISA does.
:Furthermore, I believe that any attempt to create an ISA replacement for Misplaced Pages's use is doomed to failure, because the ISA is the ''only'' widely recognized symbol for accessibility. As I've said before, only an image similar to the ISA will be widely understood, and such an image is probably a derivative work. Any image sufficiently distinct from the ISA will be too unfamiliar to readers to be of any use. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::You know, I'm not really someone who's absolutely dead-set against text. Although it wouldn't exactly be unique to have an icon that only exists on Misplaced Pages, like for example ]. I do feel that it would be probably be possible to come up with an icon that ''in the context of transport articles'' would be recognizable as a wheelchair wheel symbol; but perhaps I'm wrong, and we should just use text. I don't think we could be "doomed to failure" in any case as the goal is rather modest — just an icon that would be usable at Misplaced Pages; this shouldn't be interpreted as some sort of grand challenge to the ISA.--] 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
==== Why not just ask the ISA itself? ====
Ask them what '''they''' think of the issue. That might help.--<font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="yellow">]</font><font color="black">]</font><font color="pink">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 05:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure their answer is already clearly demonstrated by the copyright they have given the image: "'''No''', we don't mind you using it for its intended purpose. '''No''', we aren't changing the license." --] <small>]</small> <nowiki /> 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree that it's unlikely that the ICTA (the organization) would release the ISA or the other accessibility icons under a free license, but I suppose there's no harm in asking. If they say "no", then at least we know for certain. It would be good if someone with some experience asking for free licensing did it. The ICTA's contact info is . —] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:::When we tell them "It would be nice and all if you prefer us to use your logo, but because of the licence you use, we are not willing to use it, what do you suggest we do?", they might come up with a solution for us. Remember, they are the experts in the area, and they might think of things that we haven't thought of yet. ] 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
*We should use the image as intended by the ISA. A minority of Wikipedians are pushing their zeal for ''libre'' images to a ridiculous extreme. This is a great example of a good use of non-free image content. ]\<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:*It is not "a ridiculous extreme." The point here is, no matter how noble a purpose we may think is served by this license, ''we do not use licenses'' which restrict use of a work more than the GFDL would. It would be exceptionally easy to simply replace instances of this symbol with text-"wheelchair accessible." (And indeed, if our goal is greater access to the disabled, this would be much easier for the blind using screen readers then an image anyway.) We only use restricted images under ''very'' limited circumstances, and when absolutely no alternative is available. In this case, alternatives are. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::*It definitely is a ridiculous extreme. A small minority of people are too afraid of non-free content. We need to be less restrictive in our use on non-free content, not more restrictive. Our primary goal should be to build an informative and easy to read encyclopedia. If a different image can help with that fine, but we shouldn't avoid this image just because it is non-free. That is not a good use of our time or resources. ]\<sup>]</sup> 07:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::*Our primary goal, actually, is to create a ''free'' encyclopedia. That doesn't just mean "free of charge," nor even just "free for anyone to edit." It means that ''whenever'' possible, we use content which is permissible for anyone to use, copy, redistribute, or modify. In some cases, a non-free image is the ''only'' possibility for illustrating something, generally when the image itself is being discussed. For example, the article ''about'' the ISA would have to use the ISA, because it is discussing ''the symbol itself''. That is a valid use, and no free alternative could serve that purpose. The same would be true, for example, in discussing an iconic, notable photograph or painting. But in most cases, free alternatives can be used or created, and ''we should not use unfree content in those cases''. In this case, the free-content phrase "wheelchair accessible" will serve the same purpose as an unfree image-illustrating that the location in question is accessible. Given the choice between something free ("libre") which will serve the purpose, and something less than that, we ''always'' choose the free alternative. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::About blind users using screen readers, the screen reader should pick up the <code>alt</code> attribute and read that text, making either text or the image equally accessible to a blind reader. There is no reason to prefer the text over the image because of accessibility concerns. The question is, for the majority of users, would we rather present them with the ISA?
::::I and others who have commented hold that the ISA, as an internationally recognized symbol, is irreplaceable. No free equivalent could be created, as any free equivalent would be used only on Misplaced Pages and not in the real world. —] <sup>(])</sup> 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not[REDACTED] policy. The problem is international law. Who the *beep* copyrights a standard symbol, and puts limits on its use!? What next? The letter "A", or the symbol "$" ? %-/ --] 12:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:Well that is quite common. We live in a world of protectionist laws, and as such you need to have the copyright and what not in order to defend the usage of a verbatim or similarly looking text/image. I would also like to point out that in many countries it's not possible to "give-up" the copyright, you can only licence your work freely (or not of course :D ). Note that the usage license is the problem here, NOT the copyright. Almost all major International standards are copyrighted, luckily most don't define their own images. I still think it's stupid not to allow the use of this logo btw. I still think it falls under current Fair Use law, just not under our Fair Use policy.
:It's like saying you are gonna write an encyclopedia in morse code, but you can't use the symbols for morse code, because the international morse code standard says that it would be illlegal to switch the meaning of the dot and the dash. There just isn't a point in that. Sometimes you need to see where your own rules simply exceed the commons sense. --] (] • ] • ]) 12:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::PS. note that almost all the fonts are not free for use. Your suggested situation is already a reality and always has been. --] (] • ] • ]) 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:The Latin alphabet was first published prior to 1923. The ISA was not. --] (] | ]) 18:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:: However, that's not quite such an esoteric point as it sounds. The ], €, '''is''' copyright. "The copyright for the euro symbol belongs to the European Community, which for this purpose is represented by the European Commission." Yet we freely use it to represent the Euro currency, just as organisations and companies all over the world use it, include it in standard fonts, and so on. How are we able to do this? Because "The Commission does not object to the use of the euro symbol, indeed it encourages the symbol’s use as a currency designator" - just as with the ISA, the copyright holder allows the symbol to be freely used ''to indicate the information it is intended to indicate''. The ISA does "object to use of the symbol in commercial logos, particularly where a third party aims to obtain trademark protection for a logo"; but as we are not using it in this case, there seem to have been no copyright objections to it, despite the fact that our users are not totally free to take parts of Misplaced Pages including Euro symbols and use them in whatever way they like.
:: I think a lot of people are seeing the use of this image as more outrageous than it is, because people think that there are two basic statuses - "copyright" and "free". This is, of course, wrong - most free works, including Misplaced Pages, are copyright, with the copyright retained to ensure that they can be distributed freely. Misplaced Pages isn't released without restriction - you can only use its content IF you give adequate credit to Misplaced Pages. ] is considered a free licence as long as the provisions do not restrict third party use. But, yes, we do set a line, based on the , which neither the euro symbol nor the ISA meet. However, a new exception, as proposed below - "Internationally accepted symbols that are copyright protected but released for use by anyone to represent a piece of information may be used to represent that information" - wouldn't seem to me to be unreasonable at all. Users can continue to download, use, alter, modify, and so on, all those parts of Misplaced Pages that use the ISA, euro symbol, and other similarly-licenced symbols. The only thing they can't do is take out those symbols in isolation and use them in entirely different ways to how they are used in Misplaced Pages. This isn't optimal - we'd like the symbols to be entirely free - but given that using something that is not the internationally-recognised symbol will not be as good as using the internationally-recognised symbol, I'm not sure that we should utterly deplore these nearly-free symbols. ] 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
=== Fork ===
This discussion has forked into ]. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
=== Moving on with the consensus ===
I'd like to point out that, despite the vastly disproportionate amount of text, there is a large consensus so far to use the image. The "no" responses are generally in the section "No, do not have the poll", by a few people claiming that their narrow interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy trumps 26 supporting editors, These people have talked at great length (especially Ned Scott), making it look like there's more disagreement than there is. To not use the image to illustrate accessibility would be against consensus.
Of course, I recognize that it would not be correct to claim that the image is as freely licensed as, say, a CC-By-SA image. The solution I propose is to simply note the image's (very liberal but not entirely free by our definition) copyright status on its image page, and work out a guideline for when it is okay to use the image (which I propose should be the same as the ISA's guideline: when it indicates handicap accessibility). It would be kind of like fair use, but most of the restrictions of fair use don't apply: we don't need to use a reduced resolution version, it doesn't just have to be for critical review, and we're ''encouraged'' by the ISA to use it when an alternative is available.
] / ] 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:This is rational, reasonable, and entirely appropriate. I fully agree that there is a large consensus to use the image. Let's work on figuring out a way to satisfy both the desire of the community, while protecting (as best as can be done) the wishes of the vocal minority who would prefer we didn't use this standard International symbol. Would this require a change to our current ]? Or is this a good time to actually use the oft-invoked, seldom acted upon ]? ] ] 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::If you have to ignore the rule, that's a sign something probably needs fixing. However, this is a very narrow exception, so it could be as simple as something like "Internationally accepted symbols that are copyright protected but released for use by anyone to represent a piece of information may be used to represent that information" ] (]/]) 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, the entire discussion seems to be driven by the use of the image on ] where it is trivially replaceable, and on userpages which wouldn't be in conformance with the license terms for the icon. To me, this seems a bit dishonest... like folks who are trying to advocate a break from our restrictive policies have found some image that they can cry "''think of the disabled!''" about. But perhaps I'm missing something... In any case, the decision to hold this conversation here is an example of forum shopping.. and as a result the poll tells us nothing. --13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)| 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::I'm pretty sure the license terms would allow us to use the symbol in userboxes if we wanted. However, I'm not making that an issue.
:::If the village pump is forum shopping, then where would you rather we held this discussion? —] <sup>(])</sup> 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::An excellent point. If the page dedicated to discussing Misplaced Pages policies is now deemed by a high-level, well connected admin to be an inappropriate venue for discussing a change to Misplaced Pages policies, we're deep in to ] territory. But I'll bite, in hopes the admin responsible isn't just being a jerk ... where are we supposed to discuss this proposed policy change? You wouldn't be trying to stifle debate/discussion of this issue because it's patently ridiculous, and makes Misplaced Pages look like it's run by a bunch of high school debate club students run amok, would you? Let's again remember what's at stake here - Misplaced Pages is taking a stand, apparently, AGAINST using an internationally recognized and, in some cases, legally mandated symbol for disabled access because... uh ... because... well... you know, because it's not libre enough. A fine reason to some, no doubt, but I would guess the vast majority of those in the "sensible" community would find it somewhat puzzling that every effort isn't being made to include this simple, simple, harmless standardized icon. ] ] 05:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::There are a couple angles from which I feel comfortable calling this forum shopping. VP has a much higher concentration of new/inexperienced users than most other Misplaced Pages policy forums. There are also several designated places for discussing copyright related policies, while VP is very high traffic with a poor SNR, so our users with the most knowledge and experience in copyright matters will not usually see a discussion here. In any case, I find it hard to respect anyone who is trying to argue that we should permit a restricted use based on completely unsubstantiated claims that we are legally mandated to do so. --] 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a special exemption for just this image; we need to address the underlying problem.
All the "no" votes are actually in the "this poll is invalid" section, claiming either that:
* This is a copyright issue; not a policy issue
* These policies are not subject to community consensus
and therefore the concept of asking the community what they think is fundamentally invalid.
Of course both are false. The image is licensed such that it can be used legally, and our policies ''are'' decided by community consensus and popular support. The Foundation has not mandated that we only use free content; they have given us the freedom to decide as a project which kinds of non-free content we want to allow. This is where we decide, and popular opinion is clear. — ] 18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:The foundation has laid out a narrow set of guidelines covering the area which projects may decide to use legal non-free content. Using this image as userpage and template decoration is not within the scope of the foundation's permission. Furthermore, the use of it in this manner may well fall short of the copyright restrictions under which it has been released. --] 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:Well said. Should we ask the Arbitration Committee to put their stamp of approval on this change (see )? Or should we just be ] and implement the change? —] <sup>(])</sup> 02:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Uh, no, you're not even close to showing a need for the image, and there's no way in hell that change is going to happen by being bold. -- ] 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::And popular opinion is '''not''' how we do things here. This is not a vote, not a democracy, and not a place for flawed speculations. Our policy is '''very''' strict, what on Earth makes you think this is ok simply because a bunch of misguided users have their hearts in the right place, but not their heads. I've never seen so many people become so blind to logic because they wanted to be "PC". The arguments for using the image are painfully flawed. No other image is acceptable? Says who? Has a single disabled person even been involved in the discussion? Gmaxwell hit the nail on the head in his comment. The ISA image will not be used in Disneyland infoboxes, or other unneeded places, deal with it. -- ] 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Funny you should ask whether a disabled person has participated in the discussion. In fact, ] voiced his support for using the ISA (note that Ispy1981's comment was made with the assumption that the ISA (in black and white) was still used on ]).
::::Essentially what you're saying (unless I misunderstand) is that the policy is not subject to debate, which is not true. And I can't wait for you to go around removing every instance of the character € because it can be replaced by the text "euros". —] <sup>(])</sup> 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Apparently you misunderstand. Our policy is subject to debate, just not subject to weak arguments and flawed logic. And I hate to break this to you, but "€" is considered text.. Even if it wasn't, why the hell would I do something like that? I love images and symbols, but the ISA image has copyright restrictions and can be easily replaced by another image or by text alone. How does that lead you to think that I would replace the symbol for euros.. You've misunderstood me a whole lot if you can't even tell that. -- ] 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::The euro symbol has similar restrictions to the ISA. It is copyrighted to protect its usefulness. The main difference with the euro symbol is that it is included in most fonts, while the ISA is not. The ISA does have a Unicode codepoint, U+267F, showing up as <span style="font-size:xx-large">♿</span>. A compatible font such as ] must be installed to view the character. —] <sup>(])</sup> 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::] is copyrighted? -- ] 02:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::While most people probably don't have something like DejaVu Sans installed (I didn't, but it was pretty easy), using unicode for the ISA image would be a great solution to this situation. ♿ -- ] 03:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, the Euro sign is copyrighted, but it may be freely used to designate the Euro currency. Please read . Whether we represent the ISA as a character or as an image makes little difference to our goal of using free content. Most Linux readers would probably have no trouble viewing the ISA as a character, but the majority of our readers use Windows and would just see a question mark. It would make more sense to simply represent the ISA as an image, rather than asking all the Windows users to download and install a new font just to see one symbol. —] <sup>(])</sup> 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::"''The copyright for the euro symbol belongs to the European Community, which for this purpose is represented by the European Commission.''" I'm no lawyer, but that almost sounds like public domain if the European community is considered the copyright holder. -- ] 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Keep reading and it will make more sense. " does however object to use of the symbol in commercial logos, particularly where a third party aims to obtain trademark protection for a logo." In other words, the European Commission acts as the copyright holder and restricts companies from using the euro sign as a logo. People might confuse the euro sign with the company's logo. If the euro sign is significantly altered to alleviate confusion then it would be OK to use it in a logo.
:::::::::::In any case, it's not something that we need to worry about. The euro sign is free for practically any purpose. —] <sup>(])</sup> 04:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Granted it's not relevant to our discussion, but that's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. -- ] 07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
←Well, if you're OK with representing the ISA as a character in text, then there shouldn't be much problem representing it as an image either. The only difference is how the content gets to the reader's computer, whether through a font from another website or from our website directly. The end result is the same. —] <sup>(])</sup> 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:The end result is the same, but the difference is we're not hosting or distributing the image itself.
:As crazy as it sounds, I've often wondered if we just created an unofficial FU server, then allowed people to optionally download a plug-in to their browser, and then display the images from the FU server in-line to articles on Misplaced Pages that had meta-data markers for where the image would go. Right now I'm thinking about how to make such a meta-data market for {{tl|Episode list}}, and then make a Wikia Wiki that would host LOEs but in a locked form and updated from Misplaced Pages by bot. Users would use the Wikia site only for uploading the images and image captions (via templates it would be easy). To update the list all users would still update the same copy, the Misplaced Pages copy, but would allow for an screen-shot version to exist. (Not to say that I'm totally against screen-shots in LOEs.. I'm still a bit undecided about that).
:The GFDL allows us to have our cake and eat it too. There's no reason we can't take our content and put non-free images all over it, but there's also no reason why it has to technically be hosted by Misplaced Pages (provided we have reasonable navigation back and forth).
:The font is an extra-easy way to do something similar, allowing us to embed an image without hosting the image file ourselves. -- ] 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::I think a separate wiki for non-free images would be of questionable legality since the people hosting the content would not be the ones using it for critical commentary. If we're going to use an image, we ought to have the guts to host it ourselves.
::As far as a version of Misplaced Pages without unfree images, I'm sure a proxy server could be created that would filter out unfree images. But I doubt there would be much demand for it. Most people don't look at at an article and feel offended that we included an unfree image in it. Rather, I would imagine that most people are happy that we are able to use unfree images to create a better encyclopedia. —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The second Wiki would be hosting an active copy of the content, so there would be no such legal concern. This has nothing to do with "guts" because we wouldn't be doing this out of "fear"...
:::I'm not talking about making Misplaced Pages free from all non-free images. I believe such images do have a place when they are vital to the article. My idea is for non-vital, but still legally fair use, situations. -- ] 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Wouldn't that undermine our goal of creating free content because people would just visit the more relaxed version of Misplaced Pages? —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Nope, I thought of that too. That's why the split version is locked and is only used for the image uploads and article viewing. The articles would be copied over from Misplaced Pages automatically, so if you want an edit to show up there you would have to contribute to the Misplaced Pages copy. -- ] 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, in that case people would only visit the regular copy if they were going to edit it. The ordinary user would just browse through the relaxed version. —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::And? -- ] 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::There would be little motivation to create free content. People might think "Why should I bother taking a picture and releasing it under a free license? Anyone can already look at the promotional photo on Misplaced Pages Relaxed if they want to see a picture." —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
''As crazy as it sounds, I've often wondered if we just created an unofficial FU server, then allowed people to optionally download a plug-in to their browser, and then display the images from the FU server in-line to articles on Misplaced Pages that had meta-data markers for where the image would go.''
: Other way around. The people who are so vehemently opposed to all non-free content need to create a fork that strips it out. Misplaced Pages has always allowed non-free content when it helps us write a high-quality encyclopedia, and we shouldn't give this up because of a loud minority of agenda-pushers. — ] 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::The logo isn't going to be used on Misplaced Pages in any way that violates the ISA's restrictions. It is worthwhile to have due to universal recognition. It is the responsibility of end user (readers who print it out, forkists, etc.) to insure that they do not violate the ISA's use requirements. This is true of all fair use images, and cannot be refuted as incompatible with the GFDL unless one would suggest abolishing fair use images entirely. Misplaced Pages needs to adapt to "semi free" images and cast aside the binary free/unfree method of thinking. If Misplaced Pages is to encourage openness it must not impose any restrictions not already attached to the image. It is a sad day when an organization is willing to allow us to use their logo in purposes beneficial to the encyclopedia and it is Misplaced Pages's own red tape that prevents is from doing so.--]]] 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Wow! A long and interesting debate on free use/fair use - amazing. OK, seems there is a consensus on a proposal to ArbCom, but here's just a thought. If I want to use the ISA image in the UK, it has to comply with certain regulations - for instance, if I want to apply it to a building, then I have to have it applied at certain heights/locations/sizes; and my building needs to comply with certain building regulations first before it can be applied. My thought would be that's why its copyrighted. Effectively its out there and could be argued to be fair use - but its in its implementation in use that the need for copyright is the simplest legal format for controlling application. Lets say for instance ArbCom agree it can be used - the next questions would be where and how? I found this page on the UK's ] website which tackles the implementation of the UK's Discrimination Act, and what is , quoting a case where a disabled person sued the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and won Aus$20,000 in judgement (interesting that the RNIB, a leading UK disability organisation don't use the ISA on their website). So, much as though debates can be had on whether its fair use of not, the key question for me still revolves around the HOW? We could open up more of a legal can of worms than just free use or not/change of policy. Rgds, --] 11:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Interesting thought -- I would presume that we would display the ISA only if the metro station, Disney ride, etc. being discussed also uses the ISA. That way, we are merely reflecting what is already there, instead of making judgments about what does and does not qualify as handicapped accessible. —] <sup>(])</sup> 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
=== Moving on (again) ===
Thanks to all who have expressed their views. I think that the consensus is even more clear now that this change in policy is supported by the community. I think that we should ask the Arbitration Committee to place their stamp of approval on this change (a specific exception for the ISA) in order to avoid an edit war. Jimbo has made a suggesting this as a possible option for approving changes in policy. Any thoughts on this? —] <sup>(])</sup> 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
== Template:LocateMe ==
There is discussion in a number of places (e.g. ] and ) as to whether ] should be placed on the article page or the talk page. 540 articles have been tagged with this template to date (e.g. ]). If you're interested in whether & when nagging templates can be placed in the article space, please consider adding your thoughts at ]. --] ]
==WikiProject talk page templates==
There is currently a plethora of options for the Wikiproject talk page templates from the small option, to several Wikiproject banner options, to pages with just the plain banners. When an editor created the {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}} option he/she stated that he implemented it in banners but only after asking each WikiProject if they supported it. Now other editors are adding the option to every WikiProject banner without discussing it. Also there is the question of whether editors who have not contributed to an article should insert their preferred template. I think it's time to discuss this a little bit to reach some consensus. Personally I prefer this simple template:
! style="text-align: center;" |This article is within the scope of multiple ]<br/><span style="font-size:85%;">Click on for further details</span>
|-
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{!}}
{{{1}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{!}}
{{{2}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{!}}
{{{3}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{!}}
{{{4}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{!}}
{{{5}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{!}}
{{{6}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{7|}}}|{{!}}
{{{7}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{8|}}}|{{!}}
{{{8}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{9|}}}|{{!}}
{{{9}}}}}
|-
{{#if:{{{10|}}}|{{!}}
{{{10}}}}}
|}
and I'm ''extremely'' active in ]. In my opinion talk pages aren't billboards for WikiProjects. There are a lot of people who don't like the clutter, or the small option. I think it's important to bring it up here, because it seems like the only discussion going on is mostly among WikiProject members and I think (in some cases at least) there is a COI issue there. Also there are now so many options for displaying the templates and some confusion as to how each page's templats are decided upon I think it could use some discussion. If we could discuss the process that a system for each page is decided upon, I think is that would be great. I think the consensus is that if you haven't contributed to an article you shouldn't change the template system to your preferences, and that a change should be discussed on the talk page of each article first.
Here some relevant discussions: ], this whole page is relevant:], and ] among many others. I want to get the opinions of the general community as well as the people who have worked hard on these templates and the WikiProject members, as it concerns them as well. ] 00:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:And to clarify a little bit, the consensus seems to be that '''no''' "shell" needs to be added to an article if there are only one or two projects that tag the article. If there are three or more, one of the options is often implemented.
:The three options that I've seen are a) hide all project banners: {{tl|WikiProjectBanners}} b) hide all non-essential tags: {{tl|Hidden infoboxes}}, and c) hide the banners except for one line each: {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}}. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::I personally prefer {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}}, but more then all, I want an agreement on what we are gonna do. It's a tad annoying to have all these various methods. There is also a gigantic amount of duplicity in in project banners in general, perhaps it's time to tackle that as well. --] (] • ] • ]) 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::P.S. can't we have some sort of "autocollapse" like we have for Nav boxes when there are more then 2 ? --] (] • ] • ]) 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Also as I discussed with Satyr before if the BannerShell could have an option to display as the banner above does I think that would be great. If the user doesn't want to see all the banners they chould have that option. I think that would be near perfect. ] 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:I, for one, appreciate the flexibility of {{t1|WikiProjectBannerShell}}. When you open a {{t1|WikiProjectBanners}}, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get. Additionally, a nested style doesn't take up ''too'' much space, and gives the project ratings. {{t1|WikiProjectBanners}} has no such functionality. I'd be fine with adding a "collapsed" option to WikiProjectBannerShell; it's an easy addition, by the way.
:An idea I've had recently would be to standardize project banners (to an extent) so that a project that wanted a banner that did xyz could just make the appropriate calls to the "superbanner." For example, <tt><nowiki>{{ProjectBanner|image=FreeCheese.jpg|enablesmall=no|topic=Cheese|class=yes|importance=no}}</nowiki></tt> would give a standard wikiproject banner with a class rating system and transclude articles to the appropriate category, but wouldn't accept importance parameters. This obviously wouldn't work with some of the more complex banners, but it's an interesting idea. I'm sure people could build on it; for example, if someone added a default-infobox parameter to the superbanner, an article talk page call of <tt><nowiki>{{WikiProject Cheese|needs-infobox=yes}}</nowiki></tt> would result in an article talk infobox that suggests the proper default infobox. Additionally, <tt>nested</tt> would need take priority over any additional boxes, or would cause the additional boxes to be integrated into the primary template box. I'd think some code would need to be duplicated in {{t1|WikiProjectBannerShell}} (such as the currently-supported blp and activepol) so that the various common (superbanner-supported) boxes would also be supported there. Anyone like any of these ideas? —] (]/]) 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::One issue that I can see with BannerShell is that it can be somewhat counterproductive in reducing the clutter of wikiproject banners in instances when articles have more than a couple of projects. As an example, the ] article has been added to six Wikiprojects and when {{user|TonyTheTiger}} replaced Banners with BannerShell it increased the clutter by quite a bit in comparison to Banners. In my case, it pushed the table of contents off my 1280X1040 screen. --] 00:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::That brings up my other point editors are changing talk pages of articles they haven't worked on. What is the policy for deciding which banners appear on each individual talk page? ] 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Also I agree that the Shell Banners bring some of the clutter back that's why I like the smaller banner template option. I'd prefer the option to be able to see the templates appear as they do above. ] 01:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I went ahead and wrote the code for a precollapsed bannershell. It's in a user sandbox here: ]. Is that acceptable? —] (]/]) 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I can't say that I have a problem with TonyTheTiger making the change without having edited on the talk page before. It's just a function of being bold. I do, however, like Disavian's modification to the bannershell template better than the current version. --] 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Why, thank you :) and I wrote it in record time, too! —] (]/]) 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't really see the point of Disavian's version, though I totally admire his ability to whip it together like that! The point of BannerShell was to combine the functionality of {{tl|WikiProjectBanners}} (which reduces the clutter) with the need of WikiProjects to at least have their name out there. Having it collapsed reduces it to the same thing as WikiProjectBanners - projects are hidden. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::That would make me happy Disavian, however I started this as more than just a way to satisfy myself. I hope we can keep this going and reach some consensus. I would say that if you're not a contributor to a page you shouldn't insert a different banner style (especially on a well trafficked page) until you comment on the talk page first. Also there are still some pages using the small option, I would think that should apply for those talk pages as well. If there are no banners or small optioned templates on a talk page it should be fine to format them in your preferred style. But if an editor has inserted a style that it should be discussed first and in particualr if you're not an editor to a page you should'nt sytematically format pages to a certain style. Also what to do concerning the fact that we have some pages in small option templates, some in the form of the Banner above, and some in the Shell format is something that should be discussed as well. ] 01:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Why does there need to be two related templates at all? Disavian's modification seems to make having two separate templates obselete which is a win-win situation if you ask me. It gives editors the option of having the names of the wikiprojects visible, or to hide them completely if that is what they want.:) --] 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) One point I'll make is it seems like many users want the option of not having to see the banners and opposing that I think reveals a little COI. Why is it so important that the option of not seeing the banners be taken away from people? ] 01:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:AFAIK, all of the methods being discussed (with the exception of the small option) give users the option of not seeing the banners; the question, as usual, is what the ''default'' should be. ] 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::The Shell option can't display as the template above does currently, there's a new one by Disavian that would do that. Also I think we need to make clear how it's decided on each page what system to use. I guess it's done on a page by page basis and that discussion should be done first, particularly if an editor has inserted a certain style. Am I correct? ] 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::(edit conflict with last two above)A couple of opinions, from what might be one of the worst offenders for placing banners on articles he hasn't worked on.
::::(1) I am aware of any number of banners I have placed on articles (generally Saints, Biography, and 1.0 Editorial Team) where I have not worked on the articles. In these cases, however, I believe that the banners have been validly placed, because
:::::(1) the Biography banner often indicates whether an article needs a photo, which generally isn't already known there,
:::::(2) the Saints banner (with some argumentats, admittedly) is being added to articles which I hope, one way or another, will all be shown on the ] in one capacity or another, so that they will get some attention they often might not otherwise, and
:::::(3) the 1.0 banner hopefully will reduce the number of existing banners for the WPCD, v0.5 and successors, core topics, and so on.
:::::(4) many of the projects have article lists, which can then be used as the basis for determining what changes are being made to articles. I have reverted vandalism to ] several times already on the basis of that article being included on the Saints project list.
:::::(5) often, the person placing the banner is doing so on the behalf of a comparatively new project, which is specifically intended to deal with articles of that type. In that case, the editor placing the banner may be doing so on the behalf of the majority of the people who have worked on the article already, but doing it in their stead.
::::On the basis of all of the above, I find that the question about whether an editor has contributed to an article should determine whether they can place a banner is probably not the best one.
:::Regarding some of the other points:
::::Personally, although I value seeing in the "nested" option the existing quality assessment, I would think that they, tending to be relatively consistent, may in a sense be less valuable than seeing the various importance assessments, and would greatly value being able to see them in the "compressed" version.
::::Lastly, I wonder whether it might be possible, in some way, to try to create in some cases a "subject area" banner for several similar projects. Certainly, the ] article would probably technically fall within the scope of some several dozen projects, most of them being Philosophy/Religion and Middle Eastern. If we could create a version of the Military history banner, with "tabs" for the various, in this case, Christianity/Judaism/Islamic projects out there, that might also help reduce clutter.
::::Otherwise, I rather prefer the "nested" option, and would add it to more banners I use if someone could show me a simple version of it I could copy to other banners. ] 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::The point I'm making is a lot of these changes are currently based on personal preferences or personal views. At the very least I think these changes should be discussed first except in cases of obvious errors. Do you propose these changes first or do you just make them? Also if an editor reverts them what is your course of action? I'm asking this to mine your opinions and experience not to be confrontational. ] 02:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::Understood. Generally, I only add a banner if the article is already clearly in the scope of a project, either through categorization or inclusion on a[REDACTED] or reliable outside list. In those cases, it's kind of hard to question the inclusion of the banner, except when people question the initial categorization. In those cases when that isn't the case I try to add text to the article to indicate the justification for the new category and banner, preferably with a reference to indicate that I'm not being weird. Generally, there's no need to propose those changes, as the articles are, more often than not, not featured articles in the first place. In one case recently, regarding a mythical Scandinavian king whose name I can't for the life of me remember, someone removed the categorization and banner despite the fact that the existing text indicated the subject's extant feast day. He commented on the removal of the category and banner, and, when I discovered it, I placed my response regarding the feast day on the talk page. Once in a while, doing some things for national based projects, once in a while someone questions a banner, but generally not very often. In most cases, though, I regret to say, I probably don't myself notice on way or another. ] 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Maybe I'm not being clear John, what I'm saying is in regards to changing from banner templates to banner shell templates and from small optioned templates to bannered templates. I wasn't speaking specifically as to what WikiProjects should have their templates on a talk page, but the formatting of the banners. Who decides what and so forth particularly when several styles are currently considered acceptable. Let's say I come across a talk page and all the banners are in the small option and so forth and I want to put them in a banner or vice versa, etc. ] 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, that is not at all my field. Sorry. Generally, when I add banners, they're more or less the first ones on a given article. As such, I don't "compress" them into any of the banner templates, because there aren't that many to compress. My apologies for having not understood the question. ] 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::The code you add to a banner to enable the nested option is shown on ]. —] (]/]) 02:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the info. ] 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Personally, I just make the changes. If someone reverts it, then I either just shrug and move on, or ask for opinions on the talk page. I personally don't think regular editors have any more say than a one time editor and there is always the option to revert the modifications if someone doesn't like it or complains about them.. --] 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:I still think stronger guidelines for banners and how to use banners would solve the bulk of this problem. -- ] 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::I agree, as indicated above. The problem is how to make those guidelines enforcable in the current system. ] 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I was thinking about creating such a template for a while. If you need a bot operator to make the merge happen and there is consensus Ill gladly make the bot run. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 05:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You're speaking of the one Disavian created correct? ] 05:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that one standardised container needs to be decided upon. Those of us who write automated tools can then move to support that template (whichever it is) whereas at the moment it's not clear ''what'' we should be doing. --] 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:If I might make a proposal there, I've noticed the Military history banner. Would there be any way to reformat a "generic" banner such that, for the less complex projects, it would say something like:
:"This article has been assessed at "B-Class" on the assessment scale by the following WikiProjects:" and then have "drop-down" tabs for the projects who have done so, possibly with the little icons included next to their names? I know '''NOTHING''' about the logistics involved, and apologize if what I propose is unworkable, and know that some like Military history and Biography are probably too complicated to be included, but if the various projects which might be involved could agree to a standard list of category options included in the template, then maybe all that would have to be done would be to insert the name of a particular project for an assessment to take place. Provided, of course, that anything like that is even remotely workable. ] 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::It would be technically possible, but there are a number of issues with such a design; the most obvious is that while quality ratings may be consistent among projects, importance ratings are not, so the template would need to support separate ones for each project. Frankly, I think the difficultly of actually using such a template would outweigh the net space gains.
::(Shameless plug: ] would result in a more limited, but still sizeable, consolidation of banners.) ] 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I am late getting to the table. I apologize for any issues with my editing of ]. I have been the leader of ]. This has grown into a role as leader of ]. I just created ] & ] and am going about setting policy for assessment at WPChi. My first order of business was to make sure that the 5 inaugural top rated articles (], ], ], ] and ]) had clean talk pages. I decided to follow the BannerShell format I noticed on a recent page. I endorse BannerShell over Banners, but will go along with the majority consensus since I am new to talk page debates. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*Sorry for coming late to the discussion and for limited participation (]). I prefer {{t1|WikiProjectBanners}} because it is the cleanest, most of the Project templates are just cluttering talk pages making them hard to use, and few Projects help maintain the articles they tag. I disagree that banners should not be used at times when there are only two projects; some of the WikiProject Banners are SO massively ridiculously enormous and convoluted, that at times, a banner is needed when there are only one or two Projects. And, regular editors to an article should be able to decide via consensus if they want one or two massive Project templates hidden. ] (]) 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
**Sandy has a point. The more I think about it {{t1|WikiProjectBannerShell}} is redundant because quality does not differ across projects. If it could be changed to show importance it would be more useful. {{t1|WikiProjectBanners}} is probably better until such time as space clutter through redundancy can be eliminated. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Au contraire - quality does differ between projects. WP:Film is rating entirely different things than WP:Bio, which is different from WP:MilHist.
:::And as I stated above, {{tl|WikiProjectBanners}} entirely defeats one of the main reasons projects put banners on articles - to recruit. Without recruiting, projects die. If the banners are hidden, casual readers (the ones projects are trying to recruit) don't see them at all. {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}} was created to mediate between hiding the banners altogether and showing all the full banners. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::(added) The banner for a particular project can opt to show the importance as well as/instead of the quality on its one-line summary. Let me know which banner in particular you're interested in doing that for and I can make the change. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Update''' Currently a couple of dedicated editors are actively inserting the shelled format into talk pages all across the project: I'm not saying this is right or wrong I'm just bringing it up. ] 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I can't speak for others, but I've been working on this for weeks and have a list of banners where the banners have the nested option. Is that a bad thing? -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 03:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well basically you're converting all the talk pages to a new format. There are some people obviously who still prefer the old banner format. I'm not going to comment on it but I thought it merited mentioning as it's definitely related to the discussion at hand. ] 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::And to be fair, are actively inserting {{tl|WikiProjectBanners}} into talk pages all across Misplaced Pages. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 05:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Maybe you provided the wrong diff as an example, that one doesn't support what you're saying. ] 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I agree with SatyrTN, the original {{tl|WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems to offer the best compromise. ] | <small>]</small> 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I would like to add that when WP:Films was presnted with the "already taken decision" to hide WP Banners, our consensus has been Shell because of recruitment needs, easy visual check of class and of projects involved. So if we stay on the general principle that hiding project banners is for when more than two projects claim the article, Shell is our preference. I have also argued that clutter has no meaning in talk pages where there is no talk, as is the case in most of films stubs. Maybe this could be given further thought here. ] <small>]</small> 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Of course WikiProjects like them (duh), they turn talk pages into billboards for their projects like the OP said. That's the basic thing people keep saying, I don't like the shells/nested junk let's keep it simple and not take away the option to hide the stuff from people. Also Hover don't act like you talk for a large group of people your vote/opinion is that of one person. <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="Blue"><b></b></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 00:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see ], regarding WikiProject scopes getting off track. I think a lot of stuff can be cleared up by better work load distribution and less redundant tagging, and the WikiProject scope is in the center of that. -- ] 00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So what's going to happen? I like Disavian's option. <i><font face="arial, helvetica" color="Blue"><b></b></font></i> ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to bring here what was discussed by a few only members in WP Films. The first discussion is here: ]. There were 5 members including me, one was for Satyr's proposal, the rest expressed some doubts. Then there is the second discussion here: ], where only Nehrams and me took part. Even this was no vote or poll, but opinions we were asked for. I still think that if you don't use the nested option and you hide all (including maintenance templates) you will slow down the development of film articles and the participation of new members. I do not say this as an opinion, but out of knowing what is going on in WP Films. When I first joined there was only a handful of active members. Now it's full of life and part of it is some new members who like to go through thousands of articles, look for missing things and place a maintenance tag in the talk page. Having in mind the banner issue, I tried to discourage creating new templates and adviced just placing a category in the talk page. But no, they want the template and they are happy with it. I don't know why. I let it up to you. ] <small>]</small> 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:As an active member of both ] and ], let me say I was pleasantly surprised when Disavian's code to support nesting under {{t1|WikiProjectBannerShell}} was added to those two templates. It is a perfect compromise: the names of the WikiProjects are still readily visible, but it greatly reduces the clutter on a page such as ]. It should be the default standard. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well call me ] but that's clearly disputed above by multiple users, a strong desire by editors to take away the option of not showing the templates is a little telling to me. ] 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
== Suggest CSD U4 for chat pages ==
I have proposed to add a new rule for speedy deletion, which will cover all user and user talk pages which are devoted exclusively to communicating with other people about topics nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. It's hard to quantify that, but for something like "Hey Pikeyboy, Where R U? OMG WTF BBQ SOS" (which I tagged for deletion just now), ]. Please comment at ].
== Image attribution under CC-Attrib license ==
Under Creative Commons Attribution license , the sharing and remixing are allowed under the conditions of attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." (quoting from the license text).
So, if a photographer has specifically asked that any display of the photo in any publication should bear her name in the credit line, shouldn't we include such credit lines in the photo captions in Misplaced Pages too?
Suppose ] has been uploaded by user X, and released under CC-Attrib, with instructions that any display of the image should credit the photographer explicitly in the credit line as "Photo by:X". When we add this image to an article, shouldn't we use this? :
:<nowiki>]</nowiki>
I've been trying to get many photographers involved and take photos of under-represented countries and locations (such as ]), but many of them have replied that they'll contribute CC-licensed content ONLY if proper attribution is made. As a comparison, regular news media almost always provide explicit attribution to the photographers in the photo captions, and so does most encyclopedia ().
So, shouldn't we always provide proper attribution to photographers in the credit lines if they ask for it under CC-Attrib? --] 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, which is why I'm pretty sure CC-Attrib licenses which place demands on article content to include certain things are not allowed. ''However'', a requirement to credit the image can be met by placing it on the image description page, which has to be done anyway. Only if it explicitly must be mentioned in the caption does the problem come up. -] <small>]</small> 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, but is one of the licenses allowed in Wikimedia commons. The "not-allowed" bunch includes the ND-NC ones, and I'm not talking about those. I'm referring to the "allowed" ones like CC-Attribution or CC-by-SA, and a photographer is definitely allowed to request attribution in
::Also, is there any policy from the foundation that says a CC-Attrib/ CC-by-SA image is not usable if the photographer requests a small credit line in the caption (i.e. "the manner specified by the author or licensor")? --] 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Like I said, I'm pretty sure there is a policy that places restrictions on licenses such as that, but I can't remember where I saw that. So if you're looking for a definitive answer, I can't help you. Sorry. -] <small>]</small> 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::<small>(edit conflict)</small> My viewpoint as a Wikipedian photographer is that attribution is not necessary in the captions as the user can click on the image and acquire the source information from the description page. Such is not possible on Encarta or varying news media. I have begun only uploading attribution-required images after I spotted one of my images on a news website and was a bit perturbed about for-profit industries using my work without attribution, but by no means do I expect to have my name plastered on every article using my images; and frankly I think if a photographer wants his name on every article, he can stop contributing to Misplaced Pages and we'll find someone more willing to cooperate. --] (<small>] ;; ]</small>) 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::The problem is, you can't always get "Someone else" to take photos of distant locations which are quite under-represented in Misplaced Pages. I've been getting in touch with many people and trying to get them involved in photo content generation for commons (such as, of ]), but the most common thing requested by the photographers is attribution. Since the license allows the photographer to request that explicitly, I would like to see a definite policy that allows violation of the license, or the non-usability of such images. Turning away people who generate rare photos is not a good solution. Thanks. --] 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::No policy could possibly allow violation of copyright. Even if, for some bizzare reason, people ''supported'' that, the Foundation would step in against an illegal policy. And people are indeed allowed to demand attribution however they please, if they have the copyright. -] <small>]</small> 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Well but if they retain the copyright then the image can't be used here. I think the question is, if it's released under CC but contains the stipulation that attribution must be given ''proximate to all manifestations of the image''... that is, in the viewing field of anyone viewing the image, e.g. on the ''same'' web page, next to the image, without leaving the page being needed to see the attribution. I think that is probably what these photographers are asking for. It's certainly reasonable to want everyone seeing the image to also see the attribution, rather than the few percent of viewers who go the actual image page. We do not do this now. Can we? I don't know. Should we? I don't know, but I don't see why not. ] 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I agree, I don't see why brief credit lines shouldn't be used (they might be legally binding too, if the authors ask for them). The problem gets complicated as content is released under CD or print form. I looked into the SOS Foundation Wiki CD, and the photos there are not clickable, so no attribution for the photos are present. Creative Commons Attribution license is very clear: if the authors ask for attribution, you HAVE to give it in however form they want it. So, if someone asks for attribution in the caption in a reasonable manner, I don't see any way we can prevent that without legally violating the license. The commons and[REDACTED] image policies do not prevent any such requests for attribution, nor do I see any reason why we should discourage photographers who are eager to release CC-licensed images, but ask for reasonable attribution. Thanks. --] 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So, should I assume it is ok to add credits to captions, per CC-Attribution license, as discussed above? --] 20:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:I don't know. Anyone know if this is allowed under policy? It's certainly something that ''hasn't'', as far as I know, been done; and I fear that attempting to do it would result in it being edited out. It should certainly only be done if the license makes an explicit stipulation that attribution "must be given in the image caption, if any" or somesuch. Otherwise atribution on the image page may be assumed to be sufficient. ''However''... if the license requires that attribution must be given proximate to all manifestations of the image (e.g. in the image caption), then it may well be that this is too restrictive for us to use the media. Where's the limit? What if the stipulation was ""must be given in the image caption, if any, ''in a font at least three times as large as that used for the caption text''" or whatever. That would be overly micro-managing our presentation. It may be that requiring credit "in the image caption" or whatever is similarly overly micro-managing our presentation and can't be accepted. Anyone know anything more about this? ] 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::Hmmm ... like Amarkov, I don't see how any policy or consensus can go against a license, which is a legal document (i.e. if someone requires attribution as part of image caption, no policy/consensus can say that won't be given). --] 04:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wee. The Creative Commons totally non-binding "human readable text" confuses people yet again! What ''actually matters'' is the license text:
<blockquote>
4.b. If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
</blockquote>
As you can see what is actually required is attribution which is ... "reasonable to the medium or means", "implemented in any reasonable manner" and "at a minimum .... comparable". In our medium, we provide attribution in a one-click away form. This is reasonable because it prevents the primary work page from being flooded by an endless sea of names, some of which may be intentionally offensive, but still we can not avoid crediting them in a consistent manner other than to reject such contributions entirely. ...and with a minor change to our terms of service we could wave attribution for works under Creative Commons 2.5 and later entirely. The addition of inline credits for images would create a number of ugly results, such as creating a concern that people are only contributing for the purpose of self-promotion, and inequitable attribution for article text which could only be addressed through an unsustainable addition of every editors name to the article. I suggest we instead create a second talk namespace called 'Credits' which is automatically populated with image attribution license data, and where interested editors can maintain a list of authors of an article. This would allow for fair, and intuitive, attributions for all parts of our pages. No automatic system can be expected to accurately credit text authors, but since we've mastered a million other maintenance tasks, maintaining a credits page should be no problem. --] 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
== NSFW ==
The other day I was talking to an elementary schoolteacher (in the U.S.) who mentioned that she likes to use Misplaced Pages with her students. I warned her that she could get in trouble for showing the kids Misplaced Pages. I mentioned that the ] article had a photograph of a naked woman on the top. (It's gone now, but ] still has a naked guy on the top.) I also could have gotten in trouble had I clicked on a "woman" link at work rather than at home.
That got me thinking: I understand the "Misplaced Pages is not censored" mantra. But shouldn't there also be a "Misplaced Pages is not intended to get you fired or suspended from school with surprising 'not-safe-for-work' (NSFW) content" policy?
This is ''not'' the same as prohibiting indecency, as has been proposed. This is not the same as age-rating our pages, as has been proposed. This is simply about preventing people from accidentally getting into trouble with NSFW images, just like we use the spoiler template to prevent them from accidentally learning the result of a mystery novel.
] has a good . Basically, any picture as risque or moreso than something you'd find in the ] is NSFW. The same goes for graphic content (described as "Images that would make many people feel ill or uncomfortable") and graphic text.
Fark users are allowed to link to NSFW content but must warn that it is NSFW. They also cannot post NSFW images on Fark pages. Fark does not condemn NSFW content (in fact, its users seem to revel in it); it simply recognizes it can get people fired.
Yes, I know that in an ideal world, or some people's ideal world, we would all be totally accepting of everyone's bodies and sexuality, and no one would be hung up about those things. But most of us don't live in that world. In most of the English-speaking world, it is considered inappropriate to have pictures of naked people on your computer screen at work, and doing so can get you in big trouble.
I think a policy like Fark's may be too harsh for Misplaced Pages. It would preclude us from even having articles on sensitive topics. I have nothing against Misplaced Pages having images of sex toys, sexual positions, or whatever, even though those are sure to include NSFW content.
What does bother me is encountering NSFW content ''where someone may not expect it.'' The ] article is a good example. Another is when ] was a featured article, and the blurb on the front page mentioned "]." Not knowing the meaning of that word, I clicked on it, only to find myself at the ] page. Fortunately, no one was looking over my shoulder at the time; had someone been, I could have gotten in big trouble.
I recommend a policy along the following lines:
===Misplaced Pages is not intended to get people fired or suspended from school===
Misplaced Pages is not censored, and material need not be omitted because it is indecent. However, we realize that certain types of material can get users in trouble at school or work. Therefore, editors should be sure that "not safe for work" (NSFW) content should only be found where people expect it to be found.
The following material qualifies as potentially NSFW:
*Nudity (genitalia, pubic hair, buttocks or female breasts)
*Risque images (as or more risque than the ]
*Pictures of sex toys or parephernalia
*"Shocking" images that would make most people uncomfortable, such as bodily functions, gruesome accidents, graphic surgery, and the like.
*Sexually explicit text.
Note that there is no policy banning any of the above outright. Nudity and sexual content may be acceptable where warranted. It would be impossible to have an article on topics like ]s or ]s without including NSFW content. But editors should take precautions to ensure NSFW content is not encountered ''unexpectedly''.
Here are some precautions editors should take:
*Pages that include NSFW content should include the NSFW template at the top:
::<div class="notice spoiler" id="spoiler">'''Warning: ''This page contains content that may be considered inappropriate for workplaces or schools.'''''</div> ''(This is just an example of a template. We'd have to come up with the precise wording for the template, which would include a wikilink to the NSFW policy. I'd like to see a technical solution in which the reader could click on a link and get a version of the page without the NSFW images.)''
*NSFW images should be placed low enough on the page that a reader would have to scroll down to see them.
*If editing a page in which a reader might not expect NSFW content, consider if it would be possible to replace the NSFW content with content that is safe for work without sacrificing information.
*If wikilinking to a page likely to contain NSFW content, make sure that is obvious to the reader. For example, the link ] redirects to ], so don't include a link to ] without making it clear that clicking on the link will take the reader to the ] page. This can be as simple as using parentheses: "] (anal sex) was illegal in England until 1967."
===Discussion===
===Discussion===
*{{re|Voorts}} If option 2 gets consensus how would this RfC change the wording {{tqq|Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process.}} Or is this an attempt to see if that option no longer has consensus? If so why wasn't alternative wording proposed? As I noted above this feels premature in multiple ways. Best, ] (]) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*The problem here is similar to what there is with other proposals like this. You can not define NSFW in such a way that people will not protest that THIS image qualifies too. -] <small>]</small> 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*:That is not actually true. ArbCom can (and has) forbidden some editors from re-requesting the tools through RFA. ] ] 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*I recognize the problem with trying to make this a black-and-white issue with a template, but I agree with the principle that we should not unexpectedly redirect people to not-safe-for-work pages. If we make this a guideline, we don't need to pin down exactly what "not safe for work" means besides "I know it when I see it". It seems like a natural parallel to the fact that, for example, we allow images of penises on Misplaced Pages, but we restrict the articles they can be added to (quite strongly, with a technical measure instead of a guideline). ] / ] 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*I've re-opened this per ] on my talk page. If other editors think this is premature, they can !vote accordingly and an uninvolved closer can determine if there's consensus for an early close in deference to the VPI discussion. ] (]/]) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
**Yes, but you'll notice that there's no policy which says that ''must'' be done. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because that is the only way it can work. -] <small>]</small> 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*:The discussion at VPI, which I have replied on, seems to me to be different enough from this discussion that both can run concurrently. That is, however, my opinion as a mere editor. — ] ⚓ ] 22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
***And I'm not supporting a policy that would mandate a "NSFW" template or anything of the sort. I'm supporting a guideline that warns against surprising users with NSFW content, and this would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis -- and unlike the bad image list, it would only be a guideline, not a technical measure. ] / ] 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*:@], can you please reword the RfC to make it clear that Option 2 is the current consensus version? It does not need to be clarified – it already says precisely what you propose. – ] 22:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I would oppose any such policy or guideline. i would merely be siezed on as an excuse for thsoe who '''do''' wish to censor Misplaced Pages. ] ] 10:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*::{{done}} ] (]/]) 22:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I would entirely expect an article on ] or ] to have a picture of a naked specimen on it. And therein lies the problem with this proposal. ] 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Question''': May someone clarify why many view such confirmation RfAs as a waste of community time? No editor is obligated to take up their time and participate. If there's nothing to discuss, then there's no friction or dis-cussing, and the RfA smooth-sails; if a problem is identified, then there was a good reason to go to RfA. I'm sure I'm missing something here. ] (]) 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*Agreed with Radiant. ] is ''extremely'' important. While we shouldn't gratuitously use nudity or sexually-explicit material or images, we also should not be afraid to use such in a frank and encyclopedic manner. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*: The intent of RfA is to provide a comprehensive review of a candidate for adminship, to make sure that they meet the community's standards. Is that happening with vanity re-RfAs? Absolutely not, because these people don't need that level of vetting. I wouldn't consider a week long, publicly advertized back patting to be a productive use of volunteer time. -- ] (]) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I agree also, although I sympathasize with your situation and think some of your points are valid, inducing censorship of any kind is a slippery slope. ] 11:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*::But no volunteer is obligated to pat such candidates on the back. ] (]) 00:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*This is a fine proposal. We'd just need to put the template on every page - then people couldn't complain they don't like the particular content. And it'd be easier to get editors to stop complaining about how they don't like the content of article ]. ] 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*::: Sure, but that logic could be used to justify any time sink. We're all volunteers and nobody is forced to do anything here, but that doesn't mean that we should promote (or stay silent with our criticism of, I suppose) things that we feel don't serve a useful purpose. I don't think this is a huge deal myself, but we've got two in a short period of time and I'd prefer to do a bit of push back now before they get more common. -- ] (]) 01:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*People just need to not look at potentially NSFW articles while at work. While at work, I work on states, roads, and policy... all SFW. At home, I'm much more liberal in where I tread. ]</font><sup><font color="#2F4F2F">]</font></sup>/<sub><font color="#2F4F2F">]</font></sub> 15:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*::::Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. ] (]) 02:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
**Someone removed these two comments, returned them to the discussion. ]</font><sup><font color="#2F4F2F">]</font></sup>/<sub><font color="#2F4F2F">]</font></sub> 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*:::::Except someone who has no need for advanced tools and is not going to use them in any useful fashion, would then skate through with nary a word said about their unsuitability, regardless of the foregone conclusion. The point of RFA is not to rubber-stamp. Unless their is some actual issue or genuine concern they might not get their tools back, they should just re-request them at BN and stop wasting people's time with pointless non-process wonkery. ] (]) 09:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*But the problem is that some Misplaced Pages articles that you would think are SFW are not. Radiant, being a longtime Misplaced Pages user, may expect to see a nude photo at ]. But I would hazard a guess that no other widely used, English-language encyclopedia has a nude photo of a man in its article on "man." So most users would not expect NSFW content there. And yet it's at the top of the page. Most people would not expect to find a naked woman at ], but there is one there. I'm as against censorship as anyone. But I don't want Misplaced Pages to be something that can only be used at home and in private. -- ] 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*::::::I’m confused. Adminship requires continued use of the tools. If you think they’s suitable for BN, I don’t see how doing an RfA suddenly makes them unsuitable. If you have concerns, raise them. ] (]) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*I actually support the proposal in concept, because if it could be implemented properly it wouldn't really be censorship, but I agree that if this were to become policy, pretty soon every article on the Wiki would have this tag on it, which would render it meaningless. I think it would be more effective to just place a little warning somewhere like by the search bar, that says "Please be careful; some of the articles on Misplaced Pages may not be appropriate for a work or school enviornment." I agree that most new users might not expect to see a naked picture on ], but when it comes down to it the whole internet is potentially not suitable for work, and Misplaced Pages is no exception.] <span style="font-size:75%">] <sup>]</sup></span> 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*I don't think the suggested problem (which I acknowledge not everyone thinks is a problem) is resolved by these options. Admins can still run a re-confirmation RfA after regaining adminsitrative privileges, or even initiate a recall petition. I think as ], we want to encourage former admins who are unsure if they continue to be trusted by the community at a sufficient level to explore lower cost ways of determining this. ] (]) 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
**Especially when you consider the fact than random acts of vandalism can arbitrarily render any page very unsafe for work or school, I think Spadeprince's suggestion is better : a site-wide disclaimer declaring the possible inappropriateness of Misplaced Pages articles. <span style="font: small-caps 1em Optima">]</span> 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Regarding option 3, ]. The intent of having a reconfirmation request for administrative privileges is counteracted by closing it swiftly. It provides incentive for rapid voting that may not provide the desired considered feedback. ] (]) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
***I'm glad you support the concept. I'd think that surely, though, there has to be a way to define NSFW in an adequately narrow way. -- ] 22:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
* In re the idea that RfAs use up a lot of community time: I first started editing Misplaced Pages in 2014. There were 62 RfAs that year, which was a historic low. Even counting all of the AElect candidates as separate RfAs, including those withdrawn before voting began, we're still up to only 53 in 2024 – counting only traditional RfAs it's only 18, which is the second lowest number ever. By my count we've has 8 resysop requests at BN in 2024; even if all of those went to RfA, I don't see how that would overwhelm the community. That would still leave us on 26 traditional RfAs per year, or (assuming all of them run the full week) one every other week. ] (]) 10:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
****To Sancho - we already have such disclaimers. To Mwalcoff - not really, if you account for multiple cultures. Compare Amsterdam, where a topless woman is not going to attract all that much attention, to Chicago, where that is to my knowledge illegal, and to Medina, where it is illegal for the woman to go without a scarf. ] 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
* What about an option 4 encouraging eligible candidates to go through BN? At the end of the ], add something like "Eligible users are encouraged to use this method rather than running a new request for adminship." The current wording makes re-RfAing sound like a plausible alternative to a BN request, when in actual fact the former rarely happens and always generates criticism. ] (]) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*****I think it's a cop-out to say "X is acceptable somewhere in the world, so we should not warn people that it exists." Some of what Western cultures consider child pornography is considered acceptable in Japan if the ] (NSFW link) article is to be believed. Does that mean it should be acceptable here? The fact is this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and I would guess that most of our users come from places where it is not considered acceptable to have certain kinds of content on your computer at work or school -- even if it should be acceptable. I am not saying we should censor the content, only that we should help prevent people from accidentally pulling it up if they don't want to. The alternative is to declare all of Misplaced Pages NSFW, which would be a real shame, since I think Misplaced Pages can be an excellent tool for work or school. -- ] 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Discouraging RFAs is the second last thing we should be doing (after prohibiting them), rather per my comments here and in the VPI discussion we should be ''encouraging'' former administrators to demonstrate that they still have the approval of the community. ] (]) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
******You're missing the point here, which is that you cannot meaningfully define "offensive content" in a manner that people would actually agree on, even if you restrict yourself to people from the western world, which also widely varies in moral standards. Aside from that, the English Misplaced Pages is deliberately aiming towards the entire world, not just the western world. ] 08:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*:I think this is a good idea if people do decide to go with option 2, if only to stave off any further mixed messages that people are doing something wrong or rude or time-wasting or whatever by doing a second RfA, when it's explicitly mentioned as a valid thing for them to do. ] (]) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*******I admit that no solution will satisfy everyone and be perfect. But the alternative of doing nothing, I think, is worse. I don't want to get fired for using Misplaced Pages, and I don't want others to be, either. -- ] 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*::If RFA is explicitly a valid thing for people to do (which it is, and is being reaffirmed by the growing consensus for option 2) then we don't need to (and shouldn't) discourage people from using that option. The mixed messages can be staved off by people simply not making comments that explicitly contradict policy. ] (]) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Please scroll to the bottom of ''any'' page that you see here and follow the "Disclaimers" link, which will in turn lead you to our ]. ] 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*:::Also a solid option, the question is whether people will actually do it. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* A good way to avoid this problem is to not surf the Internet at work. --] 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*::::The simplest way would be to just quickly hat/remove all such comments. Pretty soon people will stop making them. ] (]) 23:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
**Some of us need to look up stuff on the Internet for work. -- ] 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
* This is not new. We've had sporadic "vanity" RfAs since the early days of the process. I don't believe they're particularly harmful, and think that it unlikely that we will begin to see so many of them that they pose a problem. As such I don't think this policy proposal ]. ''']]''' 21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* This apparent negative feeling evoked at an RFA for a former sysop ''everyone agrees is fully qualified and trusted'' certainly will put a bad taste in the mouths of other former admins who might consider a reconfirmation RFA ''without first'' visiting BN. This comes in the wake of Worm That Turned's similar rerun. ] (]) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
==] - Murder vs killing ==
*:Nobody should ever be discouraged from seeking community consensus for significant changes. Adminship is a significant change. ] (]) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a bizarre NPOV inconsistency being raised over articles relating to people killed in Ireland. There are (1) victims of IRA / PIRA such as 86 year old ] and ]; (2) victims of Loyalists such as ], (3) “victims” of the British army such as ]; and (4) suicides such as ]. There is a vocal and persistent lobby which is pro Irish Republican, many of whom belong to ], which argues (I think) that a death is a killing until somebody is found guilty of murder even when that killing is generally defined and established as murder by law and in the international press.
*::No argument from me. I was a big Hog Farm backer way back when he was ''merely'' one of Misplaced Pages's best content contributors. ] (]) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
That lobby argues that the phrase “member of the IRA” should read “member (]) in the IRA” although this is not the consensus reached to date – the consensus was “member” on the first mention and '''v'''olunteer on a subsequent occasion. They also argue that Northern Ireland should not be depicted with any flag even though the other constituent countries of UK enjoy flags; a different perspective is that the last flag used by the province should be depicted for consistency. Passions run high on both sides of the argument, many leaning heavily on ] and ].
*All these mentions of editor time make me have to mention ] (TLDR: our understanding of how editor time works is dreadfully incomplete). ] <sup>]</sup>] 02:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
In any event, a discussion would be helpful as to when the word “murder” is appropriate, with a view to achieving some sort of consistency. - ]<small>]</small> 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*:I went looking for @]'s comment because I know they had hung up the tools and came back, and I was interested in their perspective. But they've given me a different epiphany. I suddenly realize why people are doing confirmation RfAs: it's because of RECALL, and the one year immunity a successful RfA gives you. Maybe everyone else already figured that one out and is thinking "well duh Eek," but I guess I hadn't :) I'm not exactly sure what to do with that epiphany, besides note the emergent behavior that policy change can create. We managed to generate an entirely new process without writing a single word about it, and that's honestly impressive :P ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Now if you believe any of that, you'll believe that the moon is made of cheese!--] 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*::Worm That Turned followed through on a pledge he made in January 2024, before the 2024 review of the request for adminship process began. I don't think a pattern can be extrapolated from a sample size of one (or even two). That being said, it's probably a good thing if admins occasionally take stock of whether or not they continue to hold the trust of the community. As I previously commented, it would be great if these admins would use a lower cost way of sampling the community's opinion. ] (]) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::*What Kittybrewster has said is true, but if we could keep the discussion to an attempt to formulate a policy on the murder/killing issue. The victims of the Virginia Tech killings were '''murdered''', although the murderer can't be found guilty as he's dead! Would those who disagree Sir Norman was murdered agree with me?--] 17:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|CaptainEek}} You are correct that a year's "immunity" results from a successful RRFA, but I see no evidence that this has been the ''reason'' for the RRFAs. Regards, ] (]) 00:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*All we need is Mr. Lauder and we will have the set of monarchists who have been invloved in !vote rigging, ALWAYS vote in "lock step" as one admin put it and vote in a "ILIKEIT" or "IDONTLIKEIT" manner. Pretty much everything your mate Kitty stated is incorrect and the rest make no sense so I cant make out if its correct or not.--] 17:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*::::If people decide to go through a community vote to get a one year immunity from a process that only might lead to a community vote which would then have a lower threshold then the one they decide to go through, and also give a year's immunity, then good for them. ] (]) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I'm mildly bothered by this comment, mildly because I assume it's lighthearted and non-serious. But just in case anyone does feel this way - I was very clear about my reasons for RRFA, I've written a lot about it, anyone is welcome to use my personal recall process without prejudice, and just to be super clear - I waive my "1 year immunity" - if someone wants to start a petition in the next year, do not use my RRfA as a reason not to. I'll update my userpage accordingly. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but his reasoning seems similar to mine, and immunity isn't it. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::*This is nothing but a distortion of the facts. The assassination of Stronge was described as "killing" after a lengthy and protracted discussion, including the insertion of ] which states which media outlets called it murder. Nothing similar exists on the ] article as I have pointed out on the talk page, so changing "murder" to "killing" without including a similar section while claiming something like "the Stronge page says killing" is not the same at all. With regard to "victims" of the British Army perhaps you should mention ], unlawfully killed by members of the SAS 5 minutes after he was wounded and captured, or countless others who were found to be unlawfully killed in courts of law? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*:::@] my quickly written comment was perhaps not as clear as it could have been :) I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that y'all had run for dubious reasons. As I said in my !vote, {{tq|Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here}}. I guess what I really meant was that the reason that we're having this somewhat spirited conversation seems to be the sense that re-RfA could provide a protection from recall. If not for recall and the one year immunity period, I doubt we'd have cared so much as to suddenly run two discussions about this. ] <sup>]</sup>] 16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' as an American, I'm pretty impartial to the IRA/UK issue so here is my thought. Murder is a fully charge and POV loaded word and should be avoid if it can be. However if the ''independent third party'' ] (in this case international newspaper that are not Irish or British) overwhelming use the word to describe the event then that is what should be used in the article. ]]/] 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*::::I don't agree. No one else has raised a concern about someone seeking a one-year respite from a recall petition. Personally, I think essentially self-initiating the recall process doesn't really fit the profile of someone who wants to avoid the recall process. (I could invent some nefarious hypothetical situation, but since opening an arbitration case is still a possibility, I don't think it would work out as planned.) ] (]) 05:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:] ''should'' address this (and will as soon as I finish here) - "murder" should be avoided unless a conviction has been rendered, or a coroner/other official has used the word. In rare cases, media consensus could override this, but I am leery of that slippery slope. This came up with ] last year. -- '']']'' 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*::I really don't think this is the reason behind WTT's and HF's reconfirmation RFA's. I don't think their RFA's had much utility and could have been avoided, but I don't doubt for a second that their motivations were anything other than trying to provide transparency and accountability for the community. ] ] 12:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''''Comment''' as an American'' - Minor point, but some American citizens were happy to fund various organisations in NI, even when those organisations were declared illegal terrorist groups. <small>—comment ] by </small>]<sup>(]/])</sup> 13:34, April 24, 2007
*I don't really care enough about reconf RFAs to think they should be restricted, but what about a lighter ORCP-like process (maybe even in the same place) where fewer editors can indicate, "yeah OK, there aren't really any concerns here, it would probably save a bit of time if you just asked at BN". ] (] • ]) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter! Are all Americans in Iraq terrorists?--] 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*Can someone accurately describe for me what the status quo is? I reread this RfC twice now and am having a hard time figuring out what the current state of affairs is, and how the proposed alternatives will change them. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Bringing this up in response to Agne's comment is damn near a personal attack. Please clarify, rephrase, or redact your statement, as it seems orthogonal to the discussion at hand. -- '']']'' 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Option 2 is the status quo. The goal of the RFC is to see if the community wants to prohibit reconfirmation RFAs (option 1). The idea is that reconfirmation RFAs take up a lot more community time than a BN request so are unnecessary. There were 2 reconfirmation RFAs recently after a long dry spell. –] <small>(])</small> 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agne said "as an American, I'm pretty impartial to the IRA/UK issue" - I pointed out that it's a non-sequitur. Lots of Americans were funding paramilitary groups -on both sides- in NI. I have no idea how you think that's a personal attack. ] 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*:The status quo, documented at ], is that admins who resigned without being under controversy can seek readminship through either BN (where it's usually given at the discreetion of an arbitrary bureaucrat according to the section I linked) or RfA (where all normal RfA procedures apply, and you see a bunch of people saying "the candidate's wasting the community's time and could've uncontroversially gotten adminship back at BN instead). ] (]) 12:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}
::The above points were broadly the same as mine with regards to the Finucane debate. A man was convicted of his murder, and as I pointed out on the talk page therefore it would be a simple matter to provide a plethora of independent sources that also used the term. Nobody chose to dispute this, otherwise I would have happily provided them. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Just because the murderer isn't caught it does not mean a murder didn't take place! That's absurd! --] 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::That is surely true. ] seems similar to ], in that both were killed by authorised government approved people - and therefore the term murder is inappropriate for them. I have no difficulty in perceiving the killing of the Strongs father and son as murder in that it was unlawful, intentional killing. - ]<small>]</small> 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::In that case I'm not sure if you understand NPOV that well. We go by what sources say, not personal opinion. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Reliable sources - yes of course. Also natural use of language. In the case of ] there has been rejection by the likes of Vintagekits of the word murder in the lead section, notwithstanding the fact that reliable sources say:
::::::The killing was called murder by multiple media sources including '']'', '']'', '']'' and '']'' magazine and also by the Rev. ] in the ] and by ] in the ].<ref>*Time (in partnership with CNN), 2 February, 1981
*The New York Times, 30 January, 1981 (13th article: "Murders bring fear to Protestants on Ulster border")
*Commons Hansard, Rev. Ian Paisley, 1992-06-10
*The Spectator, 13 December, 1997
*Lords Hansard, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, 22 March, 2000
*The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland), January 19, 2001
*The Daily Telegraph, 22 November, 2001
*The Scotsman, 10 April, 2006 </ref>
::::::Sir Norman was described at the time of his death by ] politician ] as having been "even at 86 years of age... still incomparably more of a man than the cowardly dregs of humanity who ended his life in this barbaric way."<:ref>Time Magazine<:/ref>
::::::Tim Pat Coogan stated in ''The Green Book: I'', "Sir Norman Stronge and his son were shot and their home burned because sectarian assassinations were claiming the lives of Catholics" <:ref><:/ref>. The IRA were quoted in '']'': "This deliberate attack on the symbols of hated unionism was a direct reprisal for a whole series of loyalist assassinations and murder attacks on nationalist peoples and nationalist activities." <:ref>Christopher Thomas, "Ex-Speaker killed by IRA as reprisal", ''], ], ].<:/ref> (The statement did not claim any direct connection between the Stronges and the alleged loyalist killings.)
::::::- ]<small>]</small> 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The politically motivated killing of a rampant bigot during the middle of a war when Catholic civilians were being murdered in their 100's is not murder in my book.--] 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*And what book's that? I wager no one cares about your book, we care about ref. sources. If you make any more allegations against the Stronges I shall report you. --] 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::*Thats your whole problem, you dont care what editors who disagree with you say - hence you POV editing. Stronge was killed because of his bad dress sense it was because he front a bigoted rabble akin to the KKK.--] 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
* To me POV is saying, as you did, '''The politically motivated killing of a rampant bigot during the middle of a war when Catholic civilians were being murdered in their 100's is not murder in my book'''. It is NOT POV for me to say '''we care about ref. sources.''' You defamatory comments also show your PoV.--] 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:*Was Stronge or was Stronge not a Sovereign Grand Master of the Royal Black Institution and a member of the Orange Order?--] 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, and where his '''murderers''' not members of the IRA (a proscribed organisation - within the UK, which, in case you forgot, includes Northern Ireland), who took no regret in murdering an 86 year old man with high-velocity weapons and then bombing his home? --] 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The motivation of certain people is becoming more and more apparent. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, my motivation is to express FACT. You'd do well to remember what the facts are. --] 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm assuming that's why you changed the word "murdered" to "killed" on Pat Finucane then, given he was an unarmed man shot 14 times in his own home in front of his family? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I made it clear on the Talk page that I did that to provoke this discussion. I consider that murder too. --] 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::So you deliberately breached ] and expect admin to ignore that?--] 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yes obviously. Is membership of the Orange Order justification for unlawful murder of an 86 year old? What “book” does that come from? It sounds POV to me. - ]<small>]</small> 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:This is '''veering swiftly''' into a discussion of a single article, which should be done at that article's talk page. Issues of general concern regarding inconsistent use of the word "murder" are ''policy'' matters, the use of the word in a single article is a ''content'' matter. Please stay on topic, and civil. -- '']']'' 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Does alleged "political motivation" cause murder to become a killing? - ]<small>]</small> 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::To lend my two cents: a rectangle is always a square; a square is not always a rectangle. Or... murder is always killing; killing is not always murder. I say that "kill" be used to remain intentionally vague, then devote a section to those supportive of the killing whom term it whatever term that side deems fit to end a person's life; and also the counter-argument which terms it murder. --] (<small>] ;; ]</small>) 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I'd say we should use "murder" in the following cases:
*Someone has been convicted of the murder.
*A police official or coroner has ruled the death a murder.
In other cases, neutral terms such as "death" or "killing" probably are better-suited. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Both of those are clearly ]. But so are reputable sources such as "Time". Does that justify using the word in the lead section? - ]<small>]</small> 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::If ''Time'' has reported the death as a murder, we could probably reasonably presume that they use similar standards. Unless their classification of the death as a murder is disputed by other reliable sources, yes, that would likely work. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The different is that the republican movement were fighting against a state oppressor - the republican movement did not convict British army soliders for killing there members but it was the case when it was vice versa - there is lies the imbalance.--] 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm not even going to begin to get into the fairness or rightness of the situation, this is not the forum in which to discuss that. While writing articles, however, we use information ] through ], not ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My view is that "killed" should be used in place of "murdered" or "assasinated" in all articles related to the Troubles. Inserting/removing these type of words into articles is fairly clear POV pushing on both sides. To quote ], views should be represented without bias and let the facts speak for themselves. ] ] 08:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:I suppose my view is that ] takes priority over ]. - ]<small>]</small> 09:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::] was bang on the money earlier, when he said murder should only be used if:
::*Someone has been convicted of the murder.
::*A police official or coroner has ruled the death a murder.
::That makes it clear cut and narrowly defined, and doesn't allow editors any leeway to add terms based on the opinion of a mere journalist. It's quite possible to still have a reactions section as in the Stronge article. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I take your point, but still feel it is better to have a blanket decision that "killed" be used across the board. At the minute the Louis Mountbatten article states he was killed, despite Thomas McMahon being convicted of murder. It is the same for several other articles in ]. These inconsistancies will creep in if we don't have a blanket decision. ] ] 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I've no objections to that, just that my endorsing of it might be seen as an attempt to remove murder from a lot of articles. I'm happy with "murder" under narrowly defined circumstances, or I'm happy if it's not used at all except in say a reactions section, but I'm not happy at it being used based on the opinion of a journalist. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I read "In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." I am not sure that coronors' verdicts are invariably available to editors. Natural use of language suggests that Mountbatton was murdered rather than killed. But he is a good example of edit warring resulting in POV. Why should the ] not prevail as suggested by ONIH and Seraphimblade? Incidentally, I am generally finding this debate constructive and focused which is credit to all. - ]<small>]</small> 09:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Acutally I find that offensive, Mountbatton was a leading military and statesman figure who was killed during a time of war - if an enemy juristrication finds a man "guilty" of "murdering" him then it is not a neutral use of the term murder, I would strongly oppose any use of the word murder when it relates to this type of situation. --] 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::To be fair, the only edit warring I see on Mountbatten is in the last 10 minutes by two editors who are involved in this discussion, I'd ideally expect them to concentrate on this and see if any consensus can be reached rather than go off half-cocked. The problem with allowing "murder" based on the opinion of a journalist is the vast number of possible sources that could be used, all an editor needs to do is find one journalist who was outraged enough to use the term murder, which isn't difficult especially considering some of the right wing tabloids in the UK. That's why I think it's better off being narrowly defined. On second thoughts, I'm unsure about coroners, for the simple reason that to the best of my knowledge they don't actually return verdicts of murder, unlawful killing is the norm. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I agree, articles shouldnt be changed until this is ironed out. I find it absurd that an Irish republican can be labelled a murderer by the British Government for engaging in an act of war - it goes against everything in ] - now if the judgement was from a European court or other neutral body that it should be considered but where Irish republicans are concern the British government and it judicial system are not neutral - just ask the ] or ].--] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment/thought:''' I think its good to have this debate, but couldn't we use legal precedence in defining policy? Any one who meets an end quicker than they should have at the hands of another/s is killed. Only when a court has established who did that and under what circumstances could they be defined as murdered, as there is a convicted murderer/s. I think some may be confusing police terminology, where they may declare a murder hunt, but that's police terminology/policy and not legal outcome of any resulting case which will take full precedent. The ony problem of adopting this fully would be cases of manslaughter, where the killing is unplanned, as opposed to murder where there was both motivation and an amount of planning/fore thought. In applying this proposal to the specific cases of the incidents of Northern Ireland, we could dismiss as POV in articles focusing on singular incidents/people any intentions of either side until a court/coroner had ruled which way the specific/wiki-articled incident was classified? The main/top level articles in addressing the parties involved could claim policies and intentions with suitable references; but that specific articles which relate to killings are not classified as anything else except killings until the appropriate court authority had ruled. Rgds, - ] 10:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::Fair enough points made, however, British courts are not neutral - additionally we went through these arguments when Stu nominated the "Northern Irish murderers" category for deletion - Stu, have you a link to that discussion?--] 10:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Can't find it, is a related one. VK, I think it would be best if you left your views on people/incidents to yourself. They're not really relevant to these discussion or an encyclopedia in general. I'm referring to comments like "bigoted rabble akin to the KKK". Also, if someone is convicted of murder then they're convicted of murder. You could call into question any court in the world, but your views that it is illegitimate aren't relevant. ] ] 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree Stu, its just when the usual moarchist editors come on and start labelling the republican side "terrorists" and "murderers" then I feel it necessary that there are two sides to every story, its kind of childish name calling I agree and thanks for the coment Stu - noted.--] 11:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I absolutely agree that nobody should be labelled a murderer without having been found guilty by a court of law. This discussion is about the articles on the victims or subjects of that which the law (and/or public opinion) determines to be murder. I don’t think a reputable source such as ”Time”, “The New York Herald”, “Hansard” or “The Times” would use the word “murder” inadvisedy. They are accepted by this community as ]. If another RS thinks it is not murder, that fact can obviously be included in the article. I am not engaging with VK on his generalising “monarchist” comments etc; better to let him consider the moon is cheese. In the case of ] I see that even the organisation responsible for the murder (INLA vs PIRA) is contested which seems to me strange. You would think there would be general acceptance as to that fact (whatever it is). - ]<small>]</small> 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Again, you're confusing "facts" with the opinions of journalists. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No. I am assuming journalists words in reliable sources are checked and approved by a responsible editor. That is the process which distinguishes ] from "whatever". As you say, we rely on sources rather than opinion. - ]<small>]</small> 11:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::*Trying to pick up the positive points of this debate, and using legal precedent as a way of defining wiki policy, each of the cases highlighted in this debate are still currently termed ]s by a coroner, and are all open murder cases. The reason the journalists feel legally safe to use the term murder is that the police have already termed it a murder hunt - although its not a murder until a court has ruled it so. I don't see why we couldn't use legal precedence, and still quote journalists claiming a "murder" under ]? If we were to implement this as policy, we would need to expand the article on unlawful killing, and I think add two categories - one on Unlawful killing (which articles could move from once the court had ruled), and one on open murder cases (again, moved from once court had ruled). Rgds, - ] 11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sounds good to me. - ]<small>]</small> 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
* VK, why accept the ruling of the British Courts (who you say aren't neutral) regarding ] but not regarding Lord Mountbatten. Is it because you only agree with what suits you?--] 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:*Where have I commented on Pat Finucane? I think you need a wee lie down for yerself cos yer gettin a bit confused!--] 11:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::*Also, murder isn't the correct term for the death of a political figure anyway, the term is assassination. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::There is no legal term I can find for assassin at present under UK or USA law. Its a dictionary word used to describe a murder of a prominent figure for mainly political or sometimes financial gain. There is legal definition around the word Terrorist, and most countries have legal definitions of being a terrorsit or committing an act of terrorism. In the UK we have a law on contract murder, which may or may not involve exchange of monies/goods - but that's a charge on the contracting party, not the murderer. People who commit such acts defined journalistically as assassination would still be tried legally for murder - in some political cases, there my be an additional case of treason. Rgds, - ] 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::] says to let the facts speak for themselves. The fact is that, for example, Stronge was killed. If the manner of his death is made clear, it's then up to the reader to make their own mind up. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::It is a fact that the Stronges and Mountbatten died, were unlawfully killed, were assassinated and were murdered. What is the problem with the word ”murdered” when it is reliably sourced? - ]<small>]</small> 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, it's a fact they were killed. Anything else is POV. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The killings were unlawful. - ]<small>]</small> 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::That depends on yer perspective.--] 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No. They were against the law. - ]<small>]</small> 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Unlawful killing does not equal murder though. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think ONIH is acknowledging the killings are unlawful. Which is step 1. Step 2 is to define the sub-branch of unlawful killing. - ]<small>]</small> 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*I have a law degree, and I think I'm right in saying Kitty does too, and unlawful killing is murder. This is not a case of manslaughter! --] 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:*No, an unlawful killing verdict from a coroner does not automatically mean murder. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well, I think law schools everywhere would want you to inform them what it does mean! --] 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::: Unlawful killing does not mean murder, simple fact. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Sir Norman Stronge did not die as the result of dangerous driving!!! --] 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:*'''And now, can we please get back to a policy debate?''' I suggested using legal precedence as a basis for definition of wiki policy. I made a suggestion on expanding the unlawful killing article, and adding two new categories - Unlawful killing; open murder cases. I realise that when applied to certain situations such as Northern Ireland, the emotion and perspective of what is/is not fact can become difficult to debate let agree on. But we are trying to agree a clear policy. I am sure if, using an analogy, ] can shake hands ], and look to the future; we can agree a better policy for the definition of terms around the difficult subject of premature death at the hands of another human being - whatever the reasons for that. Rgds, - ] 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::That sounds good to me. - ]<small>]</small> 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, I have a question or two. If someone is described as being ''killed'' and it is made expressly clear how they died, do the facts speak for themselves? Does the changing of ''killed'' to ''murdered'' really matter? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::It clearly does. If it did not, then people would not be so keen to delete the word "murdered" and replace it with "killed". Both perspectives seem to think that "killed" somehow sanitises or lessens the act. I have two questions. Do you think it matters and if so why? Do you agree the killings of the Stronges and Mountbatten were unlawful? - ]<small>]</small> 18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::You didn't answer my first question, perhaps you would be so kind as to do so. Killed is a more neutral word, and so is better per ]. My own personal opinion on the deaths of two people in a lengthy conflict is not relevant, and you also seem to be forgetting that there's another side of the coin. The lead to ] currently says killed, despite the inquest returning a verdict of unlawful killing. Do you consider the shooting of an man five minutes after he had been wounded and captured to be murder? How about ]? Do you consider the killing of unarmed civil rights protesters to be murder? Those are purely rhetorical questions as I really don't want to get involved in a debate about the rights and wrongs of any particular incident. Killed is a more neutral word, and providing the circumstances in which a person was killed are provided the reader is able to make their own mind up. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Killed is an easier word to use, and seems to be better for AGF and CIVIL, as well as NPOV. Perhaps "murdered" could be kept for articles about convicted murders; "John Doe murdered " etc? ] 22:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I broadly agree, except I'd prefer something like "John Doe was convicted of murdering". <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, clearly the emotions expressed here in this debate, let alone anywhere else show the terms do matter. But, here's a thought following up on your "is there a difference" question/thought. If there is presently no legal conviction of a murderer, then perhaps in opening para's we should say killing or unlawful killing, depending on the current legal/coroner cases. After that in the main article, we could allow the term murder to be used IF we have either a police murder hunt under way with a reference OR three independent journalistic references complying with ]. In reading some of the articles debated here, the facts in the ] article punch through personally and I conclude it was a murder; while the ] case is written as a murder article from the opening, while the facts alone would punch through as a clear murder case - but the words presently used in the article don't allow any other thoughts or conclusion, except murder. Rgds, - ]
::::Very helpful. And yes, I would say ] should be changed to "unlawfully killed" based on what ONIH says. And FWIW if the statements made in the Bloody Sunday article are true then IMHO that too was unlawful killing. - ]<small>]</small> 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'm a bit lost here, are you proposing using "unlawfully killed" instead of "murdered"? Aren't almost all killings unlawful to begin with, so it's a bit of an unnecessary qualifier surely? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::The Stronges and Mountbatten and Finucane were surely murdered. They were unlawfully killed by non-government approved people. The Bloody Sunday victims were wrongfully killed by government soldiers; that is certainly wrong but might be lawful. - ]<small>]</small> 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Again, I'd rather not get involved in discussions about individual examples. What are you proposing policy/guideline wise? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I rather agree. Trident13 seemed to be coming up with something constructive. - ]<small>]</small> 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::: For clarity (1) we use legal precedence as the defining policy (2) Until a person is convicted of a murder, the article on the killing is referred to in it's intro section as a killing or unlawful killing, depending on present legal status (3) in the sub sections (which normally firstly give background on the victim, and then a portrait of the incident of killing), we use the term killing or unlawful killing UNLESS there is an ongoing and referenced police investigation under the heading Murder Hunt OR there are three journalistic references which comply with ] (4) we expand the article Unlawful Killing (5) we create two new categories called Unlawful Killing and Open Murder cases, and (6) the opening para uses precedence murder once someone is convicted of the crime of murder. That's the present proposal. We could go a little further and add a category Appealed Murder Cases for those which are being disputed. Hope that clarifies the proposal. Rgds, ]
::::::::For further clarity I disagree. No British court has the right to label Irish republicans as murderers. If an Iranian government stated that Bush is a murderer should we state that in his article. This issue is similiar to the terrorist issue - to state someone is a terrorist is purely POV just as is murderer in these circumstances. It should be stated as killed or death not murderer.--] 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::We are talking about the victims - not the alleged perpetrators. If Joe Soap is convicted of murder then that is a different issue. If Joe Soap is unlawfully killed in a premeditated manner then the motives of the killer are a matter for the text of the murderee's and the murderer's article. But, e.g., Mountbatten was undoubtedly murdered and there is no reason not to say so. There is sufficient ] supporting that statement. - ]<small>]</small> 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Dandruff wasnt "undoubtedly murdered" he was killed. I am sure you could find ] sources to say he was murdered but he wasnt he was killed, I am sure you could find ] sources to say it was terrorist that killed him but we wouldnt use that terminology in this respect also.--] 22:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok, lets test the proposal. (1) legal precedence - if person A walks into country B and kills person C, and is then convicted of murder, then the law which presides is the law of the country in which the crime is committed. I can see that creating some opportunities which I may also disagree with, but it is clear policy and legally correct. Now, you correctly mention mention GW Bush and Iraq as a test: I would add a wiki exemption to legal precedence - we define the murderer as the person who is in the presence and commits the murder, not someone sat a few thousand miles away who defines a political policy or initiates a contract killing. Most of these political cases may journalistically mention murder, but if they are tried in these cases the charges are normally (if ever brought) waging war against country X, and not murder. Rgds, - ]
::::::::::How about this - a US solider is Iraq shoots and an insurgant in Iraq - is he a murderer?--] 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Some error in the construction of that sentence. But the US soldiers in Iraq are acting with the consent of the present government and has the authority to kill insurgents, subject to various restraints. ] was convicted of murdering ] in the Republic of Ireland and was imprisoned there. Undoubted murder. You don't like it. - ]<small>]</small> 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Dandruff was Admiral of the Fleet of the British Navy and the IRA was at war with the British military machine - therefore he was killed during the war - thankfully!--] 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: Test the proposal again - potentially yes, BUT legal precedence would be Iraqi law (killing occured in Iraq), then American and overall UN Human Rights. The insurgent was killed, but if no court brings a case and convicts the soldier of murder then no, it was not murder. The opportunity may be that someone can find three (for example only) Iranian journalists who write that it was murder, but there are also in these cases other journalists who would write that it was an insurgent killing, and ] would take care of the balance between the two sets of sources. We have had cases of British soldiers convicted under British Military law of crimes in Iraq, so the proposal would seem to work. Rgds, - ]
::::::::::::::VK. McMahon also murdered The Dowager Baroness Brabourne, Mountbatten's elder daughter's mother-in-law (aged 83), the Hon. Nicholas Knatchbull, his elder daughter's fourth son (aged 14), Paul Maxwell, a 15 year old Protestant youth from County Fermanagh who was working as a crew member. - ]<small>]</small> 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Not really, Mountsplatten killed them himself - Gardai in Sligo told him on a number of occasions not to sail the boat but his arrogance was obviously something he could not control as he swaned around his fornerly occupied territory and he ignored these warnings and put their lives at risk - infact he is a disgrace for doing it - sickens me that someone would use their own family like that. --] 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Rubbish. - ]<small>]</small> 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::'''Will you two please stop bickering - you sound like an old married couple!''' - ]
:::::::::::::::::"Rubbish" - great comeback! Whats rubbish about it?--] 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting approach people take. I wonder how VK would describe the murder of two Australians in the Netherlands by IRA operatives? --] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Where they the targets Michael? I suppose you dont think the Irish people should be aloud to stand up for themselves and fight back against a state that has oppressed them for near 800 years. But just ignore that as it doesnt suit tabloid headlines to get past the sensational.--] 09:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::The Irish can do what they like in Ireland. But even if we allow the IRA the status of combatants in a war, the attack was an act of war against two neutral countres, the Netherlands and Austraia, and a war crime as it involved the cold-blooded killing of two unarmed civilians. If we don't allow the IRA the status of a combatant, it was simple murder. --] 09:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Its a bit more complex then your tabloid statements make out Michael as well you know - Civilians were not the target and as for the IRA being in the Netherlands - if the Netherlands allows British Army barracks to be posted in the Netherlands then are likely to be attacked. Why dont you provide a link so that other can really know what happened that day then we can get back to the topic.--] 09:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::You mean the IRA shot up a car carrying two cleancut young men with British plates because they thought they might be British servicemen? To me that just shows, at a minimum a careless disregard for human life. So it is ok to shoot up any car you want, anywhere in the world, on the suspicion it might be the "enemy"? And had there been sufficent evidence, I'm sure the participants would have been convicted of murder. As for the IRA, their carelessness probably did them a lot of harm. In Australia they went from being s respectable cause in political circles to anathama. --] 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Michael, in a lot of ways you right - it was a terribly botched operation and altough I can speak for others I can say that I am very sorry if an innocent civilians die - but I am sure you will agree that 1. no army can stand by ever operation they carry out and 2. I do not support every operation that they carried out no matter what the motivation.--] 09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:*'''If this degenerates into another political discussion around the pro's/con's of any particular "conflict" past or present, then it suggests that we should close this debate as inconclusive.''' I thought we were here to discuss policy, and write an encyclopedia, not debate the particular points of view that any of us happens to personally feel about, or gode others about particular cases from the past. Yes, we may use particular articles to discuss how applying proposed policy may affect certain articles, but its just to discuss how the proposed policy could be implemented. Please post your thoughts about whether we should close this discussion as inconclusive below this post, or agree just to discuss policy from this point forwards. Rgds, - ] 09:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Henry Kissinger once said, "a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong." Clearly the Irish are not getting it right either.
::However the topic is killing -v- murder, let us recall that the the former is easily defined, and the latter term a specific legal term for which a number of things must be true;
::* The act must be premeditated and intentional
::* The act must be unlawful
::* The person committing the act must be of sound mind
::* Someone needs to die within a set period of time as a result
::* A body is not required
::Its not an issue of '''NPOV''' the difference is simply a '''legal''' one. --] 09:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
* Agreed. This is not about ] or ]. Murder is the correct term. Motivation is irrelevant and unproven. And the IRA and their apologists do not represent the Irish people or nation. - ]<small>]</small> 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::*Agreed - the POV of the British Government as to who is a murderer and who isnt shouldnt count. --] 10:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think there is a danger this discussion will get sidetracked into a debate over the merits of physical force Irish republicanism, when what we are really about is writing an encyclopaedia. I think it better to keep to descriptive terms and to avoid suggestions of pejorative implications (even if the sentiments are ones which the vast majority would agree). "Killing" is appropriately descriptive. "Murder" is descriptive if the context is a legal one. "Manslaughter" should be avoided except in a strict legal context. "Assassination" should be restricted to cases where the person or organisation responsible explicitly claims a political motive. Of course, quotations should be kept accurate. ] 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::I am happy with assassination in the case of prominent figures like Mountbatten, the Stronges and ]. Murder is the correct term for Finucane. - ]<small>]</small> 10:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::<s>Thatcher was assassinated? Oh no!</s> Yes, I agree on those. Finucane looks like more a case of revenge. ] 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Could be. But let us keep motivation out of it. - ]<small>]</small> 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Do we have consensus? - ]<small>]</small> 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::What exactly do you think the consensus is? Also we're having a discussion to avoid edit wars, so isn't exactly in good faith. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::She was murdered by McMahon. That is not the same as she died. - ]<small>]</small> 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Again, we're not here to discuss individual articles. We're trying to find a uniform approach that applies to all articles. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
* Apparently there's a bloody discussion going on here. Why was Finucane murdered but, according to her article, Lady Brabourne not? Convictions were gained in both situations and both were civilians. --] 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:*Actually one was a ] not a civilian. Who is the murderer just like who is a terrorist is POV.--] 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::If Pat was a IRA member he was, by your logic, killed in a war - not murdered!--] 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::*The articles aren't the same at present, because rather than have edit wars and/or discussions across a variety of articles, we're having a centralised discussion about what terms should be used. So how about until the discussion has come to a conclusion people concentrate on it, and leave the articles be? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Righto, If Pat was a IRA member he was, by your logic, killed in a war - not murdered!--] 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Therefore anyone he killed wasn't murdered either. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not if they were civilians directly targetted. Besides a war didn't exist. If it did, we would all agree it was the British who won,and if they did, those men would be charged with war crimes! It's a slippery slope of hypothesis! --] 23:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Getting back to the discussion anyway.... <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Heading away from Belfast for a second, how would "murder/killing" be applied to the victims of the ]? Or to the perpetrators of said atrocity who met their ends at the hands of the ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Not really sure, but Mossad are hardly law abiding citizens. I'm still entirely unconvinced that there's a case for including murder unless a conviction has been gained. It doesn't add anything to the articles, it's simply adding a loaded and POV term, and could even be original research on occasions. Per policy ] we should let the facts speak for themselves, say who killed them and how, and let the reader make their own mind up. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree with you, murder has much more negative connotations than killing. Barring that its definition varies too much from worldview to worldview, it adds nothing meaningful factually to a discussion. If the circumstances of the killing are clearly written about, people will be able to make this decision themselves. If it so happens that someone doesn't agree with the use of the word murder in a particular article, they will probably edit it out mentally, but the use of loaded language in supposedly NPOV articles reflects badly on the community. If you are going to use the term at all, I think it needs to be framed by whose(goverment or other group probably) view it is. Something like "Convicted of murder in the United States" or "Considered by the UN to be guilty of murder"; that way people can make their own decisions about the efficacy and legal standing of the claim. Under these circumstances I wouldn't even mind having a religous definition of murder used, so long as the argument is not original research.--] 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. I agree, the default should be "killed". Otherwise murder should only be used when a conviction was made. And it should state who they were convicted by. eg the ] article could read - "He was killed by the Provisional IRA, who planted a bomb in his boat at Mullaghmore, County Sligo in the Republic of Ireland. ] was subsequently convicted of his murder in the ]. ] ] 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:That's completely in line with what I said earlier, regarding "x was convicted of murder". as ] and ] both agree that murder should not be used unless a conviction is gained, we seem to have reached a conclusion? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::...does that mean it should '''always''' be used when a conviction was gained? I think so. --] 18:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Easy tiger, let's just wait for a conclusion before rushing off and amending articles. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Death is a state of being (or lack there of), killing is an action resulting in death, and murder is crime based on an opinion of the intent or state of mind of the killer. Even if the opinion comes from a judge or jury it is still a point of view. Why should an encyclopedia be judgmental? It seems that we should report that: (a) the person is dead, (b) the act of killing was allegedly committed by X, and (c) that Y was convicted of murder by jury. To say that Y killed X should be qualified by suspected or alleged unless there was a confession. To say that Y was convicted of murdering X is a fact, to say that Y murdered X is opinion. --] 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I think we have reached conclusion (at last!) Just to answer Kevin Murray's point, we write artciles based on fact, which is not necessarily the truth. Fact is referencable - where as POV is not, or uses selected references to "factualise" its point. Yes, a certain person may be innocent, but if they have been convicted of a crime by a court (which again, we may not agree with the structure or process of), but it is a referencable fact. As I said above in this discussion, I may not like this on certain occaions, but it is a procedure which we can use to construct and edit articles. Rgds, - ] 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::: I agree that reporting a "murder conviction" is a fact, but stating that someone was "murdered" is expressing a point of view. --] 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::: We generally don't write articles on Murderers, only their victims. See the debate above and the last proposal I made, which states unless there is conviction of a named murderer or three independent ] sources, then murder can't be used in an article - only killing. Are you suggesting an ammendemnt to this proposal? If so, speak up soon because we seem about to close this debate. Rgds, - ]
::::::Actually when it comes to the IRA the converse is generally true except for high profile people, we have articles about the killers but not the victims, assuming the killers are notable enough obviously. Also I'll just re-state the consensus as I see it, to make sure everyone else is in agreement. The death of someone will always be referred to using killed/killing/etc, and if someone was convicted of their murder an additional sentence something along the lines of "x was convicted of murder" will be added. Is that correct? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I would go along with both of the above as long is it is clearly specicified exactly who he was convicted by i.e. under which juristiction and what type of court, this is very importmant in terms of NI issues. --] 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm OK with a "conviction only" rule on the use of murder. Also just as a check, we are also OK with unlawful killing with suitable coroners verdict? Rgds, - ] 15:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Almost all (if not all) the killings we're discussing are unlawful by definition though, so it seeems an unnecessary qualifier to me? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I can see what you are saying, but if we are sticking with legal precedence then normally the coroners inquest is opened and suspeneded pre the murder trial. Hence the dead person would be killed, while the alleged purpetrator would be "alleged that he killed." If we take (without precedence) the UK deaths of soldiers in Iraq and specifically ], then the coroner's verdict is an unlawful killing - as would be the same where there was due suspicion but no conviction of a killer. OK? Rgds, - ] 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::] seems a good example - I'm happy enough with the addition of a similar sentence to any articles where a coroner's verdict has been returned, so instead of "x was convicted of murder" we'd use something like "the corner returned a verdict of unlawful killing". <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::Matty Hull was unlawfully killed. Thre are no sources saying he as murdered. Nor was it fratricide. - ]<small>]</small> 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Where is anyone saying anything different? <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Reading all of the discussion above, I was struck by one overlooked critereon in this discussion: isn't it the job of a ] to determine cause of death? I feel that if it can be shown that a coroner made this determination in a case, then the person can be said to have been "murdered". Even better if it can be shown that a police investigation was made -- irrespecive of the outcome of that investigation. Otherwise, the terms "killed" or "died under mysterious circumstances" should be used.
: I'm also going to head off a few objections here: (1) Yes, a soldier can be tried & punished for murder -- even if the victim is a combatant; beyond that, I'll leave the specifics to an expert in Military Law to explain the finer details. (2) Yes, sometimes the official process to determine cause of death can be perverted; in those cases, I think it's fair to add either an opposing view or details that suggest a contrary interpretation, e.g., "The coroner determined that X had died due to 'accidental causes' while imprisoned, although Amnesty International claims that X had been beaten to death." Or: "The jury ruled that X had been killed in self-defense, although a description of the corpse by an eye-witness shows that X had been shot at least twice in the back."
: And lastly, (3) In the case of remains recovered by archeologists, I think it's fair to call it murder if a qualified physcial anthropolgist says it was murder. However from what I've read, any professional will qualify that statement, e.g.: "it appears that this person had been murdered". -- ] 18:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::In the UK, coroners only determine if someone was unlawfully killed, or another verdict. They make no decision as to whether the act was actually murder. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::No but they could make it ver clear in the obiter. --] 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Actually they couldn't, unless they are in possession of information about whether the perpetrator was of sound mind at the time of the killing. <font face="Verdana">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree with ] - legally they can't, but they can in commentary make it clear who they feel is the purpetrator/where further investigation should be focused. But, the legal situation would still be an unauthorised killing, which is the term we would use in the article. Rgds, --] 10:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Particularly in the case of events such as this, where there is a clear POV dispute about the killing, what exactly is the problem with using neutral language except when quoting the different perspectives? e.g. ''"BrownHairedGirl was shot dead in her home on 32nd March 2007 by two masked intruders who also burnt down her house. The killing was described by Kermit the Frog as a "dastardly act of murder", but defended by Shrek as 'the assassination of a brutal politician'. The Rockall Times, The Onion and Viz magazine all characterised the killing as murder, as did most other newspaper editorials, but Alice, the leader of the Blonde Party, said 'this was not murder, it it was an act of public security. Thank goodness these brave people have rid our society of that odious woman'. The Rockall coroners court returned a verdict of 'unlawful killing', but nobody has been charged in relation to her death."'' All major points of view reported, without[REDACTED] choosing making its own judgment on which side is/was right. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
== trivia ==
B"H
Concerning Trivia-sections in articles. Trivia-sections are preceded by the following announcement:
''Content in this section should be integrated into other appropriate areas of the article or removed, and the trivia section removed.''
I happen to disagree with this, and my argument is as follows.
Frequently the information in the trivial-section is very interesting to the casual reader. Although information from the trivial-section might appear elsewhere in the article, the existence of a trivia-section is actually an asset to any article.
For your consideration, sincerely, Dovid de Bresser, Kemerovo , Russia . <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:I agree when the trivia is organized in a way that makes sense and renamed to sections not called trivia. So when you read it, it is truly coherently interesting and informative and hopefully well-sourced as well. –] 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::I hear your argument, but I feel that good articles shouldn't need a Trivia section. We are an encyclopedia, and where Trivia listings include facts with references (in which case, they should be in the main article); where as in most Trvia sections, exist a combination "bucket" of singular comments and gossip, most of which are unreferenced or requiring citations. I here your reasoning on it being as easy/quick to read, to which perhaps there is a debate around an article based "did you know" section, could be a route to follow. Rgds, - ] 10:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::When I first started reading Misplaced Pages I loved trivia sections, now that I'm a more serious reader I detest them. I guess it just depends what you think Misplaced Pages is–a cool place to find out random gossip and factoids or a serious encyclopedia. ] 10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::When a trivia section is a laundry list, it's inappropriate. When it's just a handful of items each a sentence or two long, and not strongly related to any particular section of the article as it stands, then I say there's nothing wrong with it. The policy that trivia sections should be abolished goes too far. In my opinion, obviously. ] 22:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
<BR>
Is this new thing I'm seeing? I've never seen this "''trivia''" tag until today. I can find nothing in WP policy that says there should be no trivia. See ], specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content -- "''These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Misplaced Pages's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources and trivia.''"
One reason I use WP is because you can't get the trivia in normal encyclopedias. The trivia sections in the articles are great, and one could argue that we should have a tag for articles that don't yet have trivia: "'''This article has no 'trivia' section. You can help by adding a trivia section.'''" I hope there is NOT a new effort to remove trivia; or, to move trivia up into the main article sections, as it will be impossible to go specifically looking for trivia without the pain of reading the ENTIRE articles.
And if a reader doesn't like the trivia sections, they can simply ignore them. They serve a purpose, providing information. This is the WP goal. ] 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== Bibliographical lists by subject ==
Has there ever been a policy-discussion regarding bibliographical lists by subject? The current policies and guidelines don't adress those lists specifically leading to somewhat different interpretations in ]. The basic question that I'd like a clear policy answer on is this: Should bibliographical lists that contain mostly books without own articles be allowed (perhaps best described as a reference section without an article)? Given the unique character of these articles I think it would be a good idea to have a clearly formulated policy answer. Subject bibliographies can certainly be useful (and useful in a very real, non-trivial, way), but, on the other hand, that kind of organization of research material might not necessarily be encyclopedic in nature. ] 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Some subject groups are able to keep fairly good control of these pages, with realistically firm criteria, but there is a tendency for enthusiasts to overbalance the articles with less notable works on their special topic. Perhaps a better approach is to do careful and up to date lists of further reading for articles on general subjects. ''']''' 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
::Can you give an example or two of which groups have done this well and where their criteria are spelled out? Also, could you tease out your better approach a bit more. I'm not clear on what that would look like.
::The problem I have with bibliographic lists of non-notable books — at least bibliographies that are topical rather than concerned with a single author (e.g., ]) or a series of books (e.g., ]) — is that there are no clear guidelines to stop the "enthusiast" from making it a rather ]. In the ] Pax mentioned, for instance, there are at least several hundred books on the subject from the early church to today, and while clearly not all of them are of equal significance or quality, there seem to be no guidelines to manage the list (] won't help except in extreme cases). IMO, the best option is to exclude topical bibliographies as stand-alone lists altogether. --] (]|]) 13:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
== WAP and PDA links ==
I have been involved in creating a local community web site.
We have started developing a WAP site (a site for use by mobile phone). I did a search for "mobile phone wikipedia" and as far as I can see the mobile phone version '''wapedia''' is a reformated version of Misplaced Pages.
So, although the appropriate place to put a link to our new web "site"++ might be wapedia or several other equivalents, they don't actually have their own information and just take their content & links from wikipedia.
<sub>:++(like most wap sites, even the BBC, there is vastly less than the main site - the difference between a newspaper article and a Birthday card!)</sub>
So whilst I have put a link on ] as in I think the subject needs a bit of discussion:
#There is a growing number of users who are accessing wikipedia's content through wap pages for whom a WAP external link should be available.
#I myself now have firefox with a wap module so that I can read WAP pages - so presumably many others also have this feature. So what is the policy on a link that most people accessing the site from the web can't read - whilst all those accessing through the wap can?
#Assuming links to wap pages are permitted (as I think they ought), what is the appropriate way to create the link?
] 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Call me crazy, but why do we need a WAP-specific website? Misplaced Pages is laid out with semantic XHTML, and the layout is done entirely with CSS; in theory, a mobile media-type style sheet could be developed and WAP/PDA users could just use the regular site. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A ] for dealing with articles which have lacked sources for a long period of time. The current proposal is to place the articles in to a "warning" status after a period of time, and then to delete them after another period of time if sources are not added. The purpose of this is to make Misplaced Pages more reliable and accurate, making sure articles do not sit indefinately without sources, as required by various policies. In short: get sources or get deleted. ] 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
: Marked rejected, until someone can show that this wouldn't delete 90% of the existing database. --] 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::<s>Marking as rejected is premature IMO. Unsourced information eventually being deleted shouldn't be that much of a concern. ]. If 90% of the existing Misplaced Pages database is unreferenced...90% of Misplaced Pages has failed.</s> --]] 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Attributable is not the same as attributed. If you believe something to be unattributable, take it through the normal deletion processes. But if you believe it's attributable, either find the sources or leave it be. --] 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Is there a wiki project for "Attribution"? (forgive me asking here, but I'm hopeless at searching wiki for wiki information.) ] 08:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::: I disagree that 90% would have failed. Perhaps we slightly disagree on project objectives. Certainly reducing our database size by an order of magnitude is a rather drastic step. I don't think you will be able to gain consensus for that. --] 03:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::<s>I think the idea has at least enough merit to be discussed instead of being marked rejected by the first user to comment on the issue. (unless this was brought up somewhere else...) I certainly hope your 90% number was a horrible exaggeration. The template was suggesting 3 months before warning, and an additional 3 months before deletion. If sources can't be found after 6 months, why not delete the article? Nobody is suggesting salting them. The stubs can be replaced quickly enough.</s> --]] 03:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm striking my comments. I still think that the amount of articles that would be affected is not a reason to reject the policy on behalf of the entire community, but there's no reason why an AfD wouldn't be sufficient if an article has spent 3 months unsourced. --]] 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think you understand what my views are and what I'm trying to accomplish Onorem. Do you think perhaps AfDing unsourced articles after a certain period of time might be better? I think it would acheive the same goal but create a much bigger process mess. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::Based on ], somewhere between 78% and 85% of the encyclopedia would be deleted. --] 08:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:It certainly was very definitely marked as rejected, as I remember. Personally I think it just might be a good idea--but only if a sufficient number of WPedians would devote their efforts to sourcing these articles (my guess is about 75%, not 90%) --the point is to improve them, not to get rid of them. Removal is only appropriate as a/ provision for the ones that turn out not to be sourceable, and b/ an incentive. But it's a punitive incentive--and when it fails, it makes the encyclopedia weaker. I am afraid that the net result for many of the articles would be general sourcing from books found in library catalogs and not actually read. Real sourcing is a good deal harder. suggestion: improve sourcing by subject area, with editors who care and will work in a positive spirit.
:and remember that a great deal of hat many of use consider junk would be left in: all the road articles sourced to district maps, and the schools sourced to directories, etc. If we asked for ''adequate RS'' sourcing, then it might indeed by 90%. ''']''' 07:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::If we look at basic principles of ], then we are an encyclopedia, and not a random collection of information. Kinda suggests we ought to have a policy in this area, even if a large amount of content is deleted as a result of creating policy in this area - because effectivly these articles do not currently comply with ]. Afd as a process for discussion of yeah/ney would seem the right existing process for final discussion of all proposed deleted articles, even if they happen to be generated by any proposed process discussed here. A bot could operate to a set of defined rules searching for articles which are dated outside/above the agreed time scales. There could also be a sub-project for implementation which would pick up on the articles which clearly need to be reatined but currently lack sources. On the times scales, I would say 6months as marked unreferenced, and six month to be tag'd as potential deleted unless sourced, and then to Afd after 12months+. Rgds, - ] 09:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I definitely don't think this should be left to a bot. I agree that, ''in principal'', articles that have gone unsourced and un-edited for a long period of time should be deleted... but the decision of whether an individual, ''specific'' article should be deleted should be made on an article by article basis at an AfD. Perhaps we need to be a bit harder on long term unsourced articles at AfD... but that is a different issue. I could see implimenting a third option between "not attributed" and "not atributable"... something like "unlikely to actually ''be'' attributed".
:::There are a lot of articles that are not yet attributed, but ''could'' be... but we do need to think about the sub-set of these that are "unlikely to actually ''be'' attributed". These should go. I have occationally suggested creating an AfD decision called "Delete without prejudice"... meaning that while the article should be deleted as it stands ''now''... it can be recreated in the future should someone requests it and has a plan to fix the issues that led to it's deletion. ] 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Just for clarity - I'm not suggesting we use a BOT to do the deletions! I'm suggestign we use a BOT to apply the tags 6months/12months in. Rgds, - ] 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::The {{tl|unreferenced}} tag is already dated by SmackBot, see ]. ] · <small>]</small> 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a canonical example of an error in thinking made by editors who employ deletion as their sole tool. '''Please read our policies, including the ] and the ]. Deletion is not the only tool in ], and there are various things that you, as a nominator, must do ''before'' nominating an article for deletion on the grounds of unverifiability.''' As per the ], one of those things that you must do is make a reasonable effort, ''yourself'', to look for sources. If you don't find any, ''then'' you have a good case for deletion. (If you ''do'' find some, cite them in the article of course.) You ''do not'' have a good case if you do not make the effort yourself to look for sources, and your only rationale is that there weren't any cited in the article. Per our ] this is a collaboratively-written encyclopaedia. Collaborative editing involves helping to improve badly written articles, such as by looking for sources for articles that do not have them and converting unsourced rubbish into well-sourced stubs, not just tagging everything that you come across for deletion. ] 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*I must have missed the part of the proposal that said editors should avoid trying to find sources themselves. While editors may not use all the tools available, does that really have anything to do with this specific proposal? --]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
**Then you didn't read the top of this section thoroughly enough. Please read it again. This proposal involves editors solely demanding that ''other people'' do the work. ] 12:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Does Misplaced Pages "Unsourced" tagging distinguish between an article which has 1) NEVER had any source; an article which 2)HAD sources but someone claimed they were not reliable and deleted them, with the claim disputed, and 3) an article which has long had severl reliable references, but has one or more statements tagged with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>? It would be a bad idea to ever delete a good article because someone disputed the sourcing adequacy of one sentence in it. ] 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is confusing notability with popularity. Articles do not get to FA because they are ''more'' notable than others, but because editors are willing to devote the time and effort. Conversely, an item is not non-notable because a tag hasn't been acted upon within a certain time period. Should a hypothetical article on the 14th Century Economics of Scandanavia be put up for deletion just because we have no editors that can read Mediaeval Swedish (or any that care to read Swedish treatises on 14th Century Economics)? ] 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a proposal for a new PROD template on the discussion page. It isn't a question of whether people agree with PROD being used for this purpose (since it already has been approved) but whether they think the process would benifit from a special template which also provides articles PROD'ed for this reason, their own category for people to watch. ] 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
== Removal of date of birth from biography ==
An anon has twice removed the date of birth of ]. I hate edit wars, so am reluctant to revert a second time. However, in an edit summary, the anon wrote of wishing to protect from bank fraud. The idea seems foolish to me. For one, the details are still in the history and for another, the idea that the finances of someone in Britain's Rich List could be threatened by any piece of information like this seems odd. However, I wondered if we'd come across this issue before and if there's consensus. --] 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'd leave it off since it is/was uncited. (OTOH, if there's a citation for it, I wouldn't feel obliged to leave it out.) -- ] 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::<edit conflict>Hmmm. Curious. Because a cited d.o.b. is more reliable, so more useful to fraudsters, so clearly you're unconvinced by the fraud argument. And surely you're not suggesting we delete all the uncited material at Misplaced Pages, because if we did... !!! --] 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
== Guideline against use of AI images in BLPs and medical articles? ==
:::Right -- I'm only suggesting we delete uncited information in living persons' biographies if it is contentious, which is how I read ]. That the contention happens to use the word "fraud" wouldn't alter my reading -- any contention is worth axing uncited info over for BLP. -- ] 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have recently seen AI-generated images be added to illustrate both BLPs (e.g. ], now removed) and medical articles (e.g. ]). While we don't have any clear-cut policy or guideline about these yet, they appear to be problematic. Illustrating a living person with an AI-generated image might misinform as to how that person actually looks like, while using AI in medical diagrams can lead to anatomical inaccuracies (such as the lung structure in the second image, where the pleura becomes a bronnchiole twisting over the primary bronchi), or even medical misinformation. While a guideline against AI-generated images in general might be more debatable, do we at least have a consensus for a guideline against these two specific use cases?
:It's a potentially valid concern. ], ''"With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact dates of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date."'' I'm not sure removal is valid in this case, but I thought I'd throw that out there. --]] 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not including potentially relevant AI-generated images that only ''happen'' to include a living person (such as in ]), but exclusively those used to illustrate a living person in a ] context. ] (] · ]) 12:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting. She's decidedly notable. She's been in all the British national press in the last week or two. --] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:What about any biographies, including dead people. The lead image shouldn't be AI generated for any biography. - ] (]) 12:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This is appalling. There's been a slow-motion edit war on that article about the person's date of birth ''since September 2006'', and not a single editor adding the various dates of birth in all of that time has given a proper citation for that information. I've placed a warning to all editors on the article's talk page. ''The only acceptable way to add this information to the article is to cite a reliable source for it.'' ] 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::Same with animals, organisms etc. - ] (]) 12:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I personally am '''strongly against''' using AI in biographies and medical articles - as you highlighted above, AI is absolutely not reliable in generating accurate imagery and may contribute to medical or general misinformation. I would 100% support a proposal banning AI imagery from these kinds of articles - and a recommendation to not use such imagery other than in specific scenarios. ]] 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd prefer a guideline prohibiting the use of AI images full stop. There are too many potential issues with accuracy, honesty, copyright, etc. Has this already been proposed or discussed somewhere? – ] <small>(])</small> 12:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::There hasn't been a full discussion yet, and we have a list of uses at ], but it could be good to deal with clear-cut cases like this (which are already a problem) first, as the wider discussion is less certain to reach the same level of consensus. ] (] · ]) 12:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Discussions are going on at ] and somewhat at ]. I recommend workshopping an RfC question (or questions) then starting an RfC. ] (]) 13:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, didn't catch the previous discussions! I'll take a look at them, thanks! ] (] · ]) 14:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:There is one very specific exception I would put to a very sensible blanket prohibition on using AI images to illustrate people, especially BLPs. That is where the person themselves is known to use that image, which I have encountered in ]. ] (]) 15:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::While the Ekpa portrait is just an upscale (and I'm not sure what positive value that has for us over its source; upscaling does not add accuracy, nor is it an artistic interpretation meant to reveal something about the source), this would be hard to translate to the general case. Many AI portraits would have copyright concerns, not just from the individual (who may have announced some appropriate release for it), but due to the fact that AI portraits can lean heavily on uncredited individual sources. --] (]) 16:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For the purposes of discussing whether to allow AI images at all, we should always assume that, for the purposes of (potential) policies and guidelines, there exist AI images we can legally use to illustrate every topic. We cannot use those that are not legal (including, but not limited to, copyright violations) so they are irrelevant. An image generator trained exclusively on public domain and cc0 images (and any other licenses that explicitly allow derivative works without requiring attribution) would not be subject to any copyright restrictions (other than possibly by the prompter and/or generator's license terms, which are both easy to determine). Similarly we should not base policy on the current state of the technology, but assume that the quality of its output will improve to the point it is equal to that of a skilled human artist. ] (]) 17:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The issue is, either there are public domain/CC0 images of the person (in which case they can be used directly) or there aren't, in which case the AI is making up how a person looks. ] (] · ]) 20:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::We tend to use art representations either where no photographs are available (in which case, AI will also not have access to photographs) or where what we are showing is an artist's insight on how this person is perceived, which is not something that AI can give us. In any case, we don't have to build policy now around some theoretical AI in the future; we can deal with the current reality, and policy can be adjusted if things change in the future. And even that theoretical AI does make it more difficult to detect copyvio -- ] (]) 20:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't call it an upscale given whatever was done appears to have removed detail, but we use that image as it was specifically it is the edited image which was sent to VRT. ] (]) 10:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is there any clarification on using purely AI-generated images vs. using AI to edit or alter images? AI tools , such as to identify objects and remove them, or generate missing content. The generative expand feature would appear to be unreliable (and it is), but I use it to fill in gaps of cloudless sky produced from stitching together photos for a panorama (I don't use it if there are clouds, or for starry skies, as it produces non-existent stars or unrealistic clouds). ] (]) 18:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, my proposal is only about AI-generated images, not AI-altered ones. That could in fact be a useful distinction to make if we want to workshop a RfC on the matter. ] (] · ]) 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure if we need a clear cut policy or guideline against them... I think we treat them the same way as we would treat an editor's kitchen table sketch of the same figure. ] (]) 18:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:For those wanting to ban AI images full stop, well, you are too late. Most professional image editing software, including the software in one's smartphone as well as desktop, uses AI somewhere. Noise reduction software uses AI to figure out what might be noise and what might be texture. Sharpening software uses AI to figure out what should be smooth and what might have a sharp detail it can invent. For example, a bird photo not sharp enough to capture feather detail will have feather texture imagined onto it. Same for hair. Or grass. Any image that has been cleaned up to remove litter or dust or spots will have the cleaned area AI generated based on its surroundings. The sky might be extended with AI. These examples are a bit different from a 100% imagined image created from a prompt. But probably not in a way that is useful as a rule.
:I think we should treat AI generated images the same as any user-generated image. It might be a great diagram or it might be terrible. Remove it from the article if the latter, not because someone used AI. If the image claims to photographically represent something, we may judge whether the creator has manipulated the image too much to be acceptable. For example, using AI to remove a person in the background of an image taken of the BLP subject might be perfectly fine. People did that with traditional Photoshop/Lightroom techniques for years. Using AI to generate what claims to be a photo of a notable person is on dodgy ground wrt copyright. -- ]°] 19:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm talking about the case of using AI to generate a depiction of a living person, not using AI to alter details in the background. That is why I only talk about AI-generated images, not AI-altered images. ] (] · ]) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Regarding some sort of brightline ban on the use of any such image in anything article medical related: absolutely not. For example, if someone wanted to use AI tools as opposed to other tools to make an image such as ] (as used in the "medical" article ]) I don't see a problem, so long as it is accurate. Accurate models and illustrations are useful and that someone used AI assistance as opposed to a chisel and a rock is of no concern. — ] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I believe that the appropriateness of AI images depends on how its used by the user. In BLP and medical articles, it is inappropriate for the images, but it is inappropriate to ban it completely across thw site. By the same logic, if you want full ban of AI, you are banning fire just because people can get burned, without considering cooking. ] (]) 13:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
] <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)]]
:I agree that AI-generated images should not be used in most cases. They essentially serve as misinformation. I also don't think that they're really comparable to drawings or sketches because AI-generation uses a level of photorealism that can easily trick the untrained eye into thinking it is real. ] (]) 20:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::AI doesn't need to be photorealistic though. I see two potential issues with AI. The first is images that might deceive the viewer into thinking they are photos, when they are not. The second is potential copyright issues. Outside of the copyright issues I don't see any unique concerns for an AI-generated image (that doesn't appear photorealistic). Any accuracy issues can be handled the same way a user who manually drew an image could be handled. ] (]) 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
{{multiple image
| image1 = Pope Francis in puffy winter jacket.jpg
| image2 = Illustration of Brigette Lundy Paine by Sandra Mu.png
| footer = ] and ]
| total_width = 300
}}
::AI-generated depictions of BLP subjects are often more "illustrative" than drawings/sketches of BLP subjects made by 'regular' editors like you and me. For example, compare the AI-generated image of Pope Francis and the user-created cartoon of Brigette Lundy-Paine. Neither image belongs on their respective bios, of course, but the AI-generated image is no more "misinformation" than the drawing. ] (]) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I would argue the opposite: neither are made up, but the first one, because of its realism, might mislead readers into thinking that it is an actual photograph, while the second one is clearly a drawing. Which makes the first one less illustrative, as it carries potential for misinformation, despite being technically more detailed. ] (] · ]) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::AI-generated images should always say "AI-generated image of " in the image caption. No misleading readers that way. ] (]) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and they don't always do it, and we don't have a guideline about this either. The issue is, many people have many different proposals on how to deal with AI content, meaning we always end up with "no consensus" and no guidelines on use at all, even if most people are against it. ] (] · ]) 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|always end up with "no consensus" and no guidelines on use at all, even if most people are against it}} Agreed. Even a simple proposal to have image captions note whether an image is AI-generated will have editors wikilawyer over the definition of 'AI-generated.' I take back my recommendation of starting an RfC; we can already predict how that RfC will end. ] (]) 02:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Of interest perhaps is ] on the use of drawn cartoon images in BLPs. ] (]) 22:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:We should absolutely not be including any AI images in anything that is meant to convey facts (with the obvious exception of an AI image illustrating the concept of an AI image). I also don't think we should be encouraging AI-altered images -- the line between "regular" photo enhancement and what we'd call "AI alteration" is blurry, but we shouldn't want AI edits for the same reason we wouldn't want fake Photoshop composites.
:That said, I would assume good faith here: some of these images are probably being sourced from Commons, and Commons is dealing with a lot of undisclosed AI images. ] (]) 23:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::]
::Why wouldn't we want "fake Photoshop composites"? A ] can be very useful. I'd be sad if we banned ]. ] (]) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, should have been more clear -- composites that present themselves as the real thing, basically what people would use deepfakes for now. ] (]) 20:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah I think there is a very clear line between images built by a diffusion model and images modified using photoshop through techniques like compositing. That line is that the diffusion model is reverse-engineering an image to match a text prompt from a pattern of semi-random static associated with similar text prompts. As such it's just automated glurge, at best it's only as good as the ability of the software to parse a text prompt and the ability of a prompter to draft sufficiently specific language. And absolutely none of that does anything to solve the "hallucination" problem. On the other hand, in photoshop, if I put in two layers both containing a bird on a transparent background, what I, the human making the image, sees is what the software outputs. ] (]) 18:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tpq|Yeah I think there is a very clear line between images built by a diffusion model and images modified using photoshop}} others do not. If you want to ban or restrict one but not the other then you need to explain how the difference can be reliably determined, and how one is materially different to the other in ways other than your personal opinion. ] (]) 18:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think any guideline, let alone policy, would be beneficial and indeed on balance is more likely to be harmful. There are always only two questions that matter when determining whether we should use an image, and both are completely independent of whether the image is AI-generated or not:
:#Can we use this image in this article? This depends on matters like copyright, fair use, whether the image depicts content that is legal for an organisation based in the United States to host, etc. Obviously if the answer is "no", then everything else is irrelevant, but as the law and WMF, Commons and en.wp policies stand today there exist some images in both categories we can use, and some images in both categories we cannot use.
:#Does using this image in this article improve the article? This is relative to other options, one of which is always not using any image, but in many cases also involves considering alternative images that we can use. In the case of depictions of specific, non-hypothetical people or objects one criteria we use to judge whether the image improves the article is whether it is an accurate representation of the subject. If it is not an accurate representation then it doesn't improve the article and thus should not be used, regardless of why it is inaccurate. If it is an accurate representation, then its use in the article will not be misrepresentative or misleading, regardless of whether it is or is not AI generated. It may or may not be the best option available, but if it is then it should be used regardless of whether it is or is not AI generated.
:The potential harm I mentioned above is twofold, firstly Misplaced Pages is, by definition, harmed when an images exists we could use that would improve an article but we do not use it in that article. A policy or guideline against the use of AI images would, in some cases, prevent us from using an image that would improve an article. The second aspect is misidentification of an image as AI-generated when it isn't, especially when it leads to an image not being used when it otherwise would have been.
:Finally, all the proponents of a policy or guideline are assuming that the line between images that are and are not AI-generated is sharp and objective. Other commenters here have already shown that in reality the line is blurry and it is only going to get blurrier in the future as more AI (and AI-based) technology is built into software and especially firmware. ] (]) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with almost the entirety of your post with a caveat on whether something "is an accurate representation". We can tell whether non-photorealistic images are accurate by assessing whether the image accurately conveys ''the idea'' of what it is depicting. Photos do more than convey an idea, they convey the actual look of something. With AI generated images that are photorealistic it is difficult to assess whether they accurately convey the look of something (the shading might be illogical in subtle ways, there could be an extra finger that goes unnoticed, a mole gets erased), but readers might be deceived by the photo-like presentation into thinking they are looking at an actual photographic depiction of the subject which could differ significantly from the actual subject in ways that go unnoticed. ] (]) 04:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|A policy or guideline against the use of AI images would, in some cases, prevent us from using an image that would improve an article.}} That's why I'm suggesting a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are by design more flexible, and ] still does (and should) apply in edge cases.{{pb}}{{tq|The second aspect is misidentification of an image as AI-generated when it isn't, especially when it leads to an image not being used when it otherwise would have been.}} In that case, there is a licensing problem. AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that ''might'' have been AI-generated.{{pb}}{{tq|Finally, all the proponents of a policy or guideline are assuming that the line between images that are and are not AI-generated is sharp and objective. Other commenters here have already shown that in reality the line is blurry and it is only going to get blurrier in the future as more AI (and AI-based) technology is built into software and especially firmware.}} In that case, it's mostly because the ambiguity in wording: AI-edited images are very common, and are sometimes called "AI-generated", but here we should focus on actual prompt outputs, of the style "I asked a model to generate me an image of a BLP". ] (] · ]) 11:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Simply not having a completely unnecessary policy or guideline is infinitely better than relying on IAR - especially as this would have to be ignored ''every'' time it is relevant. When the AI image is not the best option (which obviously includes all the times its unsuitable or inaccurate) existing policies, guidelines, practice and frankly common sense mean it won't be used. This means the only time the guideline would be relevant is when an AI image ''is'' the best option and as we obviously should be using the best option in all cases we would need to ignore the guideline against using AI images.
:::{{tpq|AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that might have been AI-generated.}} The key words here are "supposed to be" and "shouldn't", editors absolutely ''will'' speculate that images are AI-generated and that the Commons labelling is incorrect. We are supposed to assume good faith, but this very discussion shows that when it comes to AI some editors simply do not do that.
:::Regarding your final point, that might be what you are meaning but it is not what all other commenters mean when they want to exclude all AI images. ] (]) 11:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::For your first point, the guideline is mostly to take care of the "prompt fed in model" BLP illustrations, where it is technically hard to prove that the person doesn't look like that (as we have no available image), but the model likely doesn't have any available image either and most likely just made it up. As my proposal is essentially limited to that (I don't include AI-edited images, only those that are purely generated by a model), I don't think there will be many cases where IAR would be needed.{{pb}}Regarding your two other points, you are entirely correct, and while I am hoping for nuance on the AI issue, it is clear that some editors might not do that. For the record, I strongly disagree with a blanket ban of "AI images" (which includes both blatant "prompt in model" creations and a wide range of more subtle AI retouching tools) or anything like that. ] (] · ]) 11:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tpq|the guideline is mostly to take care of the "prompt fed in model" BLP illustrations, where it is technically hard to prove that the person doesn't look like that (as we have no available image)}}. There are only two possible scenarios regarding verifiability:
:::::#The image is an accurate representation and we can verify that (e.g. by reference to non-free photos).
:::::#*Verifiability is no barrier to using the image, whether it is AI generated or not.
:::::#*If it is the best image available, and editors agree using it is better than not having an image, then it should be used whether it is AI generated or not.
:::::#The image is either ''not'' an accurate representation, or we cannot verify whether it is or is not an accurate representation
:::::#*The only reasons we should ever use the image are:
:::::#**It has been the subject of notable commentary and we are presenting it in that context.
:::::#**The subject verifiably uses it as a representation of themselves (e.g. as an avatar or logo)
:::::#:This is already policy, whether the image is AI generated or not is completely irrelevant.
:::::You will note that in no circumstance is it relevant whether the image is AI generated or not. ] (]) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::In your first scenario, there is the issue of an accurate AI-generated image misleading people into thinking it is an actual photograph of the person, especially as they are most often photorealistic. Even besides that, a mostly accurate representation can still introduce spurious details, and this can mislead readers as they do not know to what level it is actually accurate. This scenario doesn't really happen with drawings (which are clearly not photographs), and is very much a consequence of AI-generated photorealistic pictures being a thing.{{pb}}In the second scenario, if we cannot verify that it is not an accurate representation, it can be hard to remove the image with policy-based reasons, which is why a guideline will again be helpful. Having a single guideline against fully AI-generated images takes care of all of these scenarios, instead of having to make new specific guidelines for each case that emerges because of them. ] (] · ]) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If the image is misleading or unverifiable it should not be used, regardless of why it is misleading or unverifiable. This is existing policy and we don't need anything specifically regarding AI to apply it - we just need consensus that the image ''is'' misleading or unverifiable. Whether it is or is not AI generated is completely irrelevant. ] (]) 15:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tpq|AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that might have been AI-generated.}}
::::I mean... yes, we should? At the very least Commons should go hunting for mislabeled images -- that's the whole point of license review. The thing is that things are absolutely swamped over there and there are hundreds of thousands of images waiting for review of some kind. ] (]) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but that's a Commons thing. A guideline on English Misplaced Pages shouldn't decide of what is to be done on Commons. ] (] · ]) 20:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I just mean that given the reality of the backlogs, there are going to be mislabeled images, and there are almost certainly going to be more of them over time. That's just how it is. We don't have control over that, but we do have control over what images go into articles, and if someone has legitimate concerns about an image being AI-generated, then they should be raising those. ] (]) 20:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban on AI-generated images on Misplaced Pages'''. As others have highlighted above, the is not just a slippery slope but an outright downward spiral. We don't use AI-generated text and we shouldn't use AI-generated images: these aren't reliable and they're also ] scraped from who knows what and where. '''Use only reliable material from reliable sources'''. As for the argument of 'software now has AI features', we all know that there's a huge difference between someone using a smoothing feature and someone generating an image from a prompt. ] (]) 03:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Reply''', the section of ] concerning images is ] which states "Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, ''so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments''". Using AI to generate an image only violates ] if you are using it to illustrate unpublished ideas, which can be assessed just by looking at the image itself. COPYVIO, however, cannot be assessed from looking at just the image alone, which AI could be violating. However, some images may be too simple to be copyrightable, for example AI-generated images of chemicals or mathematical structures potentially. ] (]) 04:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Prompt generated images are unquestionably violation of ] and ]: Type in your description and you get an image scraping who knows what and from who knows where, often Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages isn't an ]. Get real. ] (]) 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::"Unquestionably"? Let me question that, @]. <code>;-)</code>
*:::If an editor were to use an AI-based image-generating service and the prompt is something like this:
*:::"I want a stacked bar chart that shows the number of games won and lost by ] each year. Use the team colors, which are red #DC052D, blue #0066B2, and black #000000. The data is:
*:::* 2014–15: played 34 games, won 25, tied 4, lost 5
*:::* 2015–16: played 34 games, won 28, tied 4, lost 2
*:::* 2016–17: played 34 games, won 25, tied 7, lost 2
*:::* 2017–18: played 34 games, won 27, tied 3, lost 4
*:::* 2018–19: played 34 games, won 24, tied 6, lost 4
*:::* 2019–20: played 34 games, won 26, tied 4, lost 4
*:::* 2020–21: played 34 games, won 24, tied 6, lost 4
*:::* 2021–22: played 34 games, won 24, tied 5, lost 5
*:::* 2022–23: played 34 games, won 21, tied 8, lost 5
*:::* 2023–24: played 34 games, won 23, tied 3, lost 8"
*:::I would expect it to produce something that is not a violation of either OR in general or OR's SYNTH section specifically. What would you expect, and why do you think it would be okay for me to put that data into a spreadsheet and upload a screenshot of the resulting bar chart, but you don't think it would be okay for me to put that same data into a image generator, get the same thing, and upload that?
*:::We must not mistake the tools for the output. Hand-crafted bad output is bad. AI-generated good output is good. ] (]) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Assuming you'd even get what you requested the model without fiddling with the prompt for a while, these sort of 'but we can use it for graphs and charts' devil's advocate scenarios aren't helpful. We're discussing generating images of people, places, and objects here and in those cases, yes, this would unquestionably be a form of ] & ]. As for the charts and graphs, there are any number of ways to produce these. ] (]) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tpq|We're discussing generating images of people, places, and objects here}} The proposal contains no such limitation. {{tpq| and in those cases, yes, this would unquestionably be a form of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH.}} Do you have a citation for that? Other people have explained better than I can how that it is not necessarily true, and certainly not unquestionable. ] (]) 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::As you're well aware, these images are produced by scraping and synthesized material from who knows what and where: it's ultimately pure ] to produce these fake images and they're a straightforward product of synthesis of multiple sources (]) - worse yet, these sources are unknown because training data is by no means transparent. Personally, I'm strongly for a total ban on generative AI on the site exterior to articles on the topic of generative AI. Not only do I find this incredible unethical, I believe it is intensely detrimental to Misplaced Pages, which is an already a flailing and shrinking project. ] (]) 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::So you think the lead image at ] is a SYNTH violation? Its (human) creator explicitly says "This is not done from one specific photo. As I usually do when I draw portraits of people that I can't see in person, I look at a lot of photos of them and then create my own rendition" in the image description, which sounds like the product of synthesis of multiple sources" to me, and "these sources are unknown because" the the images the artist looked at are not disclosed.
*:::::::A lot of my concern about blanket statements is the principle that what's ] is sauce for the gander, too. If it's okay for a human to do something by hand, then it should be okay for a human using a semi-automated tool to do it, too.
*:::::::<small>(Just in case you hadn't heard, the rumors that the editor base is shrinking have been false for over a decade now. Compared to when you created your account in mid-2005, we have about twice as many high-volume editors.)</small> ] (]) 06:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Review ] and your attempts at downplaying a prompt-generated image as "semi-automated" shows the root of the problem: if you can't detect the difference between a human sketching from a reference and a machine scraping who-knows-what on the internet, you shouldn't be involved in this discussion. As for editor retention, this remains a serious problem on the site: while the site continues to grow (and becomes core fodder for AI-scraping) and becomes increasingly visible, editorial retention continues to drop. ] (]) 09:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Please scroll down below SYNTH to the next section titled "What is not original research" which begins with ], our policies on how images relate to OR. OR (including SYNTH) only applies to images with regards to if they illustrate "unpublished ideas or arguments". It does not matter, for instance, if you synthesize an original ''depiction'' of something, so long as the ''idea'' of that thing is not original. ] (]) 09:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Yes, which explicitly states:
*::::::::::It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.
*:::::::::Using a machine to generate a fake image of someone is far beyond "manipulation" and it is certainly "false". Clearly we need explicit policies on AI-generated images of people or we wouldn't be having this discussion, but this as it stands clarly also falls under ]: there is zero question that this is a result of "synthesis of published material", even if the AI won't list what it used. Ultimately it's just a synthesis of a bunch of published composite images of who-knows-what (or who-knows-who?) the AI has scraped together to produce a fake image of a person. ] (]) 10:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The latter images you describe should be SVG regardless. If there are models that can generate that, that seems totally fine since it can be semantically altered by hand. Any generation with photographic or "painterly" characteristics (e.g. generating something in the style of a painting or any other convention of visual art that communicates aesthetic particulars and not merely abstract visual particulars) seems totally unacceptable. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:]
*:@], here's an image I created. It illustrates the concept of 1% in an article. I made this myself, by typing 100 emojis and taking a screenshot. Do you really mean to say that if I'd done this with an image-generating AI tool, using a prompt like "Give me 100 dots in a 10 by 10 grid. Make 99 a dark color and 1, randomly placed, look like a baseball" that it would be hopelessly tainted, because AI is always bad? Or does your strongly worded statement mean something more moderate?
*:I'd worry about photos of people (including dead people). I'd worry about photos of specific or unique objects that have to be accurate or they're worse than worthless (e.g., artwork, landmarks, maps). But I'm not worried about simple graphs and charts like this one, and I'm not worried about ordinary, everyday objects. If you want to use AI to generate a photorealistic image of a cookie, or a spoon, and the output you get ], I'm not actually going to worry about it. ] (]) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::As you know, Misplaced Pages has the unique factor of being entirely volunteer-ran. Misplaced Pages has fewer and fewer editors and, long-term, we're seeing plummeting birth rates in areas where most Misplaced Pages editors do exist. I wouldn't expect a wave of new ones aimed at keeping the site free of bullshit in the near future.
*::In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's hair-brained continued effort to turn the site into its political cash machine is no doubt also not helping, harming the site's public perception and leading to fewer new editors.
*::Over the course of decades (I've been here for around 20 years), it seems clear that the site will be negatively impacted by all this, especially in the face of generative AI.
*::As a long-time editor who has frequently stumbled upon intense ] content, fended off armies of outside actors looking to shape the site into their ideological image (and sent me more than a few death threats), and who has identified large amount of politically-motivated nonsense explicitly designed to fool non-experts in areas I know intimately well (such as folklore and historical linguistics topics), I think it need be said that the use of generative AI for content is especially dangerous because of its capabilities of fooling Misplaced Pages readers and Misplaced Pages editors alike.
*::Misplaced Pages is written by people for people. We need to draw a line in the sand to keep from being flooded by increasingly accessible hoax-machines.
*::A blanket ban on generative AI resolves this issue or at least hands us another tool with which to attempt to fight back. We don't need what few editors we have here wasting what little time they can give the project checking over an ocean of AI-generated slop: '''we need more material from reliable sources and better tools to fend off bad actors usable by our shrinking editor base (anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation listening?), not more waves of generative AI garbage'''. ] (]) 07:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::A blanket ban doesn't actually resolve most of the issues though, and introduces new ones. Bad usages of AI can already be dealt with by existing policy, and malicious users will ignore a blanket ban anyways. Meanwhile, a blanket ban would harm many legitimate usages for AI. For instance, the majority of professional translators (at least Japanese to English) incorporate AI (or similar tools) into their workflow to speed up translations. Just imagine a professional translator who uses AI to help generate rough drafts of foreign language Misplaced Pages articles, before reviewing and correcting them, and another editor learning of this and mass reverting them for breaking the blanket ban, and ultimately causing them to leave. Many authors (particularly with carpal tunnel) use AI now to control their voice-to-text (you can train the AI on how you want character names spelled, the formatting of dialogue and other text, etc.). A[REDACTED] editor could train an AI to convert their voice into Misplaced Pages-formatted text. AI is subtly incorporated now into spell-checkers, grammar-checkers, photo editors, etc., in ways many people are not aware of. A blanket AI ban has the potential to cause many issues for a lot of people, without actually being that affective at dealing with malicious users. ] (]) 08:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I think this is the least convincing one I've seen here yet: It contains the ol' 'there are AI features in programs now' while also attempting to invoke accessibility and a little bit of 'we must have machines to translate!'.
*::::As a translator myself, I can only say: ''Oh please''. Generative AI is notoriously terrible at translating and that's not likely to change. And I mean ''ever'' beyond a very, very basic level. Due to the complexities of communication and little matters like nuance, all machine translated material must be thoroughly checked and modified by, yes, ''human'' translators, who often encounter it spitting out complete bullshit scraped from who-knows-where (often Misplaced Pages itself).
*::::I get that this topic attracts a lot of 'but what if generative AI is better than humans?' from the utopian tech crowd but the ''reality'' is that anyone who needs a machine to invent text and visuals for whatever reason simply shouldn't be using it on Misplaced Pages.
*::::Either you, a human being, can contribute to the project or ''you can't''. Slapping a bunch of machine-generated (generative AI) visuals and text (much of it ultimately coming from Misplaced Pages in the first place!) isn't some kind of human substitute, it's just machine-regurgitated slop and is not helping the project.
*::::If people can't be confident that Misplaced Pages is ''made by humans, for humans'' the project is finally on its way out.] (]) 09:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I don't know how up to date you are on the current state of translation, but:
*::::::''''
*::::::''Over three thousand full-time professional translators from around the world responded to the surveys, which were broken into a survey for CAT tool users and one for those who do not use any CAT tool at all.''
*::::::''88% of respondents use at least one CAT tool for at least some of their translation tasks.''
*::::::''Of those using CAT tools, 83% use a CAT tool for most or all of their translation work.''
*:::::Mind you, traditionally CAT tools didn't use AI, but many do now, which only adds to potential sources of confusion in a blanket ban of AI. ] (]) 17:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You're barking up the tree with the pro-generative AI propaganda in response to me. I think we're all quite aware that generative AI tool integration is now common and that there's also a big effort to replace human translators — and anything that can be "written" with machines-generated text. I'm also keenly aware that generative AI is ''absolutely horrible'' at translation and ''all of it must be thoroughly checked by humans'', as you would be if you were a translator yourself. ] (]) 22:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::"''all machine translated material must be thoroughly checked and modified by, yes, ''human'' translators''"
*:::::You are just agreeing with me here.
*::::::'''' -American Translation Society
*:::::There are translators (particularly with non-creative works) who are using these tools to shift more towards reviewing. It should be up to them to decide what they think is the most efficient method for them. ] (]) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::And any translator who wants to use generative AI to ''attempt'' to translate can do so off the site. We're not here to check it for them. I strongly support a total ban on any generative AI used on the site exterior to articles on generative AI. ] (]) 11:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I wonder what you mean by "on the site". The question here is "Is it okay for an editor to go to a completely different website, generate an image all by themselves, upload it to Commons, and put it in a Misplaced Pages article?" The question here is ''not'' "Shall we put AI-generating buttons on Misplaced Pages's own website?" ] (]) 02:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I'm talking about users slapping machine-translated and/or machine-generated nonsense all over the site, only for us to have to go behind and not only check it but correct it. It takes users minutes to do this and it's already happening. It's the same for images. There are very few of us who volunteer here and our numbers are growing fewer. We need to be spending our time improving the site rather than opening the gate as wide as possible for a flood of AI-generated/rendered garbage. The site has enough problems that compound every day rather than having to fend off users armed with hoax machines at every corner. ] (]) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Sure, we're all opposed to "nonsense", but my question is: What about when the machine happens to generate something that is ''not'' "nonsense"?
*::::::::I have some worries about AI content. I worry, for example, that they'll corrupt our sources. I worry that ] will get dramatically longer, and also that even more undetected, unconfessed, unretracted papers will get published and believed to be true and trustworthy. I worry that academia will go back to a model in which personal connections are more important, because you really can't trust what's published. I worry that scientific journals will start refusing to publish research unless it comes from someone employed by a trusted institution, that is willing to put its reputation on the line by saying they have directly verified that the work described in the paper was actually performed to their standards, thus scuttling the citizen science movement and excluding people whose institutions are upset with them for other reasons (Oh, you thought you'd take a job elsewhere? Well, we refuse to certify the work you did for the last three years...).
*::::::::But I'm not worried about a Misplaced Pages editor saying "Hey AI, give me a diagram of swingset" or "Make a chart for me out of the data I'm going to give you". In fact, if someone wants to pull the numbers out of ], feed it to an AI, and replace the template's contents with an AI-generated image (until they finally fix the Graphs extension), I'd consider that helpful. ] (]) 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Translators are not using ''generative'' AI for translation, the applicability of LLMs to regular translation is still in its infancy and regardless will not be implementing any ''generative'' faculties to its output since that is the exact opposite of what translation is supposed to do. ] (]) 02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tpq|Translators are not using generative AI for translation}} this entirely depends on what you mean by "generative". There are at least three contradictory understandings of the term in this one thread alone. ] (]) 03:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Please, you can just go through the entire process with a simple prompt command now. The results are typically shit but you can generate a ton of it quickly, which is perfect for flooding a site like this one — especially without a strong policy against it. I've found myself cleaning up tons of AI-generated crap (and, yes, rendered) stuff here and elsewhere, and now I'm even seeing AI-generated responses to my own comments. It's beyond ridiculous. ] (]) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Ban AI-generated from all articles, AI anything from BLP and medical articles''' is the position that seems it would permit all instances where there are plausible defenses that AI use does not fabricate or destroy facts intended to be communicated in the context of the article. That scrutiny is stricter with BLP and medical articles in general, and the restriction should be stricter to match. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@], please see my comment immediately above. (We had an edit conflict.) Do you really mean "anything" and everything? Even a simple chart? ] (]) 07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I think my previous comment is operative: almost anything we can see AI used programmatically to generate should be SVG, not raster—even if it means we are embedding raster images in SVG to generate examples like the above. I do not know if there are models that can generate SVG, but if there are I happily state I have no problem with that. I think I'm at risk of seeming downright paranoid—but understanding how errors can propagate and go unnoticed in practice, if we're to trust a black box, we need to at least be able to check what the black box has done on a direct structural level. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::A quick web search indicates that there are generative AI programs that create SVG files. ] (]) 07:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Makes perfect sense that there would be. Again, maybe I come off like a paranoid lunatic, but I really need either the ability to check what the thing is doing, or the ability to check and correct exactly what a black box has done. (In my estimation, if you want to know what procedures person has done, theoretically you can ask them to get a fairly satisfactory result, and the pre-AI algorithms used in image manipulation are canonical and more or less transparent. Acknowledging human error etc., with AI there is not even the theoretical promise that one can be given a truthful account of how it decided to do what it did.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Like everyone said, there should be a ''de facto'' ban on using AI images in Misplaced Pages articles. They are effectively fake images pretending to be real, so they are out of step with the values of Misplaced Pages.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Except, not everybody ''has'' said that, because the majority of those of us who have refrained from hyperbole have pointed out that not all AI images are "fake images pretending to be real" (and those few that are can already be removed under existing policy). You might like to try actually reading the discussion before commenting further. ] (]) 10:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@], exactly how much "ability to check what the thing is doing" do you need to be able to do, when the image shows 99 dots and 1 baseball, to illustrate the concept of 1%? If the image above said {{tl|pd-algorithm}} instead of {{tl|cc-by-sa-4.0}}, would you remove if from the article, because you just can't be sure that it shows 1%? ] (]) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The above is a useful example to an extent, but it is a toy example. I really do think i is required in general when we aren't dealing with media we ourselves are generating. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::How do we differentiate in policy between a "toy example" (that really would be used in an article) and "real" examples? Is it just that if I upload it, then you know me, and assume I've been responsible? ] (]) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There definitely exist generative AI for SVG files. Here's an example: I used generative AI in Adobe Illustrator to generate the SVG gear in ] (from ]) before drawing by hand the more informative parts of the image. The gear drawing is not great (a real gear would have uniform tooth shape) but maybe the shading is better than I would have done by hand, giving an appearance of dimensionality and surface material while remaining deliberately stylized. Is that the sort of thing everyone here is trying to forbid?
*::::I can definitely see a case for forbidding AI-generated photorealistic images, especially of BLPs, but that's different from human oversight of AI in the generation of schematic images such as this one. —] (]) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I'd include BDPs, too. I had to get a few AI-generated images of allegedly Haitian presidents deleted a while ago. The "paintings" were 100% fake, right down to the deformed medals on their military uniforms. An AI-generated "generic person" would be okay for some purposes. For a few purposes (e.g., illustrations of ]) it could even be preferable to have a fake "person" than a real one. But for individual/named people, it would be best not to have anything unless it definitely looks like the named person. ] (]) 07:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*I put it to you that our decision on this requires nuance. It's obviously insane to allow AI-generated images of, for example, Donald Trump, and it's obviously insane to ban AI-generated images from, for example, ] or ].—] <small>]/]</small> 11:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Of course, that's why I'm only looking at specific cases and refrain from proposing a blanket ban on generative AI. Regarding Donald Trump, we do have one AI-generated image of him that is reasonable to allow (in ]), as the image itself was the subject of relevant commentary. Of course, this is different from using an AI-generated image to illustrate ] himself, which is what my proposal would recommend against. ] (] · ]) 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That's certainly true, but others are adopting much more extreme positions than you are, and it was the more extreme views that I wished to challenge.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for the (very reasoned) addition, I just wanted to make my original proposal clear. ] (] · ]) 11:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Going off WAID's example above, perhaps we should be trying to restrict the use of AI where image accuracy/precision is essential, as it would be for BLP and medical info, among other cases, but in cases where we are talking generic or abstract concepts, like the 1% image, it's use is reasonable. I would still say we should strongly prefer am image made by a human with high control of the output, but when accuracy is not as important as just the visualization, it's reasonable to turn to AI to help. ] (]) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support total ban of AI imagery''' - There are probable copyright problems and veracity problems with anything coming out of a machine. In a word of manipulated reality, Misplaced Pages will be increasingly respected for holding a hard line against synthetic imagery. ] (]) 15:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:For both issues AI vs not AI is irrelevant. For copyright, if the image is a copyvio we can't use it regardless of whether it is AI or not AI, if it's not a copyvio then that's not a reason to use or not use the image. If the images is not verifiably accurate then we already can (and should) exclude it, regardless of whether it is AI or not AI. For more detail see the extensive discussion above you've either not read or ignored. ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', we absolutely should ban the use of AI-generated images in these subjects (and beyond, but that's outside the scope of this discussion). AI should not be used to make up a simulation of a living person. It does not actually depict the person and may introduce errors or flaws that don't actually exist. The picture ''does not depict the real person'' because it is quite simply fake.
*Even worse would be using AI to develop medical images in articles ''in any way''. The possibility for error there is unacceptable. Yes, humans make errors too, but there there is a) someone with the responsibility to fix it and b) someone conscious who actually made the picture, rather than a black box that spat it out after looking at similar training data. '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It's ''incredibly'' disheartening to see multiple otherwise intelligent editors who have apparently not read and/or not understood what has been said in the discussion but rather responding with what appears to be knee-jerk reactions to anti-AI scaremongering. The sky will not fall in, Misplaced Pages is not going to be taken over by AI, AI is not out to subvert Misplaced Pages, we already can (and do) remove (and more commonly not add in the first placE) false and misleading information/images. ] (]) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::So what benefit does allowing AI images bring? We shouldn't be forced to decide these on a case-by-case basis.
*::I'm sorry to dishearten you, but I still respectfully disagree with you. And I don't think this is "scaremongering" (although I admit that if it was, I would of course claim it wasn't). '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 21:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Determining what benefits ''any'' image brings to Misplaced Pages can ''only'' be done on a case-by-case basis. It is literally impossible to know whether any image improves the encyclopaedia without knowing the context of which portion of what article it would illustrate, and what alternative images are and are not available for that same spot.
*:::The benefit of allowing AI images is that when an AI image is the best option for a given article we use it. We gain absolutely nothing by prohibiting using the best image available, indeed doing so would actively harm the project without bringing any benefits. AI images that are misleading, inaccurate or any of the other negative things ''any'' image can be are never the best option and so are never used - we don't need any policies or guidelines to tell us that. ] (]) 21:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban on AI-generated text or images in articles''', except in contexts where the AI-generated content is itself the subject of discussion (in a ] or ]). Generative AI is fundamentally at odds with Misplaced Pages's mission of providing reliable information, because of its propensity to distort reality or make up information out of whole cloth. It has no place in our encyclopedia. <span class="nowrap">—] (] | ])</span> 21:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban on AI-generated images''' except in ABOUTSELF contexts. This is ''especially'' a problem given the preeminence Google gives to Misplaced Pages images in its image search. ] (]) 22:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Ban across the board''', except in articles which are actually about AI-generated imagery or the tools used to create them, or the image itself is the subject of substantial commentary within the article for some reason. Even in those cases, clearly indicating that the image is AI-generated should be required. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose blanket bans''' that would forbid the use of AI assistance in creating diagrams or other deliberately stylized content. Also oppose blanket bans that would forbid AI illustrations in articles about AI illustrations. I am not opposed to banning photorealistic AI-generated images in non-AI-generation contexts or banning AI-generated images from BLPs unless the image itself is specifically relevant to the subject of the BLP. —] (]) 01:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
]?]]
*'''Oppose blanket bans''' AI is just a new buzzword so, for example, Apple phones now include "Apple Intelligence" as a standard feature. Does this means that photographs taken using Apple phones will be inadmissable? That would be silly because legacy technologies are already rife with issues of accuracy and verification. For example, there's an image on the main page right now ''(right)''. This purports to be a particular person ("]") but, if you check the , you find that it may have been his brother and even the attribution to the artist is uncertain. AI features may help in exposing such existing weaknesses in our image use and so we should be free to use them in an intelligent way. ]🐉(]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:So, you expect an the AI, ''notoriously trained on Misplaced Pages (and whatever else is floating around on the internet)'', to correct Misplaced Pages where humans have failed... using the data it ''scraped from Misplaced Pages (and who knows where else)''? ] (]) 11:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I tried using the Deep Research option of Gemini to assess the attribution of the Macquarie portrait. Its stated methodology seemed quite respectable and sensible.
{{cot|The Opie Portrait of Lachlan Macquarie: An Examination of its Attribution: Methodology}}
To thoroughly investigate the attribution of the Opie portrait of Lachlan Macquarie, a comprehensive research process was undertaken. This involved several key steps:
#Gathering information on the Opie portrait: This included details about its history, provenance, and any available information on its cost.
#Reviewing scholarly articles and publications: This step focused on finding academic discussions specifically addressing the attribution of the portrait to John Opie.
#Collecting expert opinions: Statements and opinions from art experts and historians were gathered to understand the range of perspectives on the certainty of the attribution.
#Examining historical documents and records: This involved searching for any records that could shed light on the portrait's origins and authenticity, such as Macquarie's personal journals or contemporary accounts.
#Exploring scientific and technical analyses: Information was sought on any scientific or technical analyses conducted on the portrait, such as pigment analysis or canvas dating, to determine its authenticity.
#Comparing the portrait to other Opie works: This step involved analyzing the style and technique of the Opie portrait in comparison to other known portraits by Opie to identify similarities and differences.
{{cob}}
*::It was quite transparent in listing and citing the sources that it used for its analysis. These included the Misplaced Pages image but if one didn't want that included, it would be easy to exclude it.
*::So, AIs don't have to be inscrutable black boxes. They can have programmatic parameters like the existing bots and scripts that we use routinely on Misplaced Pages. Such power tools seem needed to deal with the large image backlogs that we have on Commons. Perhaps they could help by providing captions and categories where these don't exist.
*::]🐉(]) 09:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::They don't ''have to be black boxes'' but they are ''by design'': they exist in a legally dubious area and thus hide what they're scraping to avoid further legal problems. That's no secret. We know for example that Misplaced Pages is a core data set for likely most AIs today. They also notoriously and quite confidently spit out a lie ("hallucinate") and frequently spit out total nonsense. Add to that that they're restricted to whatever is floating around on the internet or whatever other data set they've been fed (usually just more internet), and many specialist topics, like texts on ancient history and even standard reference works, are not accessible on the internet (despite Google's efforts). ] (]) 09:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::While its stated methodology seems sensible, there's no evidence that it actually followed that methodology. The bullet points are pretty vague, and are pretty much the default methodologies used to examine actual historical works. ] (] · ]) 17:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Yes, there's evidence. As I stated above, the analysis is transparent and cites the sources that it used. And these all seem to check out rather than being invented. So, this level of AI goes beyond the first generation of LLM and addresses some of their weaknesses. I suppose that image generation is likewise being developed and improved and so we shouldn't rush to judgement while the technology is undergoing rapid development. ]🐉(]) 17:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose blanket ban''': best of luck to editors here who hope to be able to ban an entirely undefined and largely undetectable procedure. The term 'AI' as commonly used is no more than a buzzword - what ''exactly'' would be banned? And how does it improve the encyclopedia to encourage editors to object to images not simply because they are inaccurate, or inappropriate for the article, but because they subjectively look too good? Will the image creator be quizzed on Commons about the tools they used? Will creators who are transparent about what they have created have their images deleted while those who keep silent don’t? Honestly, this whole discussion is going to seem hopelessly outdated within a year at most. It’s like when early calculators were banned in exams because they were ‘cheating’, forcing students to use slide rules. ] (]) 12:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I am genuinely confused as to why this has turned into a discussion about a blanket ban, even though the original proposal exclusively focused on ''AI-generated'' images (the kind that is generated by an AI model from a prompt, which are already tagged on Commons, not regular images with AI enhancement or tools being used) and only in specific contexts. Not sure where the "subjectively look too good" thing even comes from, honestly. ] (] · ]) 12:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That just show how ill-defined the whole area is. It seem you restrict the term 'AI-generated' to mean "images generated solely(?) from a text prompt". The question posed above has no such restriction. What a buzzword means is largely in the mind of the reader, of course, but to me and I think to many, 'AI-generated' means generated by AI. ] (]) 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I used the text prompt example because that is the most common way to have an AI model generate an image, but I recognize that I should've clarified it better. There is definitely a distinction between an image being ''generated'' by AI (like the Laurence Boccolini example below) and an image being ''altered'' or retouched by AI (which includes many features integrated in smartphones today). I don't think it's a "buzzword" to say that there is a meaningful difference between an image being made up by an AI model and a preexisting image being altered in some way, and I am surprised that many people understand "AI-generated" as including the latter. ] (] · ]) 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose as unenforceable.''' I just want you to imagine enforcing this policy against people who have not violated it. All this will do is allow Wikipedians who primarily contribute via text to accuse artists of using AI ] to get their contributions taken down. I understand the impulse to oppose AI on principle, but the labor and aesthetic issues don't actually have anything to do with Misplaced Pages. If there is not actually a problem with the content conveyed by the image—for example, if the illustrator intentionally corrected any hallucinations—then someone objecting over AI is not discussing page content. If the image was not even made with AI, they are hallucinating based on prejudices that are irrelevant to the image. The bottom line is that images should be judged on their content, not how they were made. Besides all the policy-driven stuff, if Misplaced Pages's response to the creation of AI imaging tools is to crack down on all artistic contributions to Misplaced Pages (which seems to be the inevitable direction of these discussions), what does that say? Categorical bans of this kind are ill-advised and anti-illustrator. ] (]) 15:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:And the same applies to photography, of course. If in my photo of a garden I notice there is a distracting piece of paper on the lawn, nobody would worry if I used the old-style clone-stamp tool to remove it in Photoshop, adding new grass in its place (I'm assuming here that I don't change details of the actual landscape in any way). Now, though, Photoshop uses AI to achieve essentially the same result while making it simpler for the user. A large proportion of all processed photos will have at least some similar but essentially undetectable "generated AI" content, even if only a small area of grass. There is simply no way to enforce the proposed policy, short of banning all high-quality photography – which requires post-processing by design, and in which similar encyclopedically non-problematic edits are commonplace. ] (]) 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Before anyone objects that my example is not "an image generated from a text prompt", note that there's no mention of such a restriction in the proposal we are discussing. Even if there were, it makes no difference. Photoshop can already generate photo-realistic areas from a text prompt. If such use is non-misleading and essentially undetectable, it's fine; if if changes the image in such a way as to make it misleading, inaccurate or non-encycpopedic in any way it can be challenged on that basis. ] (]) 17:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::As I said previously, the text prompt is just an example, not a restriction of the proposal. The point is that you talk about editing an existing image (which is what you talk about, as you say {{tq|if if changes the image}}), while I am talking about creating an image ''ex nihilo'', which is what "generating" means. ] (] · ]) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I'm talking about a photograph with AI-generated areas within it. This is commonplace, and is targeted by the proposal. Categorical bans of the type suggested are indeed ill-advised. ] (]) 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Even if the ban is unenforceable, there are many editors who will choose to use AI images if they are allowed and just as cheerfully skip them if they are not allowed. That would mean the only people posting AI images are those who choose to break the rule and/or don't know about it. That would probably add up to many AI images not used. ] (]) 22:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban''' because "AI" is a fundamentally unethical technology based on the exploitation of labor, the wanton destruction of the planetary environment, and the subversion of every value that an encyclopedia should stand for. ABOUTSELF-type exceptions for "AI" output ''that has already been generated'' might be permissible, in order to document the cursed time in which we live, but those exceptions are going to be rare. How many examples of Shrimp Jesus slop do we need? ] (]) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban''' - Primarily because of the "poisoning the well"/"dead internet" issues created by it. ] (]) 14:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support a blanket ban''' to assure some control over AI-creep in Misplaced Pages. And per discussion. ] (]) 10:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Support that ] applies to images''': images should be verifiable, neutral, and absent of original research. AI is just the latest quickest way to produce images that are original, unverifiable, and potentially biased. Is anyone in their right mind saying that we allow people to game our rules on ] and ] by using images instead of text? ] (]) 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:As an aside on this: in some cases Commons is being treated as a way of side-stepping ] and other restrictions. Stuff that would get deleted if it were written content on WP gets in to WP as images posted on Commons. The worst examples are those conflict maps that are created from a bunch of Twitter posts (eg the Syrian civil war one). AI-generated imagery is another field where that appears to be happening. ] (]) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support temporary blanket ban''' with a posted expiration/requred rediscussion date of no more than two years from closing. AI as the term is currently used is very, very new. Right now these images would do more harm than good, but it seems likely that the culture will adjust to them. I support an exception for the when the article is about the image itself and that image is notable, such as the photograph of the black-and-blue/gold-and-white dress in ] and/or examples of AI images in articles in which they are relevant. E.g. "here is what a hallucination is: count the fingers." ] (]) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* First, I think any guidance should avoid referring to specific technology, as that changes rapidly and is used for many different purposes. Second, assuming that the image in question has a suitable copyright status for use on Misplaced Pages, the key question is whether or not the reliability of the image has been established. If the intent of the image is to display 100 dots with 99 having the same appearance and 1 with a different appearance, then ordinary math skills are sufficient and so any Misplaced Pages editor can evaluate the reliability without performing original research. If the intent is to depict a likeness of a specific person, then there needs to be reliable sources indicating that the image is sufficiently accurate. This is the same for actual photographs, re-touched ones, drawings, hedcuts, and so forth. Typically this can be established by a reliable source using that image with a corresponding description or context. ] (]) 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support Blanket Ban on AI generated imagery''' per most of the discussion above. It's a very slippery slope. I ''might'' consider a very narrow exception for an AI generated image of a person that was specifically authorized or commissioned by the subject. -] (]) 02:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose blanket ban''' It is far too early to take an absolutist position, particularly when the potential is enormous. Misplaced Pages is already is image desert and to reject something that is only at the cusp of development is unwise. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban''' on AI-generated images except in ABOUTSELF contexts. An encyclopedia should not be using fake images. I do not believe that further nuance is necessary. ] (]) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support blanket ban''' as the general guideline, as accuracy, personal rights, and intellectual rights issues are very weighty, here (as is disclosure to the reader). (I could see perhaps supporting adoption of a sub-guideline for ways to come to a broad consensus in individual use cases (carve-outs, except for BLPs) which address all the weighty issues on an individual use basis -- but that needs to be drafted and agreed to, and there is no good reason to wait to adopt the general ban in the meantime). ] (]) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
]
*'''Support indefinite blanket ban except ABOUTSELF and simple abstract examples''' (such as the image of 99 dots above). In addition to all the issues raised above, including copyvio and creator consent issues, in cases of photorealistic images it may never be obvious to all readers exactly which elements of the image are guesswork. The cormorant picture at the head of the section reminded me of ]. Had AI been trained on paintings of horses instead of actual videos and used to "improve" said videos, we would've ended up with serious delusions about the horse's gait. We don't know what questions -- scientific or otherwise -- photography will be used to settle in the coming years, but we do know that consumer-grade photo AI has already been trained to intentionally fake detail to draw sales, such as on photos of the Moon. I think it's unrealistic to require contributors to take photos with expensive cameras or specially-made apps, but Misplaced Pages should act to limit its exposure to this kind of technology as far as is feasible. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">] ]</span> 20:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support at least some sort of recomendation against''' the use AI generated imagery in non-AI contexts−except obviously where the topic of the article is specificly related to AI generated imagery (], ], ], etc.). At the very least the consensus bellow about BLPs should be extened to all historical biographies, as all the examples I've seen (see ]) fail ] (failing to add anything to the sourced text) and serving only to mislead the reader. We inclued images for a reason, not just for decoration. I'm also reminded the essay ], and the distinction it makes between notable depictions of histoical people (which can be useful to illustarate articles) and non-notable fictional portraits which in its (imo well argued) view {{tq|have no legitimate encyclopedic function whatsoever}}. ] ☞️ ] 14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Anything that fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE can be, should be, and ''is'', excluded from use already, likewise any images which {{tpq|have no legitimate encyclopedic function whatsoever.}} This applies to AI and none AI images equally and identically. Just as we don't have or need a policy or guideline specifically saying don't use irrelevant or otherwise non-encyclopaedic watercolour images in articles we don't need any policy or guideline specifically calling out AI - because it would (as you demonstrate) need to carve out exceptions for when it's use ''is'' relevant. ] (]) 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That would be an easy change; just add a sentence like "AI-generated images of individual people are primarily decorative and should not be used". We should probably do that no matter what else is decided. ] (]) 23:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Except that is both not true and irrelevant. ''Some'' AI-generated images of individual people are primarily decorative, but not all of them. If an image is purely decorative it shouldn't be used, regardless of whether it is AI-generated or not. ] (]) 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Can you give an example of an AI-generated image of an individual person that is (a) not primarily decorative and also (b) not copied from the person's social media/own publications, and that (c) at least some editors think would be a good idea?
*::::"Hey, AI, please give me a realistic-looking photo of this person who died in the 12th century" is not it. "Hey, AI, we have no freely licensed photos of this celebrity, so please give me a line-art caricature" is not it. What is? ] (]) 17:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Criteria (b) and (c) were not part of the statement I was responding to, and make it a ''very'' significantly different assertion. I will ] that you are not making ] arguments in bad faith, but the frequent fallacious argumentation in these AI discussions is getting tiresome.
*:::::Even with the additional criteria it is still irrelevant - if no editor thinks an image is a good idea, then it won't be used in an article regardless of why they don't think it's a good idea. If some editors think an individual image is a good idea then it's obviously potentially encyclopaedic and needs to be judged on its merits (whether it is AI-generated is completely irrelevant to it's encyclopaedic value). An image that the subject uses on their social media/own publications to identify themselves (for example as an avatar) is the perfect example of the type of image which is frequently used in articles about that individual. ] (]) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}
If the information is readily available elsewhere, then putting it on a WP page is not really letting some security cat out of the bag - someone determined to find it out could get it from the other sources. If it is not readily available, then it shouldn't be on a WP page at all. I'm not really seeing the problem, I'm afraid. -- ] | ] 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
===BLPs===
{{Archive top
|status = Consensus against
|result = There is clear consensus against using AI-generated imagery to depict BLP subjects. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I will add a sentence reflecting this consensus to the ] and the ]. —] (]) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
Are AI-generated images (generated via text prompts, see also: ]) okay to use to depict BLP subjects? The ] example was mentioned in the opening paragraph. The image was created using ], {{tq|a text-to-image model developed by xAI, to generate images...As with other text-to-image models, Aurora generates images from natural language descriptions, called prompts.}} ]]] ] (]) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
]]]
== Sacrificing your own sysop bit to desysop one other administrator ==
]: <ins>Note</ins>: that these images can either be photorealistic in style (such as the Laurence Boccolini example) or non-photorealistic in style (see the ] example, which was generated using ], another text-to-image model).
I originally posted this at Bugzilla as ], but it was rejected as asking for consensus on a Wiki.
*'''No.''' I don't think they are at all, as, despite looking photorealistic, they are essentially just speculation about what the person might look like. A photorealistic image conveys the look of something up to the details, and giving a false impression of what the person looks like (or, at best, just guesswork) is actively counterproductive. (Edit 21:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC): clarified bolded !vote since everyone else did it) ] (] · ]) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:That AI generated image looks like ] wearing a Laurence Boccolini suit. ] (]) 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:There are plenty of non-free images of Laurence Boccolini with which this image can be compared. Assuming at least most of those are accurate representations of them (I've never heard of them before and have no other frame of reference) the image above is similar to but not an accurate representation of them (most obviously but probably least significantly, in none of the available images are they wearing that design of glasses). This means the image should not be used to identify them ''unless'' they use it to identify themselves. It should not be used elsewhere in the article unless it has been the subject of notable commentary. That it is an AI image makes absolutely no difference to any of this. ] (]) 16:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Well, that was easy.{{pb}}<!--converted from 2 lines ~ToBeFree-->They are fake images; they do not actually depict the person. They depict an AI-generated ''simulation'' of a person that may be inaccurate. '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Even if the subject uses the image to identify themselves, the image is still fake. '']'' (] — ]) 19:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', with the caveat that its mostly on the grounds that we don't have enough information and when it comes to BLP we are required to exercise caution. If at some point in the future AI generated photorealistic simulacrums living people become mainstream with major newspapers and academic publishers it would be fair to revisit any restrictions, but in this I strongly believe that we should follow not lead. ] (]) 20:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The use of AI-generated images to depict people (living or otherwise) is fundamentally misleading, because the images are not actually depicting the person. <span class="nowrap">—] (] | ])</span> 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' except perhaps, maybe, if the subject explicitly is already using that image to represent themselves. But mostly no. -] (]) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', when that image is an accurate representation and better than any available alternative, used by the subject to represent themselves, or the subject of notable commentary. However, as these are the exact requirements to use ''any'' image to represent a BLP subject this is already policy. ] (]) 21:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:How well can we determine how accurate a representation it is? Looking at the example above, I'd argue that the real ] has a somewhat rounder/pointier chin, a wider mouth, and possibly different eye wrinkles, although the latter probably depends quite a lot on the facial expression.
*:How accurate a representation a photorealistic AI image is is ultimately a matter of editor opinion. '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 21:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tpq|How well can we determine how accurate a representation it is?}} in exactly the same way that we can determine whether a human-crafted image is an accurate representation. How accurate a representation ''any'' image is is ultimately a matter of editor opinion. Whether an image is AI or not is irrelevant. I agree the example image above is not sufficiently accurate, but we wouldn't ban photoshopped images because one example was not deemed accurate enough, because we are rational people who understand that one example is not representative of an entire class of images - at least when the subject is something other than AI. ] (]) 23:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I think except in a few exceptional circumstances of actual complex restorations, human photoshopping is not going to change or distort a person's appearance in the same way an AI image would. Modifications done by a person who is paying attention to what they are doing and merely enhancing an image, by person who is aware, while they are making changes, that they might be distorting the image and is, I only assume, trying to minimise it – those careful modifications shouldn't be equated with something made up by an AI image generator. '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I'm guessing your filter bubble doesn't include ] and their notorious ] problems. ] (]) 02:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::A photo of a person can be connected to a specific time, place, and subject that existed. It can be compared to other images sharing one or more of those properties. A photo that was PhotoShopped is still either a generally faithful reproduction of a scene that existed, or has significant alterations that can still be attributed to a human or at least to a specific algorithm, e.g. filters. The artistic license of a painting can still be attributed to a human and doesn't run much risk of being misidentified as real, unless it's by Chuck Close et al. An AI-generated image cannot be connected to a particular scene that ever existed and cannot be attributable to a human's artistic license (and there is legal precedent that such images are not copyrightable to the prompter specifically because of this). Individual errors in a human-generated artwork are far more predictable, understandable, identifiable, traceable... than those in AI-generated images. We have innate assumptions when we encounter real images or artwork that are just not transferable. These are meaningful differences to the vast majority of people: according to a , 87% of respondents want AI-generated art to ''at least'' be transparent, and 98% consider authentic images "pivotal in establishing trust". {{pb}}And even if you disagree with all that, can you not see the larger problem of AI images on Misplaced Pages getting propagated into generative AI corpora? ] (]) 04:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I agree that our old assumptions don't hold true. I think the world will need new assumptions. We will probably have those in place in another decade or so.
*::::I think we're ], not here to protect AI engines from ingesting AI-generated artwork. Figuring out what they should ingest is their problem, not mine. ] (]) 07:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely no fake/AI images of people, photorealistic or otherwise'''. How is this even a question? These images are fake. Readers need to be able to trust Misplaced Pages, not navigate around whatever junk someone has created with a prompt and presented as somehow representative. This includes text. ] (]) 22:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' except for edge cases (mostly, if the image itself is notable enough to go into the article). ] (]) 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not''', except for ABOUTSELF. "They're fine if they're accurate enough" is an obscenely naive stance. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''' with no exceptions. ] (]) 23:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. We don't permit falsifications in BLPs. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For the requested clarification by {{u|Some1}}, no AI-generated images (except when the image ''itself'' is specifically discussed in the article, and even then it should not be the lead image and it should be clearly indicated that the image is AI-generated), no drawings, no nothing of that sort. ''Actual photographs'' of the subject, nothing else. Articles are not required to have images at all; no image whatsoever is preferable to something which is ''not'' an image of the person. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No, but with exceptions'''. I could imagine a case where a specific AI-generated image has some direct relevance to the notability of the subject of a BLP. In such cases, it should be included, if it could be properly licensed. But I do oppose AI-generated images as portraits of BLP subjects. —] (]) 01:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Since I was pinged on this point: when I wrote "I do oppose AI-generated images as portraits", I meant exactly that, including all AI-generated images, such as those in a sketchy or artistic style, not just the photorealistic ones. I am not opposed to certain uses of AI-generated images in BLPs when they are not the main portrait of the subject, for instance in diagrams (not depicting the subject) to illustrate some concept pioneered by the subject, or in case someone becomes famous for being the subject of an AI-generated image. —] (]) 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', and no exceptions or do-overs. Better to have no images (or Stone-Age style cave paintings) than ''Frankenstein'' images, no matter how accurate or artistic. Akin to shopped manipulated photographs, they should have no room (or room service) at the WikiInn. ] (]) 01:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Some "shopped manipulated photographs" are misleading and inaccurate, others are not. We can and do exclude the former from the parts of the encyclopaedia where they don't add value without specific policies and without excluding them where they are relevant (e.g. ]) or excluding those that are not misleading or inaccurate. AI images are no different. ] (]) 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Assuming we know. Assuming it's material. The infobox image in – and the only extant photo of – ] was "photoshopped" by a marketing team, maybe half a century before Adobe Photoshop was created. They wanted to show him wearing a necktie. I don't think that this level of manipulation is actually a problem. ] (]) 07:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', so long as it is an accurate representation. ] ] 03:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' not for BLPs. ] (]) 04:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' Not at all relevant for pictures of people, as the accuracy is not enough and can misrepresent. Also (and I'm shocked as it seems no one has mentioned this), what about Copyright issues? Who holds the copyright for an AI-generated image? The user who wrote the prompt? The creator(s) of the AI model? The creator(s) of the images in the database that the AI used to create the images? It's sounds to me such a clusterfuck of copyright issues that I don't understand how this is even a discussion. --] (]) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Under the US law / copyright office, machine-generated images including those by AI cannot be copyrighted. That also means that AI images aren't treated as derivative works.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>What is still under legal concern is whether the use of bodies of copyrighted works without any approve or license from the copyright holders to train AI models is under fair use or not. There are multiple court cases where this is the primary challenge, and none have yet to reach a decision yet. Assuming the courts rule that there was no fair use, that would either require the entity that owns the AI to pay fines and ongoing licensing costs, or delete their trained model to start afresh with free licensed/works, but in either case, that would not impact how we'd use any resulting AI image from a copyright standpoint.<span id="Masem:1735741774879:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
*'''No''', I'm in agreeance with ] here. Whether we like it or not, the usage of a portrait on an article implies that it's just that, a portrait. It's incredibly disingenuous to users to represent an AI generated photo as truth. ] (]) 09:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:So you just said a portrait can be used because[REDACTED] tells you it's a portrait, and thus not a real photo. Can't AI be exactly the same? As long as we tell readers it is an AI representation? Heck, most AI looks closer to the real thing than any portrait. ] (]) 10:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::To clarify, I didn't mean "portrait" as in "painting," I meant it as "photo of person."
*::However, I really want to stick to what you say at the end there: {{tq|Heck, most AI looks closer to the real thing than any portrait.}}
*::That's exactly the problem: by looking close to the "real thing" it misleads users into believing a non-existent source of truth.{{br|2}}
*::Per the wording of the RfC of "{{tq|depict BLP subjects}}," I don't think there would be any valid case to utilize AI images. I hold a strong No. ] (]) 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No.''' We should not use AI-generated images for situations like this, they are basically just guesswork by a machine as Quark said and they can misinform readers as to what a person looks like. Plus, there's a big grey area regarding copyright. For an AI generator to know what somebody looks like, it has to have photos of that person in its dataset, so it's very possible that they can be considered derivative works or copyright violations. Using an AI image (derivative work) to get around the fact that we have no free images is just fair use with extra steps. ] (]) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) ]?]]
*'''Maybe''' There was a prominent BLP image which we displayed on the ]. ''(right)'' This made me uneasy because it was an artistic impression created from photographs rather than life. And it was "colored digitally". Functionally, this seems to be exactly the same sort of thing as the ] composite. The issue should not be whether there's a particular technology label involved but whether such creative composites and artists' impressions are acceptable as better than nothing. ]🐉(]) 08:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Except it is clear to everyone that the illustration to the right is a sketch, a human rendition, while in the photorealistic image above, it is less clear. '']'' (] — ]) 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Except it says right below it "AI-generated image of Laurence Boccolini." How much more clear can it be when it say point-blank "AI-generated image." ] (]) 10:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Commons descriptions do not appear on our articles. ] (]) 10:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::People taking a quick glance at an infobox image that looks pretty like a photograph are not going to scrutinize commons tagging. '']'' (] — ]) 14:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Keep in mind that many AIs can produce works that match various styles, not just photographic quality. It is still possible for AI to produce something that looks like a watercolor or sketched drawing.<span id="Masem:1735742005673:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:::Yes, you're absolutely right. But so far photorealistic images have been the most common to illustrate articles (see ] for some examples. '']'' (] — ]) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Then push to ban photorealistic images, rather than pushing for a blanket ban that would also apply to obvious sketches. —] (]) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Same thing I wrote above, but for "photoshopping" read "drawing": (Bold added for emphasis)
*:::::{{tqq|...human is not going to change or distort a person's appearance in the same way an AI image would. done by a person who is paying attention to what they are doing by '''person who is aware, while they are making , that they might be distorting the image and is, I only assume, trying to minimise it''' – those careful modifications shouldn't be equated with something made up by an AI image generator.}} '']'' (] — ]) 20:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::@] then why are you advocating for a ban on AI images rather than a ban on distorted images? Remember that with careful modifications by someone who is aware of what they are doing that AI images can be made more accurate. Why are you assuming that a human artist is trying to minimise the distortions but someone working with AI is not? ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::I believe that AI-generated images are fundamentally misleading because they are a simulation by a machine rather than a drawing by a human. To quote pythoncoder above: {{tqq|The use of AI-generated images to depict people (living or otherwise) is fundamentally misleading, because the images are not actually depicting the person.}} '']'' (] — ]) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Once again your actual problem is not AI, but with misleading images. Which can be, and are, already a violation of policy. ] (]) 01:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I think all AI-generated images, except simple diagrams as WhatamIdoing point out above, are misleading. So yes, my problem is with misleading images, which includes all photorealistic images generated by AI, which is why I support this proposal for a blanket ban in BLPs and medical articles. '']'' (] — ]) 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::To clarify, I'm willing to make an exception in this proposal for very simple geometric diagrams. '']'' (] — ]) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Despite the fact that not all AI-generated images are misleading, not all misleading images are AI-generated and it is not always possible to tell whether an image is or is not AI-generated? ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Enforcement is a separate issue. Whether or not all (or the vast majority) of AI images are misleading is the subject of this dispute.
*:::::::::::I'm not going to mistreat the horse further, as we've each made our points and understand where the other stands. '']'' (] — ]) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::Even "simple diagrams" are not clear-cut. The process of AI-generating any image, no matter how simple, is still very complex and can easily follow any number of different paths to meet the prompt constraints. These paths through embedding space are black boxes and the likelihood they converge on the same output is going to vary wildly depending on the degrees of freedom in the prompt, the dimensionality of the embedding space, token corpus size, etc. The only thing the user can really change, other than switching between models, is the prompt, and at some point constructing a prompt that is guaranteed to yield the same result 100% of the time becomes a ] exercise. This is in contrast with non-generative AI diagram-rendering software that follow very fixed, reproducible, ''known'' paths. ] (]) 04:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::Why does the path matter? If the output is correct it is correct no matter what route was taken to get there. If the output is incorrect it is incorrect no matter what route was taken to get there. If it is unknown or unknowable whether the output is correct or not that is true no matter what route was taken to get there. ] (]) 04:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::If I use BioRender or GraphPad to generate a figure, I can be confident that the output does not have errors that would misrepresent the underlying data. I don't have to verify that all 18,000 data points in a scatter plot exist in the correct XYZ positions because I know the method for rendering them is published and empirically validated. Other people can also be certain that the process of getting from my input to the product is accurate and reproducible, and could in theory reconstruct my raw data from it. AI-generated figures have no prescribed method of transforming input beyond what the prompt entails; therefore I additionally have to be confident in how precise my prompt is ''and'' confident that the training corpus for this procedure is so accurate that no error-producing paths exist (not to mention absolutely certain that there is no embedded contamination from prior prompts). Other people have all those concerns, and on top of that likely don't have access to the prompt or the raw data to validate the output, nor do they necessarily know how fastidious I am about my generative AI use. At least with a hand-drawn diagram viewers can directly transfer their trust in the author's knowledge and reliability to their presumptions about the diagram's accuracy. ] (]) 05:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::If you've got 18,000 data points, we are beyond the realm of "simple geometric diagrams". ] (]) 07:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::The original "simple geometric diagrams" comment was referring to your 100 dots image. I don't think increasing the dots materially changes the discussion beyond increasing the laboriousness of verifying the accuracy of the image. ] (]) 07:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Yes, but since "the laboriousness of verifying the accuracy of the image" is exactly what she doesn't want to undertake for 18,000 dots, then I think that's very relevant. ] (]) 07:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{outdent|14}} And where is that cutoff supposed to be? 1000 dots? A single straight line? An atomic diagram? What is "simple" to someone unfamiliar with a topic may be more complex.{{pb}}And I don't want to count 100 dots either! ] (]) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Maybe you don't. But I know for certain that you can count 10 across, 10 down, and multiply those two numbers to get 100. That's what I did when I made the image, after all. ] (]) 07:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': when you Google search someone (at least from the Chrome browser), often the link to the Misplaced Pages article includes a thumbnail of the lead photo as a preview. Even if the photo is labelled as an AI image in the article, people looking at the thumbnail from Google would be misled (if the image is chosen for the preview). ] (]) 09:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This is why we should not use inaccurate images, regardless of how the image was created. It has absolutely nothing to do with AI. ] (]) 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Already opposed a blanket ban''': It's unclear to me why we have a separate BLP subsection, as BLPs are already included in the main section above. Anyway, I ] there. ] (])
*:Some editors might oppose a blanket ban on ''all'' AI-generated images, while at the same time, are against using AI-generated images (created by using text prompts/]) to depict ]. ] (]) 14:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' For at least now, let's not let the problems of AI intrude into BLP articles which need to have the highest level of scrutiny to protect the person represented. Other areas on WP may benefit from AI image use, but let's keep it far out of BLP at this point. --] (]) 14:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*I am not a fan of “banning” AI images completely… but I agree that BLPs require special handling. I look at AI imagery as being akin to a computer generated painting. In a BLP, we allow paintings of the subject, but we ''prefer'' photos over paintings (if available). So… we should prefer photos over AI imagery. {{pb}}<!--list syntax fixed ~ToBeFree--> That said, AI imagery is getting good enough that it can be mistaken for a photo… so… If an AI generated image ''is'' the ''only'' option (ie there is no photo available), then the caption should ''clearly'' indicate that we are using an AI generated image. And that image should be replaced as soon as possible with an actual photograph. ] (]) 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The issue with the latter is that Misplaced Pages images get picked up by Google and other search engines, where the caption isn't there anymore to add the context that a photorealistic image was AI-generated. ] (] · ]) 15:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect commercial search engine companies.
*::I think my view aligns with Blueboar's (except that I find no firm preference for photos over classical portrait paintings): We shouldn't have ''inaccurate'' AI images of people (living or dead). But the day appears to be coming when AI will generate accurate ones, or at least ones that are close enough to accurate that we can't tell the difference unless the uploader voluntarily discloses that information. Once we can no longer tell the difference, what's the point in banning them? Images need to look like the thing being depicted. When we put an photorealistic image in an article, we could be said to be implicitly claiming that the image ''looks like'' whatever's being depicted. We are not ''necessarily'' warranting that the image was created through a specific process, but the image really does need to look like the subject. ] (]) 03:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::You are presuming that sufficient accuracy will prevent us from knowing whether someone is uploading an AI photo, but that is not the case. For instance, if someone uploads large amounts of "photos" of famous people, and can't account for how they got them (e.g. can't give a source where they scraped them from, or dates or any Exif metadata at all for when they were taken), then it will still be obvious that they are likely using AI. ] (]) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::As another editor pointed out in their comment, there's the {{blue|ethics/moral dilemma of creating fake photorealistic pictures of people and putting them on the internet}}, especially on a site such as Misplaced Pages and especially on their own biography. ] says the bios {{tq|must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.}} ] (]) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{tqq| Once we can no longer tell the difference, what's the point in banning them?}} Sounds like a wolf's in sheep's clothing to me. Just because the surface appeal of fake pictures gets better, doesn't mean we should ]. '']'' (] — ]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:If there are no appropriately-licensed images of a person, then by definition any AI-generated image of them will be either a copyright infringement or a complete fantasy. ] (]) 04:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whether it would be a copyright infringement or not is both an unsettled legal question and not relevant: If an image is a copyvio we can't use it and it is irrelevant why it is a copyvio. If an image is a "complete fantasy" then it is exactly as unusable as a complete fantasy generated by non-AI means, so again AI is irrelevant. I've had to explain this multiple times in this discussion, so read that for more detail and note the lack of refutation. ] (]) 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::But we can assume good faith that a human isn't blatantly copying something. We can't assume that from an LLM like Stability AI which has been shown to from Getty's images. ] (]) 05:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Ooooh, I'm not sure that we can assume that humans aren't blatantly copying something. We can assume that they meant to be helpful, but that's not quite the same thing. ] (]) 07:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose.'''</s> '''Yes.''' I echo ]: {{Tq2|What this conversation is really circling around is banning entire skillsets from contributing to Misplaced Pages merely because some of us are afraid of AI images and some others of us want to engineer a convenient, half-baked, policy-level "consensus" to point to when they delete quality images from Misplaced Pages. Every time someone generates text based on a source, they are doing some acceptable level of interpretation to extract facts or rephrase it around copyright law, and I don't think illustrations should be considered so severely differently as to justify a categorical ban. For instance, the Gisele Pelicot portrait is based on non-free photos of her. Once the illustration exists, it is trivial to compare it to non-free images to determine if it is an appropriate likeness, which it is. That's no different than judging contributed text's compliance with fact and copyright by referring to the source. It shouldn't be treated differently just because most Wikipedians contribute via text.<br/>Additionally, referring to interpretive skillsets that synthesize new information like, random example, statistical analysis. Excluding those from Misplaced Pages is current practice and not controversial. Meanwhile, I think the ability to create images is more fundamental than that. It's not (inheretly) synthesizing new information. A portrait of a person (alongside the other examples in this thread) contains verifiable information. It is current practice to allow them to fill the gaps where non-free photos can't. That should continue. Honestly, it should expand.}} ] (]) 15:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Additionally, in direct response to "these images are fake": All illustrations of a subject could be called "fake" because they are not photographs. (Which can also be faked.) The standard for the inclusion of an illustration on Misplaced Pages has never been photorealism, medium, or previous publication in a RS. The standard is how adequately it reflects the facts which it claims to depict. If there is a better image that can be imported to Misplaced Pages via fair use or a license, then an image can be easily replaced. Until such a better image has been sourced, it is absolutely bewildering to me that we would even discuss removing images of people from their articles. What a person looked like is one of the most basic things that people want to know when they look someone up on Misplaced Pages. Including an image of almost any quality (yes, even a cartoon) is practically by definition an improvement to the article and addressing an important need. We should be encouraging artists to continue filling the gaps that non-free images cannot fill, not creating policies that will inevitably expand into more general prejudices against all new illustrations on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::By "Oppose", I'm assuming your answer to the RfC question is "Yes". And this RfC is about using {{blue|AI-generated images (generated via text prompts, see also: ])}} to depict BLP subjects, not regarding human-created drawings/cartoons/sketches, etc. of BLPs. ] (]) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I've changed it to "yes" to reflect the reversed question. I think all of this is related because there is no coherent distinguishing point; AI can be used to create images in a variety of styles. These discussions have shown that a policy of banning AI images ''will'' be used against non-AI images of all kinds, so I think it's important to say these kinds of things now. ] (]) 16:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Photorealistic images scraped from who knows where from who knows what sources are without question simply fake photographs and also clear ] and outright ]. There's no two ways about it. Articles do ''not'' require images: An article with some Frankenstein-ed image scraped from who knows what, where and, when that you "created" from a prompt is not an improvement over having no image at all. If we can't provide a quality image (like something you didn't cook up from a prompt) then people can find quality, non-fake images elsewhere. ] (]) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I really encourage you to read the discussion I linked before because it is ]. Images like these do not inherently include either OR or SYNTH, and the arguments that they do cannot be distinguished from any other user-generated image content. But, briefly, I never said articles required images, and this is not about what articles ''require''. It is about ''improvements'' to the articles. Including a relevant picture where none exists is almost always an improvement, especially for subjects like people. Your disdain for the method the person used to make an image is irrelevant to whether the content of the image is actually verifiable, and the only thing we ought to care about is the content. ] (]) 03:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Images like these are absolutely nothing more than synthesis in the purest sense of the world and are clearly a violation of ]: Again, you have no idea what data was used to generate these images and you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone to describe them as anything other than outright fakes.
*::::A reminder that WP:SYNTH shuts down attempts at manipulation of images ("It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.") and generating a photorealistic image (from who knows what!) is far beyond that.
*::::Fake images of people do not improve our articles in any way and only erode reader trust. What's next, an argument for the ''fake sources'' LLMs also love to "hallucinate"? ] (]) 03:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::So, if you review the first sentence of SYNTH, you'll see it has no special relevance to this discussion: {{Tq|Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.}}. My primary example has been a picture of a person; what a person looks like is verifiable by comparing the image to non-free images that cannot be used on Misplaced Pages. If the image resembles the person, it is not SYNTH. An illustration of a person created and intended to look like that person is not a manipulation. The training data used to make the AI is irrelevant to whether the image in fact resembles the person. You should also review ] because SYNTH is not a policy; NOR is the policy: {{tq|If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH.}} Additionally, ]. A categorical rule against AI cannot be justified by SYNTH because it does not categorically apply to all use cases of AI. To do so would be illogical on top of ill-advised. ] (]) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::"training data used to make the AI is irrelevant" — spoken like a true AI evangelist! Sorry, 'good enough' photorealism is still just synthetic slop, a fake image presented as real of a ''human being''. A fake image of someone generated from who-knows-what that 'resembles' an article's subject is about as ] as it gets. Yikes. As for the attempts to pass of prompt-generated photorealistic fakes of people as somehow the same as someone's illustration, you're completely wasting your time. ] (]) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::NOR is a content policy and SYNTH is content guidance within NOR. Because you have admitted that this is not ''about the content'' for you, NOR and SYNTH are irrelevant to your argument, which boils down to ] and, now, inaccurate personal attacks. Continuing this discussion between us would be pointless. ] (]) 09:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::This is in fact entirely about content (why the hell else would I bother?) but it is true that I also dismissed your pro-AI 'it's just like a human drawing a picture!' as outright nonsense a while back. Good luck convincing anyone else with that line - it didn't work here. ] (]) 09:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Maybe''': there is an implicit assumption with this RFC that an AI generated image would be photorealistic. There hasn't been any discussion of an AI generated sketch. If you asked an AI to generate a sketch (that clearly looked like a sketch, similar to the Gisèle Pelicot example) then I would potentially be ok with it. ] (]) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That's an interesting thought to consider. At the same time, I worry about (well-intentioned) editors inundating image-less BLP articles with AI-generated images in the style of cartoons/sketches (if only photorealistic ones are prohibited) etc. At least requiring a human to draw/paint/whatever creates a barrier to entry; these AI-generated images can be created in under a minute using these text-to-image models. Editors are already wary about human-created cartoon portraits (]), now they'll be tasked with dealing with AI-generated ones in BLP articles. ] (]) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It sounds like your problem is not with AI but with cartoon/sketch images in BLP articles, so AI is once again completely irrelevant. ] (]) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That is a good concern you brought up. There is a possibility of the spamming of low quality AI-generated images which would be laborious to discuss on a case-by-case basis but easy to generate. At the same time though that is a possibility, but not yet an actuality, and ] states that new policies should address current problems rather than hypothetical concerns. ] (]) 22:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*Easy '''no''' for me. I am not against the use of AI images wholesale, but I do think that using AI to represent an existent thing such as a person or a place is too far. Even a tag wouldn't be enough for me. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 19:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' obviously, per previous discussions about cartoonish drawn images in BLPs. Same issue here as there, it is essentially original research and misrepresentation of a living person's likeness. ] (]) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' to photorealistic, no to cartoonish... this is not a hard choice. The idea that "this has nothing to do with AI" when "AI" magnifies the problem to stupendous proportions is just not tenable. ] (]) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
*:While AI might "amplify" the thing you dislike, that does not make AI the problem. The problem is whatever underlying thing is being amplified. ] (]) 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The thing that amplifies the problem is necessarily a problem. ] (]) 02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::That is arguable, but banning the amplifier does not do anything to solve the problem. In this case, banning the amplifier would cause multiple other problems that nobody supporting this proposal as even attempted to address, let alone mitigate. ] (]) 03:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' for all people, per Chaotic Enby. ] (]) 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) Add: no to any AI-generated images, whether photorealistic or not. ] (]) 04:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - We should not be hosting faked images (except as notable fakes). We should also not be hosting copyvios ({{tq|"Whether it would be a copyright infringement or not is both an unsettled legal question and not relevant"}} is just totally wrong - we should be steering clear of copyvios, and if the issue is unsettled then we shouldn't use them until it is).
*If people upload faked images to WP or Commons the response should be as it is now. The fact that fakes are becoming harder to detect simply from looking at them hardly affects this - we simply confirm when the picture was supposed to have been taken and examine the plausibility of it from there. ] (]) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) ] (]) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|we should be steering clear of copyvio}} we do - if an image is a copyright violation it gets deleted, regardless of why it is a copyright violation. What we do not do is ban using images that are not copyright violations because they are copyright violations. Currently the WMF lawyers and all the people on Commons who know more about copyright than I do say that at least some AI images are legally acceptable for us to host and use. If you want to argue that, then go ahead, but it is not relevant to ''this'' discussion.
*:{{tpq|if people upload faked images the response should be as it is now}} in other words you are saying that the problem is faked images not AI, and that current policies are entirely adequate to deal with the problem of faked images. So we don't need any specific rules for AI images - especially given that not all AI images are fakes. ] (]) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The idea that {{tq|current policies are entirely adequate}} is like saying that a lab shouldn't have specific rules about wearing eye protection when it already has a poster hanging on the wall that says "don't hurt yourself". ] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I rely on one of those up in my workshop at home. I figure if that doesn't keep me safe, nothing will. ] (]) 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::"{{tq|in other words you are saying that the problem is faked images not AI}}" - AI generated images *are* fakes. This is merely confirming that for the avoidance of doubt.
*::::"{{tq|at least some AI images are legally acceptable for us}}" - Until they decide which ones that isn't much help. ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Yes – what FOARP said. AI-generated images are fakes and are misleading. '']'' (] — ]) 19:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Those specific rules exist because generic warnings have proven not to be sufficient. Nobody has presented any evidence that the current policies are not sufficient, indeed quite the contrary. ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No!''' This would be a massive can of worms; perhaps, however, we wish to cause problems in the new year. ] <small>(]) | :) | he/him | </small> 15:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I think that no AI-generated images are acceptable in BLP articles, regardless of whether they are photorealistic or not. ] <small>(]) | :) | he/him | </small> 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', unless the AI image has encyclopedic significance beyond "depicts a notable person". AI images, if created by editors for the purpose of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, convey little reliable information about the person they depict, and the ways in which the model works are opaque enough to most people as to raise verifiability concerns. ] (] • ]) 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To clarify, do you object to uses of an AI image in a BLP when the subject uses that image for self-identification? I presume that AI images that have been the subject of notable discussion are an example of "significance beyond depict a notable person"? ] (]) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::If the subject uses the image for self-identification, I'd be fine with it - I think that'd be analogous to situations such as "cartoonist represented by a stylized self-portrait", which definitely has some precedent in articles like ]. I agree with your second sentence as well; if there's notable discussion around a particular AI image, I think it would be reasonable to include that image on Misplaced Pages. ] (] • ]) 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''No''', with obvious exceptions, including if the subject theyrself uses the image as a their representation, or if the image is notable itself. Not including the lack of a free aleternative, if there is no free alternative... where did the AI find data to build an image... non free too. Not including images generated by WP editors (that's kind of ]... - ] (]) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC
*'''Maybe''' I think the question is unfair as it is illustrated with what appears to be a photo of the subject but isn't. People are then getting upset that they've been misled. As others note, there are copyright concerns with AI reproducing copyrighted works that in turn make an image that is potentially legally unusable. But that is more a matter for Commons than for Misplaced Pages. As many have noted, a sketch or painting never claims to be an accurate depiction of a person, and I don't care if that sketch or painting was done by hand or an AI prompt. I strongly ask ] to abort the RFC. You've asked people to give a yes/no vote to what is a more complex issue. A further problem with the example used is the unfortunate prejudice on Misplaced Pages against user-generated content. While the text-generated AI of today is crude and random, there will come a point where many professionally published photos illustrating subjects, including people, are AI generated. Even today, your smartphone can create a groupshot where everyone is smiling and looking at the camera. It was "trained" on the 50 images it quickly took and responded to the build-in "text prompt" of "create a montage of these photos such that everyone is smiling and looking at the camera". This vote is a knee jerk reaction to content that is best addressed by some other measure (such as that it is a misleading image). And a good example of asking people to vote way too early, when the issues haven't been throught out -- ]°] 18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' This would very likely set a dangerous precedent. The only exception I think should be if the image itself is notable. If we move forward with AI images, especially for BLPs, it would only open up a whole slew of regulations and RfCs to keep them in check. Better no image than some digital multiverse version of someone that is "basically" them but not really. Not to mention the ethics/moral dilemma of creating fake photorealistic pictures of people and putting them on the internet. ] (]) 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. LLMs don't generate answers, they generate ''things that look like'' answers, but aren't; a lot of the time, that's good enough, but sometimes it very much isn't. It's the same issue for text-to-image models: they don't generate photos of people, they generate ''things that look like'' photos. Using them on BLPs is unacceptable. ] (]) 19:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. I would be pissed if the top picture of me on Google was AI-generated. I just don't think it's moral for living people. The exceptions given above by others are okay, such as if the subject uses the picture themselves or if the picture is notable (with context given). ] (]) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No.''' Uploading alone, although mostly a Commons issue, would already a problem to me and may have personality rights issues. Illustrating an article with a fake photo <ins>(or drawing)</ins> of a living person, even if it is labeled as such, would not be acceptable. For example, it could end up being shown by search engines or when hovering over a Misplaced Pages link, without the disclaimer. ] (]) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* I was going to say no... but we allow paintings as portraits in BLPs. What's so different between an AI generated image, and a painting? Arguments above say the depiction may not be accurate, but the same is true of some paintings, right? (and conversely, not true of other paintings) ] (]) 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::A painting is clearly a painting; as such, the viewer knows that it is not an accurate representation of a particular reality. An AI-generated image made to look exactly like a photo, looks like a photo but is not.
*:] (]) 02:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Not all paintings are clearly paintings. Not all AI-generated images are made to look like photographs. Not all AI-generated images made to look like photos do actually look like photos. This proposal makes no distinction. ] (]) 02:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Not to mention, hyper-realism is a style an artist may use in virtually any medium. If Misplaced Pages would accept an analog substitute like a painting, there's no reason Misplaced Pages shouldn't accept an equivalent painting made with digital tools, and there's no reason Misplaced Pages shouldn't accept an equivalent painting made with AI. That is, one where any obvious defects have been edited out and what remains is a straightforward picture of the subject. ] (]) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::For the record (and for any media watching), while I personally find it fascinating that a few editors here are spending a substantial amount of time (in the face of an overwhelming 'absolutely not' consensus no less) attempting to convince others that computer-generated (that is, ''faked'') photos of human article subjects are somehow ''a good thing'', I also find it interesting that these editors seem to express absolutely no concern for the intensely negative reaction they're already seeing from their fellow editors and seem totally unconcerned about the inevitable trust drop we'd experience from Misplaced Pages readers when they would encounter fake photos on our BLP articles especially. ] (]) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::Misplaced Pages's reputation would not be affected positively or negatively by expanding the current-albeit-sparse use of illustrations to depict subjects that do not have available pictures. In all my writing about this over the last few days, you are the only one who has said anything negative about me as a person or, really, my arguments themselves. As loath as I am to cite it, ] means assuming that people you disagree with are not ''trying to hurt Misplaced Pages.'' Thryduulf, I, and others have explained in detail why we think our ultimate ideas are explicit benefits to Misplaced Pages and why our opposition to these immediate proposals comes from a desire to prevent harm to Misplaced Pages. I suggest taking a break to reflect on that, matey. ] (]) 04:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Look, I don't know if you've been living under a rock or what for the past few years but the reality is that '' people hate AI images'' and dumping a ton of AI/fake images on Misplaced Pages, a place people go for ''real information'' and often ''trust'', inevitably leads to a huge trust issue, something Misplaced Pages is increasingly suffering from already. This is ''especially'' a problem when they're intended to represent ''living people'' (!). I'll leave it to you to dig up the bazillion controversies that have arisen and continue to arise since companies worldwide have discovered that they can now replace human artists with 'AI art' produced by "prompt engineers" but you can't possibly expect us to ignore that reality when discussing these matters. ] (]) 04:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Those trust issues are born from the publication of hallucinated information. I have only said that it should be OK to use an image on Misplaced Pages when it contains only verifiable information, which is the same standard we apply to text. That standard is and ought to be applied independently of the way the initial version of an image was created. ] (]) 06:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To my eye, the distinction between AI images and paintings here is less a question of medium and more of verifiability: the paintings we use (or at least the ones I can remember) are significant paintings that have been acknowledged in sources as being reasonable representations of a given person. By contrast, a purpose-generated AI image would be more akin to me painting a portrait of somebody here and now and trying to stick that on their article. The image could be a faithful representation <small>(unlikely, given my lack of painting skills, but let's not get lost in the metaphor)</small>, but if my painting hasn't been discussed anywhere besides Misplaced Pages, then it's potentially OR or UNDUE to enshrine it in mainspace as an encyclopedic image. ] (] • ]) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::An image contains a collection of facts, and those facts need to be verifiable just like any other information posted on Misplaced Pages. An image that verifiably resembles a subject as it is depicted in reliable sources is categorically ''not OR''. Discussion in other sources is not universally relevant; we don't restrict ourselves to only previously-published images. If we did that, Misplaced Pages would have very few images. ] (]) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Verifiable how? Only by the editor themselves comparing to a real photo (which was probably used by the LLM to create the image…).
*:::These things are fakes. The analysis stops there. ] (]) 10:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Verifiable by comparing them to a reliable source. Exactly the same as what we do with text. There is no coherent reason to treat user-generated images differently than user-generated text, and the universalist tenor of this discussion has damaging implications for all user-generated images regardless of whether they were created with AI. Honestly, I rarely make arguments like this one, but I think it could show some intuition from another perspective: Imagine it's 2002 and Misplaced Pages is just starting. Most users want to contribute text to the encyclopedia, but there is a cadre of artists who want to contribute pictures. The text editors say the artists cannot contribute ANYTHING to Misplaced Pages because their images that have not been previously published are not verifiable. That is a double-standard that privileges the contributions of text-editors simply because most users are text-editors and they are used to verifying text; that is not a principled reason to treat text and images differently. Moreover, that is simply not what happened—The opposite happend, and images are treated as verifiable based on their contents just like text because that's a common sense reading of the rule. It would have been madness if images had been treated differently. And yet that is essentially the fundamentalist position of people who are extending their opposition to AI with arguments that apply to all images. If they are arguing verifiability seriously at all, they are pretending that the sort of degenerate situation I just described already exists when the opposite consensus has been reached consistently ''for years''. In ], they even tried to say Wikipedians had "turned a blind eye" to these image issues as if negatively characterizing those decisions would invalidate the fact that ''those decisions were consensus.'' The motivated reasoning of these discussions has been as blatant as that.<br/>At the bottom of this dispute, I take issue with trying to alter the rules in a way that creates a new double-standard within verifiability that applies to all images but not text. That's especially upsetting when (despite my and others' best efforts) so many of us are still focusing ''SOLELY'' on their hatred for AI rather than considering the obvious second-order consequences for user-generated images as a whole.<br/>Frankly, in no other context has any Wikipedian ever allowed me to say text they wrote was "fake" or challenge an image based on whether it was "fake." The issue has always been ''verifiability'', not provenance or falsity. Sometimes, IMO, that has lead to disaster and Misplaced Pages saying things I know to be factually untrue despite the contents of reliable sources. But ''that'' is the policy. We compare the contents of Misplaced Pages to reliable sources, and the contents of Misplaced Pages are considered verifiable if they cohere.<br/>I ask again: If Misplaced Pages's response to the creation of AI imaging tools is to crack down on all artistic contributions to Misplaced Pages (which seems to be the inevitable direction of these discussions), what does that say? If our negative response to AI tools is to ''limit what humans can do on Misplaced Pages'', what does that say? Are we taking a stand for human achievements, or is this a very heated discussion of cutting off our nose to save our face? ] (]) 23:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{tq|"Verifiable by comparing them to a reliable source"}} - comparing two images and saying that one ''looks like'' the other is not "verifying" anything. The text equivalent is presenting something as a quotation that is actually a user-generated paraphrasing.
*:::::{{tq|"Frankly, in no other context has any Wikipedian ever allowed me to say text they wrote was "fake" or challenge an image based on whether it was "fake.""}} - Try presenting a paraphrasing as a quotation and see what happens.
*:::::{{tq|"Imagine it's 2002 and Misplaced Pages is just starting. Most users want to contribute text to the encyclopedia, but there is a cadre of artists who want to contribute pictures..."}} - This basically happened, and is the origin of ]. Misplaced Pages is not a host for original works. ] (]) 22:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|Comparing two images and saying that one looks like the other is not "verifying" anything.}} Comparing text to text in a reliable source is literally the same thing.
*::::::{{tq|The text equivalent is presenting something as a quotation that is actually a user-generated paraphrasing.}} No it isn't. The text equivalent is writing a sentence in an article and putting a ref tag on it. Perhaps there is room for improving the referencing of images in the sense that they should offer example comparisons to make. But an image created by a person is not unverifiable simply because it is user-generated. It is not somehow ''more'' unverifiable simply because it is created in a lifelike style.
*::::::{{tq|Try presenting a paraphrasing as a quotation and see what happens.}} Besides what I just said, ''nobody'' is even presenting these images as equatable to quotations. People in this thread have simply been calling them "fake" of their own initiative; the uploaders have not asserted that these are literal photographs to my knowledge. The uploaders of illustrations obviously did not make that claim either. (And, if the contents of the image is a copyvio, that is a separate issue entirely.)
*::::::{{tq|This basically happened, and is the origin of WP:NOTGALLERY.}} That is not the same thing. User-generated images that illustrate the subject are not prohibited by ]. Misplaced Pages is a host of encyclopedic content, and user-generated images can have encyclopedic content. ] (]) 02:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::Images are way more complex than text. Trying to compare them in the same way is a very dangerous simplification. '']'' (] — ]) 02:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Assume only non-free images exist of a person. An illustrator refers to those non-free images and produces a painting. From that painting, you see a person who looks like the person in the non-free photographs. The image is verified as resembling the person. That is a simplification, but to call it "dangerous" is disingenuous at best. The process for challenging the image is clear. Someone who wants to challenge the veracity of the image would just need to point to details that do not align. For instance, "he does not typically have blue hair" or "he does not have a scar." That is what we already do, and it does not come up much because it would be weird to deliberately draw an image that looks nothing like the person. Additionally, someone who does not like the image for aesthetic reasons rather than encyclopedic ones always has the option of sourcing a photograph some other way like permission, fair use, or taking a new one themself. This is not an intractable problem. ] (]) 02:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::So a photorealistic AI-generated image would be considered acceptable until someone identifies a "big enough" difference? How is that anything close to ethical? An portrait that's got an extra mole or slightly wider nose bridge or lacks a scar is still ''not an image of the person'' regardless of whether random Misplaced Pages editors notice. And while I don't think user-generated non-photorealistic images should ever be used on biographies either, at least those can be traced back to a human who is ultimately responsible for the depiction, who can point to the particular non-free images they used as references, and isn't liable to average out details across all time periods of the subject. And that's not even taking into account the copyright issues. ] (]) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::{{+1}} to what JoelleJay said. The problem is that AI-generated images are simulations trying to match existing images, sometimes, yes, with an impressive degree of accuracy. But they will always be inferior to a human-drawn painting that's ''trying to depict the person''. We're a human encyclopedia, and we're built by humans doing human things and sometimes with human errors. '']'' (] — ]) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::You can't just raise this to an "ethical" issue by saying the word "ethical." You also can't just invoke copyright without articulating an actual copyright issue; we are not discussing copyvio. Everyone agrees that a photo with an actual copyvio in it is subject to that policy.
*::::::::::But to address your actual point: Any image—any ''photo''—beneath the resolution necessary to depict the mole would be missing the mole. Even with photography, we are never talking about science-fiction images that perfectly depict every facet of a person in an objective sense. We are talking about equipment that creates an approximation of reality. The same is true of illustrations and AI imagery.
*::::::::::Finally, a human being ''is'' responsible for the contents of the image because a human is selecting it and is responsible for correcting any errors. The result is an image that someone is choosing to use because they believe it is an appropriate likeness. We should acknowledge that human decision and evaluate it naturally—''Is it an appropriate likeness?'' ] (]) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::(Second comment because I'm on my phone.) I realize I should also respond to this in terms of additive information. What people look like is not static in the way your comment implies. Is it inappropriate to use a photo because they had a zit on the day it was taken? Not necessarily. Is an image inappropriate because it is taken at a bad angle that makes them look fat? Judging by the prolific ComicCon photographs (where people seem to make a game of choosing the worst-looking options; seriously, it's really bad), not necessarily. Scars and bruises exist and then often heal over time. The standard for whether an image with "extra" details is acceptable would still be based on whether it comports acceptably with other images; we literally do what you have capriciously described as "unethical" and supplement it with our compassionate desire to not deliberately embarrass BLPs. (The ComicCon images aside, I guess.) So, no, I would not be a fan of using images that add prominent scars where the subject is not generally known to have one, but that is just an unverifiable fact that does not belong in a Misplaced Pages image. Simple as. ] (]) 10:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::We don't evaluate the reliability of a source solely by comparing it to other sources. For example, there is an ongoing discussion at the baseball WikiProject talk page about the reliability of a certain web site. It lists no authors nor any information on its editorial control policy, so we're not able to evaluate its reliability. The reliability of all content being used as a source, including images, needs to be considered in terms of its provenance. ] (]) 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Can you note in your !vote whether AI-generated images (generated via text prompts/text-to-image models) that are ''not'' photo-realistic / hyper-realistic in style are okay to use to depict BLP subjects? For example, see the image to the right, which was ] then ] from his article: ] by ]]] {{pb}} Pinging people who !voted No above: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] --- ] (]) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC) {{clear}}
*:Still no, I thought I was clear on that but we should not be using AI-generated images in articles for anything besides representing the concept of AI-generated images, or if an AI-generated image is notable or irreplaceable in its own right -- e.g, a musician uses AI to make an album cover.
*:(this isn't even a good example, it looks more like ])
*:] (]) 04:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Was I unclear? ''No'' to all of them. ] (]) 04:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Still '''no''', because carving out that type of exception will just lead to arguments down the line about whether a given image is too realistic. <span class="nowrap">—] (] | ])</span> 04:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I still think '''no'''. My opposition isn't just to the fact that AI images are misinformation, but also that they essentially serve as a loophole for getting around Enwiki's image use policy. To know what somebody looks like, an AI generator needs to have images of that person in its dataset, and it draws on those images to generate a derivative work. If we have no free images of somebody and we use AI to make one, that's just using a fair use copyrighted image but removed by one step. The image use policy prohibits us from using fair use images for BLPs so I don't think we should entertain this loophole. If we ''do'' end up allowing AI images in BLPs, that just disqualifies the rationale of not allowing fair use in the first place. ] (]) 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''No''' those are not okay, as this will just cause arguments from people saying a picture is ''obviously'' AI-generated, and that it is therefore appropriate. As I mentionned above, there are some exceptions to this, which Gnomingstuff perfectly describes. Fake sketches/cartoons are not appropriate and provide little encyclopedic value. ] (]) 05:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''No''' to this as well, with the same carveout for individual images that have received notable discussion. Non-photorealistic AI images are going to be no more verifiable than photorealistic ones, and on top of that will often be lower-quality as images. ] (] • ]) 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Thanks for the ping, yes I can, the answer is no. ] (]) 07:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''No''', and that image should be deleted before anyone places it into a mainspace article. Changing the RfC intro long after its inception seems a second bite at an apple that's not aged well. ] (]) 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The RfC question has not been changed; another editor was the RfC question did not make a distinction between photorealistic/non-photorealistic AI-generated images, so I had to add and ping the editors who'd voted !No to clarify things. It has only been 3 days; there's still 27 more days to go. ] (]) 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Also answering '''No''' to this one per all the arguments above. "It has only been 3 days" is not a good reason to change the RfC question, especially since many people have already !voted and the "30 days" is mostly indicative rather than an actual deadline for a RfC. ] (] · ]) 14:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The RfC question hasn't been changed; see my response to Zaathras below. ] (]) 15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:No, that's even a worse possible approach.<span id="Masem:1735910695864:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 13:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
*:'''No'''. We're the human encyclopedia. We should have images drawn or taken by real humans who are trying to depict the ''subject'', not by machines trying to simulate an image. Besides, the given example is horribly drawn. '']'' (] — ]) 15:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I like these even less than the photorealistic ones... This falls into the same basket for me: if we wouldn't let a random editor who drew this at home using conventional tools add it to the article why would we let a random editor who drew this at home using AI tools at it to the article? (and just to be clear the AI generated image of Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco is not recognizable as such) ] (]) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I said *NO*. ] (]) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''No''' Having such images as said above means the AI had to use copyrighted pictures to create it and we shouldn't use it. --] (]) 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Still '''no'''. If for no other reason than that it's a bad precedent. As others have said, if we make one exception, it will just lead to arguments in the future about whether something is "realistic" or not. I also don't see why we would need cartoon/illustrated-looking AI pictures of people in BLPs. ] (]) 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not'''. These images are based on whatever the AI could find on the internet, with little to no regard for copyright. Misplaced Pages is better than this. ] (]) 10:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The RfC question should not have been fiddled with, esp. for such a minor argument that the complai9nmant could have simply included in their own vote. I have no need to re-confirm my own entry. ] (]) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The RfC question hasn't been modified; I've only added a clarifying that these images can either be photorealistic in style or non-photorealistic in style. I pinged all the !No voters to make them aware. I could remove the Note if people prefer that I do (but the original RfC question is the ''exact same'' as it is now, so I don't think the addition of the Note makes a whole ton of difference). ] (]) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' At this point it feels redundant, but I'll just add to the horde of responses in the negative. I don't think we can fully appreciate the issues that this would cause. The potential problems and headaches far outweigh whatever little benefit might come from AI images for BLPs. ]] 21:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support temporary blanket ban''' with a posted expiration/requred rediscussion date of no more than two years from closing. AI as the term is currently used is very, very new. Right now these images would do more harm than good, but it seems likely that the culture will adjust to them. ] (]) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Misplaced Pages is made ''by'' and ''for'' humans. I don't want to become . Adding an AI-generated image to a page whose topic isn't about generative AI makes me feel insulted. ] (]) 00:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Generative AI may have its place, and it may even have a place on Misplaced Pages in some form, but that place isn't in BLPs. There's no reason to use images of someone that do not exist over a real picture, or even something like a sketch, drawing, or painting. Even in the absence of pictures or human-drawn/painted images, I don't support using AI-generated images; they're not really pictures of the person, after all, so I can't support using them on articles of people. Using nothing would genuinely be a better choice than generated images. ] <span style="font-weight:bold">|</span> ] 01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' due to reasons of copyright (AI harvests copyrighted material) and verifiability. ] <small>(])</small> 18:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No.''' Even if you are willing to ignore the inherently fraught nature of using AI-generated ''anything'' in relation to BLP subjects, there is simply little to no benefit that could possibly come from trying something like this. There's no guarantee the images will actually look like the person in question, and therefore there's no actual context or information that the image is providing the reader. What a baffling proposal. ] (]) 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tpq|There's no guarantee the images will actually look like the person in question}} there is no guarantee ''any'' image will look like the person in question. When an image is not a good likeness, regardless of why, we don't use it. When am image is a good likeness we consider using it. Whether an image is AI-generated or not it is completely independent of whether it is a good likeness. There are also reason other then identification why images are used on BLP-articles. ] (]) 20:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*Foreseeably there may come a time when people's official portraits are AI-enhanced. That time might not be very far in the future. Do we want an exception for official portraits?—] <small>]/]</small> 01:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:This subsection is about purely AI-generated works, not about AI-enhanced ones. ] (] · ]) 01:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No.''' Per Cremastra, "We should have images drawn or taken by real humans who are trying to depict the ''subject''," - ] (]) 02:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', depending on specific case. One can use drawings by artists, even such as ]. The latter is an intentional distortion, one could say an intentional misinformation. Still, such images are legitimate on many pages. Or consider numerous images of ]. How realiable are they? I am not saying we must deliberatly use AI images on all pages, but they may be fine in some cases. Now, speaking on "medical articles"... One might actually use the AI generated images of certain biological objects like proteins or organelles. Of course a qualified editorial judgement is always needed to decide if they would improve a specific page (frequently they would not), but making a blanket ban would be unacceptable, in my opinion. For example, the images of protein models generatated by ] would be fine. The AI-generated images of biological membranes I saw? I would say no. It depends. ] (]) 02:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) {{pb
}}This is complicated of course. For example, there are tools that make an image of a person that (mis)represents him as someone much better and clever than he really is in life. That should be forbidden as an advertisement. This is a whole new world, but I do not think that a blanket rejection would be appropriate. ] (]) 03:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''No''', I think there's legal and ethical issues here, especially with the current state of AI. ] ] 03:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''': Obviously, we shouldn't be using AI images to represent anyone. ] (]) 05:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' Too risky for BLP's. Besides if people want AI generated content over editor made content, we should make it clear they are in the wrong place, and readers should be given no doubt as to our integrity, sincerity and effort to give them our best, not a program's. ] (]) 14:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', as AI's grasp on the Internet takes hold stronger and stronger, it's important Misplaced Pages, as the online encyclopedia it sets out to be, remains factual and real. Using AI images on Wiki would likely do more harm than good, further thinning the boundaries between what's real and what's not. – ''']''' <sub>(]) (])</sub> 16:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', not at the moment. I think it will hard to avoid portraits that been enhanced by AI, as it already been on-going for a number of years and there is no way to avoid it, but I don't want arbitary generated AI portraits of any type. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No for natural images (e.g. photos of people)'''. Generative AI by itself is not a reliable source for facts. In principle, generating images of people and directly sticking them in articles is no different than generating text and directly sticking it in articles. In practice, however, generating images is worse: Text can at least be discussed, edited, and improved afterwards. In contrast, we have significantly less policy and fewer rigorous methods of discussing how AI-generated images of natural objects should be improved (e.g. "make his face slightly more oblong, it's not close enough yet"). Discussion will devolve into hunches and gut feelings about the fidelity of images, all of which essentially fall under WP:OR. ] (]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' I'm appalled that even a small minority of editors would support such an idea. We have enough credibility issues already; using AI-generated images to represent real people is not something that a real encyclopedia should even consider. ] (]) 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' I understand the comparison to using illustrations in BLP articles, but I've always viewed that as less preferable to no picture in all honestly. Images of a person are typically presented in context, such as a performer on stage, or a politician's official portrait, and I feel like there would be too many edge cases to consider in terms of making it clear that the photo is AI generated and isn't representative of anything that the person specifically did, but is rather an approximation. ] (]) 06:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Too often the images resemble caricatures. Real caricatures may be included in articles if the caricature (e.g., political cartoon) had ] and is attributed to the artist. Otherwise, representations of living persons should be real representations taken with photographic equipment. ] (]) 02:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:So you will be arguing for the removal of the lead images at ], ], etc. then? ] (]) 06:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::At this point you're making bad-faith "BY YOUR LOGIC" arguments. You're better than that. Don't do it. ] (]) 19:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Strong no''' per bloodofox. —] (]'''-''']) 03:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''No''' for AI-generated BLP images ] (]) 21:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
By popular demand, I am posting a request to allow administrators to sacrifice their sysop bit in order to take away one other administrator's sysop bit. There are many reasons for this. First, a few administrators, like Wonderfool a.k.a. Dangherous on Wiktionary and Robdurbar on Misplaced Pages, become vandals and must be taken down ASAP. Second, some public terminals are zombies with keyloggers on them. Administrators who uses such terminals could get their accounts compromised by a vandal. Third, the steep price of losing one's sysop status will keep most administrators from abusing this. Fourth, by pointing the business end of this ability at oneself, it makes an easy way to resign without asking for a steward's help, which might have prevented Robdurbar from needing to go on a vandalism spree. Fifth, someone suggested that this would be a way for wheel warriors to stop wheel wars by themselves.
*'''No''' - Not only is this effectively guesswork that usually includes unnatural artefacts, but worse, it is also based on unattributed work of photographers who didn't release their work into public domain. I don't care if it is an open legal loophole somewhere, IMO even doing away with the fair use restriction on BLPs would be morally less wrong. I suspect people on whose work LLMs in question were trained would also take less offense to that option. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">] ]</span> 23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' – ] says that {{tq|Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.}} While AI images may not be considered copyrightable, it still be a copyright violation if the output resembles other, copyrighted images, pushing the image towards NFC. At the very least, I feel the use of non-free content to generate AI images violates the spirit of the NFC policy. (I'm assuming copyrighted images of a person are used to generate an AI portrait of them; if free images of that person were used, we should just use those images, and if ''no'' images of the person were used, how on Earth would we trust the output?) ] (]) 02:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', AI images should not be permitted on Misplaced Pages at all. ] (]) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
===Expiration date?===
If this ability is implemented, a log for this type of action must be implemented. It cannot be a standard log, because stewards must be able to process and mark incidents in the log. When the ability is used, a new case is generated. These cases must be differentiated from other cases. The possible statuses (which should only be changed by stewards for reasons below) should be New, Assigned to a steward (which should indicate the steward's name), Forwarded to ArbCom (which would apply only to wikis with Arbitration Committees), and Closed. If the case is a resignation, it should automatically be entered as Closed instead of New in the sacrifice log.
"AI," as the term is currently used, is very new. It feels like large language models and the type of image generators under discussion just got here in 2024. (Yes, I know it was a little earlier.) The culture hasn't completed its initial response to them yet. Right now, these images do more harm than good, but that may change. Either we'll come up with a better way of spotting hallucinations or the machines will hallucinate less. Their copyright status also seems unstable. I suggest that any ban decided upon here have some expiration date or required rediscussion date. Two years feels about right to me, but the important thing would be that the ban has a number on it. ] (]) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*No need for any end-date. If there comes a point where consensus on this changes, then we can change any ban then. ] (]) 05:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*An end date is a positive suggestion. Consensus systems like Misplaced Pages's are vulnerable to half-baked precedential decisions being treated as inviolate. With respect, this conversation does not inspire confidence that this policy proposal's consequences are well-understood at this time. If Misplaced Pages goes in this direction, it should be labeled as primarily reactionary and open to review at a later date. ] (]) 10:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*Agree with FOARP, '''no need for an end date'''. If something significantly changes (e.g. reliable sources/news outlets such as the ''New York Times'', BBC, AP, etc. start using text-to-image models to generate images of living people for their own articles) then this topic can be revisited later. Editors will have to go through the usual process of starting a new discussion/proposal when that time comes. ] (]) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Seeing as this discussion has not touched at all on what other organizations may or may not do, it would not be accurate to describe any consensus derived from this conversation in terms of what other organizations may or may not be doing. That is, there has been no consensus that we ought to be looking to the New York Times as an example. Doing so would be inadvisable for several reasons. For one, they have sued an AI company over semi-related issues and they have teams explicitly working on what the future of AI in news ought to look like, so they have some investment in what the future of AI looks like and they are explicitly trying to shape its norms. For another, if they did start to use AI in a way that may be controversial, they would have no positive reason to disclose that and many disincentives. They are not a neutral signal on this issue. Misplaced Pages should decide for itself, preferably doing so while not disrupting the ability of people to continue creating user-generated images. ] (]) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* ] on an indefinite basis, if something changes. An arbitrary sunset date doesn't seem much use. ] (]) 03:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* No need per others. Additionally, if practices change, it doesn't mean editors will decide to follow new practices. As for the technology, it seems the situation has been fairly stable for the past two years: we can detect some fakes and hallucinations immediately, many more in the past, but certainly not all retouched elements and all generated photos available right now, even if there was a readily accessible tool or app that enabled ordinary people to reliably do so.
:Through the history, art forgeries have been fairly reliably detected, but rarely quickly. Relatedly, I don't see why the situation with AI images would change in the next 24 months or any similar time period. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">] ]</span> 22:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Should ] include mention of AI-generated comments? ==
Whenever this ability is used, a log entry must be generated for a steward to look at. The reason that only a steward should process this is that stewards are trusted enough to make final decisions on who should stay desysoped. If it is a resignation, no action needs to be taken. If it is an obvious case like the Robdurbar or Wonderfool cases, the steward can simply repromote the hero who stopped the rogue administrator. If it is a wheel war, the steward will have to investigate the case if it is on a small wiki and decide what to do. If it is on a wiki with an ArbCom, the case should be forwarded to the ArbCom for investigation. After the appropriate actions have been taken (e.g. the ArbCom closes the case or the steward who takes the case makes a decision), the steward needs to mark the incident as closed in the log. If it is decided that later on that bureaucrats should be able to desysop others, then the ability of handling sacrifice log entries should also be granted to them as well.
Using AI to write your comments in a discussion makes it difficult for others to assume that you are discussing in good faith, rather than trying to use AI to argue someone into exhaustion (see example of someone using AI in their replies ). More fundamentally, ] can't apply to the AI itself as AI lacks intentionality, and it is difficult for editors to assess how much of an AI-generated comment reflects the training of the AI vs. the actual thoughts of the editor.
Of course, attempts to take away a steward's sysop bit should fail and result in no action whatsoever besides an error page explaining that stewards are immune to this, because stewards are required to be able to promote and demote other users.
Should ] be addended to include that using AI to generate your replies in a discussion runs counter to demonstrating good faith? ] (]) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] 16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds like an exciting solution to a not-so-huge problem. I think it's creative, but I'm not sure how functional it would be on en.wikipedia.org. I'm concerned it would turn disagreements into a sort of "torpedo-warfare". I'd prefer something simple like making it so a block of an admin sticks and actually prevents them from adminning, unblocking themselves, etc. - ]</small> (]) 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Not allowing administrators to take administrative actions while blocked is a recipe for disaster on smaller wikis. If a smaller wiki has a dispute between its only two sysops, the wiki could be hijacked if the original owner of the wiki was blocked in this manner. Wiktionary would have been permanently hijacked by Dangherous (who was a Wondefool sockpuppet) if administrators were not able to unblock themselves, because Danghrerous was able to block all other administrators. A developer wouold have had to take much more time to fix the mess. On wikis without developers (e.g. most wikis not owned by Wikia or the Wikimedia Foundation), this would have forced a reformat and reinstall to recover the wiki. Riana unblocked herself during the Robdurbar incident by having a strong enough rationale that WP:IAR trumped the don't unblock yourself rule, so self-unblocking, while usually bad, must be kept to stop wiki hijackers. Any solution implemented must be able to stop rogue administrators and wheel warriors while not allowing any possibility for wiki hijacking. ] 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I think, to stop this kind of problem, the tool should be made as an extension, disabled by default, and only enabled manually by a developer on larger wikis. ] ] 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::The "reformat and reinstall" comment is weird, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding how MediaWiki works (or too much time spent administering Windows computers). MediaWiki is just a bunch of PHP scripts, not an operating system. The computer as a whole is unaffected by who's an admin and who isn't; adminship is just a bit set in a MySQL database. So you don't need to "reformat" after a rogue admin, as long as MediaWiki doesn't have security holes so egregious that an admin could compromise not just the Wiki's content but the ''computer it's running on''; and you don't need to "reinstall" to fix problems with admin bits as long as someone running the server knows MySQL. (This person could be called a "developer".) Wikimedia and Wikia do not control all MediaWikis, they just write the software. ] / ] 06:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::I suggested before that maybe we could make effective blocking of an admin with the agreement of three other admins, and that this capacity be limited for safety reasons to at most three admins being effectively blocked at a time.--] 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I would think the easiest solution would be if sysops couldn't unblock themselves, of course should a sysops go on a rampage, they could wind up blocking everyone who tried to stop them, sysops included--<small>'''VectorPotential'''</small><sup>]</sup> 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, which is why I suggested a quota of three admins to administer an effective block to an admin, to prevent just such a rampage. The idea of no more than three blocks at a time would be to limit the remote possibility of more than one admin on a rampage.--] 17:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::I like the "3v1" method of blocking an admin, coupled with the inability for an admin to unblock themselves. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
: It's an extreme solution to a rare problem. It would work for the Robdurbar case, where an admin wants to damage the Misplaced Pages as a whole, yes, but I would bet it would be used more often for the unfortunately more standard wheel warring, where admins just have strong disagreements about a few articles or users, and can sometimes be "talked down off the ledge" before being desysopped. If we have this available, too many wheel wars will escalate to this. So let's keep this on the back burner and only implement if admin insanity becomes more common. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
As I commented on ], this is an excellent idea that cuts down on abuse and encourages resolution of serious admin disputes through discussion and mediation. I do not feel implementation will lead to "torpedo warfare" as from what experience I have it seems more that imminent threat of removal of privileges can pursuade hot-headed conflicting editors to calm down and reassess their actions in a fashion somewhat like that of the ] or ]. It benefits neither editor for them both to be blocked, especially with the prospect of investigation and possible severe reprimand in the case of abuse. The occasions when this mechanism would come into play would be inherently serious and command attention. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:One potential problem with this idea is that it would mean that two bureaucrats, or a 'crat and an admin, working in tandem could desysop everyone else (one to shoot down admins, and the other to repeatedly resysop them). I know that this is incredibly unlikely, but the fact that it would be possible would be something to think about. --] 18:09, 26 April 2007 (]]])
::That's assuming that a bureaucrat would get their bureaucrat status removed as well as admin status when they use such a tool. If bureaucrat status is unaffected, the problem would be even worse because a rogue bureaucrat could just use this tool to de-sysop loads of admins then re-promote themselves in between. You would also need to consider what happens when someone uses this tool ''against'' a bureaucrat. If bureaucrat status was unaffected, they could just re-sysop themselves, making it useless but giving admins the ability to remove a bureaucrat could perhaps be abused.
:::You would only need one bureaucrat, no matter what. The crat just has to: (1) create account (2) sysop account. Then you have 2 accounts, and the crat could just resysop the admin account whenever needed. Obviously admins shouldn't be able to remove Bcrat's status, since by default crats hold the desysoping ability anyway. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::As for the log, I think just a standard log would be necessary, and perhaps a page on meta could be made for handling review by stewards, arbcom etc. ] ] 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Possibly, we could modify the suggestion so that aside from resignations, anyone who loses their sysop bit using this ability cannot be promoted by anyone other than a steward. ] 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Yes''', I think this is a good idea. ] (]) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
''Off topic'': This discussion reminds me a lot of ]. ] here we come! -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''No'''. As with all the other concurrent discussions (how many times do we actually need to discuss the exact same FUD and scaremongering?) the problem is not AI, but rather inappropriate use of AI. What we need to do is to (better) explain what we actually want to see in discussions, not vaguely defined bans of swathes of technology that, used properly, can aid communication. ] (]) 01:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Bringing the good old days of IRC wars to wikis! What a fun idea. Of course, at some point, someone is going to bring in bots (apprpriately named chanserv and nickserv? Hmmm, no, Articleserv and Adminserv perhaps?) to fix the issues and allow people to actually edit again? :-) And then you'd have a whole new level of hierarchy and bureaucracy. Fascinating. --] 19:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Note that this topic is discussing using AI to ''generate'' replies, as opposed to using it as an aid (e.g. asking it to edit for grammar, or conciseness). As the above concurrent discussion demonstrates, users are already using AI to generate their replies in AfD, so it isn't scaremongering but an actual issue.
::] also does not ban anything ("Showing good faith is not required"), but offers general advice on demonstrating good faith. So it seems like the most relevant place to include mention of the community's concerns regarding AI-generated comments, without outright banning anything. ] (]) 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:As a non-Admin, I have to say that actually - 17mins of proven destructive activity seems a pretty reasonable period in which to spot, assess and stop a rogue admin. Most rogue editors spend 17days+ building up a destructive record, and need four warnings before being blocked. The lessons seem to be that (1) Admins shouldn't be able to unblock themselves, and (2) perhaps a three on one rule seems a better solution to the nuke-on-nuke situation being proposed. But really, when you think about it - how much less than 17mins could we get this procedure, without having a clear track record of destruction to prove an admin as a vandal? An admin has a proven track record and a trusted position within the community - this proposal to me proposes that admins are a dodgey bunch who could turn vandal at any moment. Plus, what happens in the more likely human error level of one poor key stroke, which if read by a singular self-choice-destruct admin could kill your whole account and reputation here? To me, this seems an extreme proposal for a limited volume/low risk activity. Rgds, - ] 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:::And as pointed out, multiple times in those discussions, different people understand different things from the phrase "AI-generated". The community's concern is not AI-generated comments, but comments that do not clearly and constructively contribute to a discussion - ''some'' such comments are AI-generated, some are not. This proposal would, just as all the other related ones, cause actual harm when editors falsely accuse others of using AI (and this ''will'' happen). ] (]) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Nobody signed up to argue with bots here. If you're pasting someone else's comment into a prompt and asking the chatbot to argue against that comment and just posting it in here, that's a real problema and absolutely should not be acceptable. ] (]) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for the assumption of bad faith and demonstrating one of my points about the harm caused. Nobody is forcing you to engage with bad-faith comments, but whether something is or is not bad faith needs to be determined by its content not by its method of generation. Simply using an AI demonstrates neither good faith nor bad faith. ] (]) 04:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't see why we have any particular to reason to suspect a respected and trustworthy editor of using AI. '']'' (] — ]) 14:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm one of those people who clarified the difference between AI-generated vs. edited, and such a difference could be made explicit with a note. Editors are already accusing others of using AI. Could you clarify how you think addressing AI in ] would cause actual harm? ] (]) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::By encouraging editors to accuse others of using AI, by encouraging editors to dismiss or ignore comments because they suspect that they are AI-generated rather than engaging with them. @] has already encouraged others to ignore my arguments in this discussion because they suspect I might be using an LLM and/or be a bot (for the record I'm neither). ] (]) 04:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think {{u|bloodofox}}'s ] was about "you" in the rhetorical sense, not "you" as in Thryduulf. ] (]) 11:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Given your relentlessly pro-AI comments here, it seems that you'd be A-OK with just chatting with a group of chatbots here — or leaving the discussion to them. However, most of us clearly are not. In fact, I would immediately tell someone to get lost were it confirmed that indeed that is what is happening. I'm a human being and find the notion of wasting my time with chatbots on Misplaced Pages to be incredibly insulting and offensive. ] (]) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::My comments are neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, indeed it seems that you have not understood pretty much anything I'm saying. ] (]) 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Funny, you've done nothing here but argue for more generative AI on the site and now you seem to be arguing to let chatbots run rampant on it while mocking anyone who doesn't want to interface with chatbots on Misplaced Pages. Hey, why not just sell the site to Meta, am I right? ] (]) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I haven't been arguing for more generative AI on the site. I've been arguing against banning it on the grounds that such a ban would be unclear, unenforceable, wouldn't solve any problems (largely because whether something is AI or not is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand) but would instead cause harm. Some of the issues identified are actual problems, but AI is not the cause of them and banning AI won't fix them.
::::::::I'm not mocking anybody, nor am I advocating to {{tpq|let chatbots run rampant}}. I'm utterly confused why you think I might advocate for selling Misplaced Pages to Meta (or anyone else for that matter)? Are you actually reading anything I'm writing? You clearly are not understanding it. ] (]) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::So we're now in 'everyone else is the problem, not me!' territory now? Perhaps try communicating in a different way because your responses here are looking very much like the typical AI apologetics one can encounter on just about any contemporary LinkedIn thread from your typical FAANG employee. ] (]) 05:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No, this is not a {{tpq|everyone else is the problem, not me}} issue because most other people appear to be able to understand my arguments and respond to them appropriately. Not everybody agrees with them, but that's not an issue.
::::::::::I'm not familiar with Linkedin threads (I don't use that platform) nor what a "FAANG employee" is (I've literally never heard the term before now) so I have no idea whether your characterisation is a compliment or a personal attack, but given your comments towards me and others you disagree with elsewhere I suspect it's closer to the latter.
::::::::::AI is a tool. Just like any other tool it can be used in good faith or in bad faith, it can be used well and it can be used badly, it can be used in appropriate situations and it can be used in inappropriate situations, the results of using the tool can be good and the results of using the tool can be bad. Banning the tool inevitably bans the good results as well as the bad results but doesn't address the reasons why the results were good or bad and so does not resolve the actual issue that led to the bad outcomes. ] (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::In the context of generating comments to other users though, AI is much easier to use for bad faith than for good faith. LLMs don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and norms, and so are hard to utilize to generate posts that productively address them. By contrast, bad actors can easily use LLMs to make low quality posts to waste people's time or wear them down.
:::::::::::In the context of generating images, or text for articles, it's easy to see how the vast majority of users using AI for those purposes is acting in good faith as these are generally constructive tasks, and most people making bad faith changes to articles are either obvious vandals who won't bother to use AI because they'll be reverted soon anyways, or trying to be subtle (povpushers) in which case they tend to want to carefully write their own text into the article.
:::::::::::It's true that AI "is just a tool", but when that tool is much easier to use for bad faith purposes (in the context of discussions) then it raises suspicions about why people are using it. ] (]) 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|LLMs don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and norms}} They're not designed to "understand" them since the policies and norms were designed for human cognition. The fact that AI is used rampantly by people acting in bad faith on Misplaced Pages does not inherently condemn the AI. To me, it shows that it's too easy for vandals to access and do damage on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the type of vetting required to prevent that at the source would also potentially require eliminating IP-editing, which won't happen. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You mentioned "FUD". That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts: pro-AI propagadizing and persuading people who hold memecoin crypto to continue holding it. Since this discussion is not about memecoin crypto that would suggest you are using it in a pro-AI context. I will note, fear, uncertainty and doubt is not my problem with AI. Rather it's anger, aesthetic disgust and feeling disrespected when somebody makes me talk to their chatbot. ] (]) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpq|That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts}} is simply
::::::::FUD both predates AI by many decades (my father introduced me to the term in the context of the phrase "nobody got fired for buying ]", and the context of that was ] computer systems in the 1980s if not earlier. FUD is also used in many, many more contexts that just those two you list, including examples by those opposing the use of AI on Misplaced Pages in these very discussions. ] (]) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{tpq|That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts}} is factually incorrect.
::::::::FUD both predates AI by many decades (indeed if you'd bothered to read the ] article you'd learn that the concept was first recorded in 1693, the exact formulation dates from at least the 1920s and the use of it in technology concepts originated in 1975 in the context of mainframe computer systems. That its use, eve in just AI contexts, is limited to pro-AI advocacy is ludicrous (even ignoring things like ]), examples can be found in these sprawling discussions from those opposing AI use on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Not really''' – I agree with Thryduulf's arguments on this one. Using AI to help tweak or summarize or "enhance" replies is of course not bad faith – the person is trying hard. Maybe English is their second language. Even for replies 100% AI-generated the user may be an ESL speaker struggling to remember the right words (I always forget 90% of my French vocabulary when writing anything in French, for example). In this case, I don't think we should make a ''blanket'' assumption that using AI to generate comments is not showing good faith. '']'' (] — ]) 02:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As an admin on other projects (not here), I'd just like to point out that this conversation is completely insane. If an admin turns into a vandal, you get in touch with a steward and have their tools (at least temporarily) removed. It's bad enough already that being an "admin" has the political connotations on this project that it does... please ''don't'' provide tools for "purging". An admin is supposed to be just another user who's trustworthy enough to have access to a few buttons we don't let people have the first day they show up. If a person is no longer trusted, the process of removing access to the buttons should be open to all. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' because generating walls of text is not good faith. People "touching up" their comments is also bad (for starters, if you lack the English competency to write your statements in the first place, you probably lack the competency to tell if your meaning has been preserved or not). Exactly ''what'' AGF should say needs work, but something needs to be said, and <s>AGF</s>DGF is a good place to do it. ] (]) 02:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not all walls of text are generated by AI, not all AI generated comments are walls of text. Not everybody who uses AI to touch up their comments lacks the competencies you describe, not everybody who does lack those competencies uses AI. It is not always possible to tell which comments have been generated by AI and which have not. This proposal is not particularly relevant to the problems you describe. ] (]) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Someone has to ask: Are you generating all of these pro-AI arguments using ChatGPT? It'd explain a lot. If so, I'll happily ignore any and all of your contributions, and I'd advise anyone else to do the same. We're not here to be flooded with LLM-derived responses. ] (]) 03:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That you can't tell whether my comments are AI-generated or not is one of the fundamental problems with these proposals. For the record they aren't, nor are they pro-AI - they're simply anti throwing out babies with bathwater. ] (]) 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'd say it also illustrates the serious danger: We can no longer be sure that we're even talking to other people here, which is probably the most notable shift in the history of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::How is that a "serious danger"? If a comment makes a good point, why does it matter whether ti was AI generated or not? If it doesn't make a good point, why does it matter if it was AI generated or not? How will these proposals resolve that "danger"? How will they be enforceable? ] (]) 04:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Misplaced Pages is made for people, by people, and I like most people will be incredibly offended to find that we're just playing some kind of LLM pong with a chatbot of your choice. You can't be serious. ] (]) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You are entitled to that philosophy, but that doesn't actually answer any of my questions. ] (]) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"why does it matter if it was AI generated or not?"
:::::::Because it takes little effort to post a lengthy, low quality AI-generated post, and a lot of effort for human editors to write up replies debunking them.
:::::::"How will they be enforceable? "
:::::::] isn't meant to be enforced. It's meant to explain to people how they can demonstrate good faith. Posting replies to people (who took the time to write them) that are obviously AI-generated harms the ability of those people to assume good faith. ] (]) 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:The linked "example of someone using AI in their replies" appears – to me – to be a non-AI-generated comment. I think I preferred the allegedly AI-generated comments from that user (]). The AI was at least superficially polite. ] (]) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Obviously the person screaming in all caps that they use AI because they don't want to waste their time arguing is not using AI for that comment. Their first post calls for the article to be deleted for not "" and "merely" reiterating what other sources have written.
::Yes, after a human had wasted their time explaining all the things wrong with its first post, then the bot was able to write a second post which ''looks'' ok. Except it only superficially ''looks'' ok, it doesn't actually accurately describe the articles. ] (]) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
(EC) This seems like a solution in search of a problem. If an admin has obviously either lost it or had their account compromised, and is going around blocking people for no reason, deleting the main page, etc., you find a steward, they perform an emergency desysop, problem solved. If that type of incident were happening all the time, I could see a need for this, but not just based on a couple of occurrences. Similarly with disabling admins from unblocking themselves-you unblock yourself in a case like Riana did, where the block was obviously without cause, no one in their right mind is going to say you did wrong. You unblock yourself after getting blocked for 3RR, you're very shortly getting desysopped. Again, it's a rare problem and is already adequately handled. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Multiple humans have demonstrated in these discussions that humans are equally capable of writing posts which superficially ''look'' OK but don't actually accurately relate to anything they are responding to. ] (]) 05:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::But I can assume that everyone here is acting in good faith. I can't assume good faith in the globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions with low effort posts, whose bot is just saying whatever it can to argue for the deletion of political pages the editor doesn't like. ] (]) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::True, but I think that has more to do with the "globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions" part than with the "some of it might be " part. ] (]) 07:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::All of which was discovered because of my suspicions from their inhuman, and meaningless replies. "Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is," maybe sounds pithy in a vacuum, but this was written in reply to me stating that we aren't supposed to be doing OR but reiterating what the sources say.
::::::"Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay" also ''sounds good'', until you realize that the bot is actually criticizing its own original post.
::::::The fact that my suspicions about their good faith were ultimately validated only makes it even harder for me to assume good faith in users who sound like ChatGPT. ] (]) 08:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I wonder if we need some other language here. I can understand feeling like this is a bad interaction. There's no sense that the person cares; there's no feeling like this is a true interaction. A contract lawyer would say that there's no ], and there can't be, because there's no mind in the AI, and the human copying from the AI doesn't seem to be interested in engaging their brain.
:::::::But... do you actually think they're doing this for the purpose of ''intentionally'' harming Misplaced Pages? Or could this be explained by other motivations? ] – or to anxiety, insecurity (will they hate me if I get my grammar wrong?), incompetence, negligence, or any number of other "understandable" (but still something ]- and even block-worthy) reasons. ] (]) 08:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The ] has a header at the top asking people not to template them because it is "impersonal and disrespectful", instead requesting "please take a moment to write a comment below '''in your own words'''"
::::::::Does this look like acting in good faith to you? Requesting other people write personalized responses to them while they respond with an LLM? Because it looks to me like they are trying to waste other people's time. ] (]) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::] means that you assume people aren't deliberately screwing up on purpose. Humans are self-contradictory creatures. I generally do assume that someone who is being hypocritical hasn't noticed their contradictions yet. ] (]) 07:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::"Being hypocritical" in the abstract isn't the problem, it's the fact that asking people to put effort into their comments, while putting in minimal effort into your own comments appears bad faith, especially when said person says they don't want to waste time writing comments to stupid people. The fact you are arguing AGF for this person is both astounding and disappointing. ] (]) 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It feels like there is a lack of reciprocity in the interaction, even leaving aside the concern that the account is a block-evading sock.
:::::::::::But I wonder if you have read AGF recently. The first sentence is "'''Assuming good faith''' ('''AGF''') means assuming that people are not deliberately ''trying'' to hurt Misplaced Pages, even when their actions are harmful."
:::::::::::So we've got some of this (e.g., harmful actions). But do you really believe this person woke up in the morning and decided "My main goal for today is to deliberately hurt Misplaced Pages. I might not be successful, but I sure am going to try hard to reach my goal"? ] (]) 23:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Trying to hurt Misplaced Pages doesn't mean they have to literally think "I am trying to hurt Misplaced Pages", it can mean a range of things, such as "I am trying to troll Wikipedians". A person who thinks a cabal of editors is guarding an article page, and that they need to harass them off the site, may think they are improving Misplaced Pages, but at the least I wouldn't say that they are acting in good faith. ] (]) 23:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sure, I'd count that as a case of "trying to hurt Misplaced Pages-the-community". ] (]) 06:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Soundsfun,butcompletelyunneeded,it is apotentiallydangeroussolutiontoanotsobigproblem. ] <sup>]</sup>00:28, 27April2007 (UTC)
* The issues with AI in discussions is not related to good faith, which is narrowly defined to intent. ] (]) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:In my mind, they are related inasmuch as it is much more difficult for me to ascertain good faith if the words are eminently not written by the person I am speaking to in large part, but instead generated based on an unknown prompt in what is likely a small fraction of the expected time. To be frank, in many situations it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the disparity in effort is being leveraged in something less than good faith. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*An easy way in which this can be abused: make an alternative account. Do some useful uncontroversial work for two months, making sure you pass all the irrelevant criteria. Nominate self for adminship. Congratulations, now you have two admin accounts. Use one to deop the person you disagree with on all those articles on that controversial topic. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's a cute idea but not practical. ] 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*::Assume good faith, don't ascertain! Llm use can be deeply unhelpful for discussions and the potential for mis-use is large, but the most recent discussion I've been involved with where I observed an llm post was responded to by an llm post, I believe both the users were doing this in good faith. ] (]) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Are we talking about Bureaucrats going wild too, as well? If a Bureaucrat goes wild, it suggests RfB wasn't stringent enough or the community is at fault for developing the consensus to put them there. I don't feel there is a need to overcomplicate things - there are always Stewards around (hopefully). <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] ]</span> 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*:::All I mean to say is it should be licit that unhelpful LLM use should be something that can be mentioned like any other unhelpful rhetorical pattern. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::Sure, but ] doesn't mention any unhelpful rhetorical patterns. ] (]) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::The fact that everyone (myself included) defending "LLM use" says "use" rather than "generated", is a pretty clear sign that no one really wants to communicate with someone using "LLM generated" comments. We can argue about bans (not being proposed here), how to know if someone is using LLM, the nuances of "LLM use", etc., but at the very least we should be able to agree that there are concerns with LLM generated replies, and if we can agree that there are concerns then we should be able to agree that somewhere in policy we should be able to find a place to express those concerns. ] (]) 05:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::...or they could be saying "use" because "using LLMs" is shorter and more colloquial than "generating text with LLMs"? ] (]) 06:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::Seems unlikely when people justify their use for editing (which I also support), and not for generating replies on their behalf. ] (]) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::This is just semantics.
*:::::::For instance, I am OK with someone using a LLM to post a productive comment on a talk page. I am also OK with someone generating a reply with a LLM that is a productive comment to post to a talk page. I am not OK with someone generating text with an LLM to include in an article, and also not OK with someone using a LLM to contribute to an article.
*:::::::The only difference between these four sentences is that two of them are more annoying to type than the other two. ] (]) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::Most people already assume good faith in those making productive contributions. In situations where good faith is more difficult to assume, would you trust someone who uses an LLM to generate all of their comments as much as someone who doesn't? ] (]) 09:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::Given that LLM-use is completely irrelevant to the faith in which a user contributes, yes. Of course what amount that actually is may be anywhere between completely and none. ] (]) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::LLM-use is relevant as it allows bad faith users to disrupt the encyclopedia with minimal effort. Such a user , as well as started and , all using AI. I had previously been involved in a debate with another sock puppet of theirs, but at that time they didn't use AI. Now it seems they are switching to using an LLM just to troll with minimal effort. ] (]) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::LLMs are a tool that can be used by good and bad faith users alike. Using an LLM tells you nothing about whether a user is contributing in good or bad faith. If somebody is trolling they can be, and should be, blocked for trolling regardless of the specifics of how they are trolling. ] (]) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::A can of spray paint, a kitchen knife, etc., are tools that can be used for good or bad, but if you bring them some place where they have few good uses and many bad uses then people will be suspicious about why you brought them. You can't just assume that a tool in any context is equally harmless. Using AI to generate replies to other editors is more suspicious than using it to generate a picture exemplifying a fashion style, or a description of a physics concept. ] (]) 23:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::I wouldn't trust anything factual the person would have to say, but I wouldn't assume they were malicious, which is the entire point of ]. ] (]) 16:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::] is not a death pact though. At times you should be suspicious. Do you think that if a user, ''who you already have suspicions of'', is also using an LLM to generate their comments, that that doesn't have any effect on those suspicions? ] (]) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::So… If you suspect that someone is not arguing in good faith… just stop engaging them. If they are creating walls of text but not making policy based arguments, they can be ignored. Resist the urge to respond to every comment… it isn’t necessary to “have the last word”. ] (]) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::As the person ] demonstrates, you can't "just stop engaging them". When they then somebody has to engage them in some way. It's not about trying to "have the last word", this is a collaborative project, it generally requires engaging with others to some degree. When someone like the person I linked to above (now banned sock), spams low quality comments across dozens of AfDs, then they are going to waste people's time, and telling others to just not engage with them is dismissive of that. ] (]) 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::That they've been banned for disruption indicates we can do everything we need to do to deal with bad faith users of LLMs without assuming that everyone using an LLM is doing so in bad faith. ] (]) 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I don't believe we should assume everyone using an LLM is doing so in bad faith, so I'm glad you think my comment indicates what I believe. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''No''' -- whatever you think of LLMs, the reason they are so popular is that the people who use them earnestly believe they are useful. Claiming otherwise is divorced from reality. Even people who add hallucinated bullshit to articles are usually well-intentioned (if wrong). ] (]) 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Bizarre. Double edge attack will lead to more problems. Imagine a war between democrat admins and republican admins. We should be encouraging discussion not the contrary. Admins should be avoiding wheel wars willingly. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I have no opinion on this matter, however, note that we are currently dealing with a ] and there's a generalized state of confusion in how to address it. ] (]) 08:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is why I chose a steep price (losing one's sysop bit) in order to encourage other solutions to be sought. If the wheel war goes out of hand, this will help put a stop to it by destroying both wheel warriors' ability to use their sysop tools. The ArbCom will then probably keep both sysops from getting their sysop bits back because using this ability inappropriately during a wheel war means that both former sysops probably were too hot-headed to be administrators in the first place. ] 22:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::The logic is fine but I donotseethepotential usage of this. If someone needs to loosetheirsysop,arbcomcantakecareofthisrathereasily.Itisnotlikeadminsneedtoget desysoped every day. --<small> ]</small><sup>]</sup>22:56, 27April2007 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I find it incredibly rude for someone to procedurally generate text and then expect others to engage with it as if they were actually saying something themselves. ] (]) 14:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Yes, mention''' that use of an LLM should be disclosed and that failure to do so is like not telling someone you are taping the call. ] (]) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I could support general advice that if you're using machine translation or an LLM to help you write your comments, it can be helpful to mention this in the message. The tone to take, though, should be "so people won't be mad at you if it screwed up the comment" instead of "because you're an immoral and possibly criminal person if you do this". ] (]) 07:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
: '''No.''' When someone publishes something under their own name, they are incorporating it as their own statement. Plagiarism from an AI or elsewhere is irrelevant to whether they are engaging in good faith. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' LLMs know a few tricks about logical fallacies and some general ways of arguing (rhetoric), but they are incredibly dumb at understanding the rules of Misplaced Pages. You can usually tell this because it looks like incredibly slick and professional prose, but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I would indef such users for lacking ]. ] (]) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That guideline states "Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a ''last resort'' where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed." ] (]) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: ] isn't a guideline, but an essay. Relevantly though it is being cited at this very moment in ]. ] (]) 20:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I blocked that user as NOTHERE a few minutes ago after seeing them (using ChatGPT) make suggestions for text to live pagespace while their previous bad behaviors were under discussion. AGF is not a suicide pact. ] (]) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|... but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages|q=yes}}: That problem existed with some humans even prior to LLMs. —] (]) 02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Not a good or bad faith issue. ] (]) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Using a 3rd party service to contribute to the Misplaced Pages on your behalf is clearly bad-faith, analogous to paying someone to write your article. ] (]) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Its a stretch to say that a newbie writing a comment using AI is automatically acting in bad faith and not here to build an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::That's true, but this and other comments here show that not a few editors perceive it as bad-faith, rude, etc. I take that as an indication that we should tell people to avoid doing this when they have enough CLUE to read WP:AGF and are ]. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">] ]</span> 23:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Large language model AI like Chat GPT are in their infancy. The culture hasn't finished its initial reaction to them yet. I suggest that any proposal made here have an automatic expiration/required rediscussion date two years after closing. ] (]) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' – It is a matter of how you use AI. I use Google translate to add trans-title parameters to citations, but I am careful to check for Google's output making for good English as well as reflecting the foreign title when it is a language I somewhat understand. I like to think that I am careful, and I do not pretend to be fluent in a language I am not familiar with, although I usually don't announce the source of such a translation. If an editor uses AI profligately and without understanding the material generated, then that is the sin; not AI itself. ] (]) 05:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:There's a legal phrase, "when the exception swallows the rule", and I think we might be headed there with the recent LLM/AI discussions.
*:We start off by saying "Let's completely ban it!" Then in discussion we add "Oh, except for this very reasonable thing... and that reasonable thing... and nobody actually meant this other reasonable thing..."
*:The end result is that it's "completely banned" ...except for an apparent majority of uses. ] (]) 06:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Do you want us to reply to you, because you are a human? Or are you just posting the output of an LLM without bothering to read anything yourself? ] (]) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Most likely you would reply because someone posted a valid comment and you are assuming they are acting in good faith and taking responsibility for what they post. To assume otherwise is kind of weird and not inline with general Misplaced Pages values. ] (]) 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' The OP seems to misunderstand ] which is not aimed at weak editors but instead exhorts stronger editors to lead by example. That section already seems to overload the primary point of WP:AGF and adding mention of AI would be quite inappropriate per ]. ]🐉(]) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Reading the current text of the section, adding text about AI would feel out-of-place for what the section is about. <span class="nowrap">—] (] | ])</span> 05:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''', this is not about good faith. ] (]) 11:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. AI use is ''not'' a demonstration of bad faith (in any case not every new good-faith editor is familiar with our AI policies), but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith", which is what the ] section is about.
:It seems some editors are missing the point and !voting as if every edit is either a demonstration of good faith or bad faith. Most interactions are neutral and so is most AI use, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where AI use would point ''away'' from unfamiliarity and incompetence (in the CIR sense), and it often (unintentionally) leads to a presumption of laziness and open disinterest. It makes perfect sense to recommend against it. <span style="font-family:Garamond,Palatino,serif;font-size:115%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(red,red,red,blue,blue,blue,blue);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">] ]</span> 22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Indeed most kinds of actions don't inherently demonstrate good or bad. The circumspect and neutral observation that {{tq|AI use is ''not'' a demonstration of bad faith... but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith"}}, does not justify a proposal to one-sidedly say just half. And among all the actions that don't necessarily demonstrate good faith (and don't necessarily demonstrate bad faith either), it is not the purpose of "demonstrate good faith" and the broader guideline, to single out one kind of action to especially mention negatively. ] (]) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Per Dass Wolf, though I would say passing off a completely AI-generated comment as your own ''anywhere'' is inherently bad-faith and one doesn't need to know Wiki policies to understand that. ] (]) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Sure, LLMs may have utility somewhere, and it might be a crutch for people unfamiliar with English, but as I've said above in the other AI RfC, that's a ] issue. This is about comments eating up editor time, energy, about LLMs easily being used to ram through changes and poke at editors in good standing. I don't see a case wherein a prospective editor's command of policy and language is good enough to discuss with other editors while being bad enough to require LLM use. ]<span style="color: #3558b7;"><sup>]</sup>]</span> 01:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Good faith is separate from competence. Trying to do good is separate from having skills and knowledge to achieve good results. ] (]) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - anyone using a washing machine to wash their clothes must be evil and inherently lazy. They cannot be trusted. ... Oh, sorry, wrong century. Regards, --] (]) 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No''' - As long as a person understands (and knows) what they are talking about, we shouldn't discriminate against folks using generative AI tech for grammar fixes or minor flow improvements. Yes, AI can create walls of text, and make arguments not grounded in policy, but we could do that even without resorting to generative AI. ] (]) 11:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::To expand on my point above. Completely AI generated comments (or articles) are obviously bad, but {{tq|using AI}} should be thrown into the same cross-hairs as completely AI generated comments. ] (]) 11:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@] You mean ''shouldn't'' be thrown? I think that would make more sense given the context of your original !vote. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''No'''. Don't make any changes. It's not a good faith/bad faith issue. The 'yes' arguments are most unconvincing with very bizarre analogies to make their point. Here, I can make one too: "Don't edit with AI; you wouldn't shoot your neighbor's dog with a BB-gun, would you?" <sub>Duly signed,</sub> ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{Collapse top}} I appreciate your concern about the use of AI in discussions. It is important to be mindful of how AI is used, and to ensure that it is used in a way that is respectful of others.
:This would make a good plot device for a science fiction story.
I don't think that WP:DGF should be amended to specifically mention AI. However, I do think that it is important to be aware of the potential for AI to be used in a way that is not in good faith.
When using AI, it is important to be transparent about it. Let others know that you are using AI, and explain how you are using it. This will help to build trust and ensure that others understand that you are not trying to deceive them.
It is also important to be mindful of the limitations of AI. AI is not a perfect tool, and it can sometimes generate biased or inaccurate results. Be sure to review and edit any AI-generated content before you post it.
Finally, it is important to remember that AI is just a tool. It is up to you to use it in a way that is respectful and ethical. {{Collapse bottom}} It's easy to detect for most, can be pointed out as needed. '''No''' need to add an extra policy ''']]'''
{{Collapse bottom}}
== Allowing non-admin "delete" closures at RfD ==
:''It is far in the future, and of course Misplaced Pages is still around, but PHP and MySQL are arcane lore than nobody understands anymore. Brion 45, the last of the developers, realizes that without his unique knowledge there will one day be no way to create more stewards. To allow the encyclopedia to preserve itself, he sets up a way for admins to take matters into their own hands by nobly sacrificing their admin bits. He then expires, in an event later referred to as ] (Misplaced Pages's trillionth article). Bureaucrats and stewards become the targets of political assassinations, while ] appear occasionally to dispense advice, but even he could not foresee the insidious network of Citizendium loyalist double agents that emerges among the admins...''
At ], a few editors ({{u|Enos733}} and {{u|Jay}}, while {{u|Robert McClenon}} and {{u|OwenX}} hinted at it) expressed support for allowing non-administrators to close RfD discussions as "delete". While I don't personally hold strong opinions in this regard, I would like for this idea to be discussed here. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:It would not, however, make a very good Misplaced Pages policy, or MediaWiki feature, since none of that story is real. ] / ] 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*] --] <sup>(])</sup> 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*While I have no issue with the direction the linked discussion has taken, I agree with almost every contributor there: As a practice I have zero interest in generally allowing random editors closing outside their permissions. It might make DRV a more chatty board, granted. ] (]) 15:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Tamzin makes a reasonable case in their comment below. When we have already chosen to trust certain editors with advanced permissions, we might allow those folks to utilize them as fully as accepted practice allows. Those humans already have skin in the game. They are unlikely to act rashly. ] (]) 19:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* To me, non-admin delete closes at any XfD have always seemed inconsistent with what we say about how adminship and discussion closing work. I would be in violation of admin policy if I deleted based on someone else's close without conducting a full review myself, in which case, what was the point of their close? It's entirely redundant to my own work. That said, I can't really articulate a reason that this should be allowed at some XfDs but not others, and it seems to have gone fine at CfD and TfD. I guess call me neutral. {{PB}} What I'd be more open to is allowing page movers to do this. Page movers do have the tools to turn a bluelink red, so it doesn't create the same admin accountability issue if I'm just cleaning up the stray page left over from a page mover's use of a tool that they were duly granted and subject to their own accountability rules for. We could let them move a redirect to some other plausible title (this would violate ] as currently written but I think I'd be okay with making this a canonical exception), and/or allow moving to some draftspace or userspace page and tagging for G6, as we do with {{tl|db-moved}}. I'll note that when I was a non-admin pagemover, I did close a few things as delete where some edge case applied that let me effect the deletion using only suppressredirect, and no one ever objected. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I see that I was sort of vague, which is consistent with the statement that I hinted at allowing non-admin delete closures. My main concern is that I would like to see our guidelines and our practice made consistent, either by changing the guidelines or changing the practice. It appears that there is a rough consensus emerging that non-admin delete closures should continue to be disallowed in RFD, but that CFD may be a special case. So what I am saying is that if, in practice, we allow non-admin Delete closures at CFD, the guideline should say something vague to that effect.
*::I also see that there is a consensus that DRV can endorse irregular non-admin closures, including irregular non-admin Delete closures. Specifically, it isn't necessary for DRV to vacate the closure for an ] admin to close. A consensus at DRV, some of whose editors will be uninvolved admins, is at least as good a close as a normal close by an uninvolved admin.
*::Also, maybe we need clearer guidance about non-admin Keep closures of AFDs. I think that if an editor is not sure whether they have sufficient experience to be closing AFDs as Keep, they don't have enough experience. I think that the guidance is clear enough in saying that ] applies to non-admin closes, but maybe it needs to be further strengthened, because at DRV we sometimes deal with non-admin closes where the closer doesn't respond to inquiries, or is rude in response to them.
*::Also, maybe we need clearer guidance about non-admin No Consensus closures of AFDs. In particular, a close of No Consensus is a contentious closure, and should either be left to an admin, or should be Relisted.
::] (]) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As for {{tq| I can't really articulate a reason that this should be allowed at some XfDs}}, the argument is that more work is needed to enact closures at TfD and CfD (namely orphaning templates and emptying/moving/merging categories). Those extra steps aren't present at RfD. At most, there are times when it's appropriate to unlink the redirect or add ]s but those are automated steps that ] handles. From my limited experience at TfD and CfD though, it does seem that the extra work needed at closure does not compensate for the extra work from needing two people reviewing the closure (especially at CfD because a bot that handles the clean-up). Consistency has come up and I would much rather consistently disallow non-admin delete closures at all XfD venues. I know it's tempting for non-admins to think they're helping by enacting these closures but it's not fair for them to be spinning their wheels. As for moving redirects, that's even messier than deleting them. There's a reason that ] advises not to move redirects except for limited cases when preserving history is important. --] <sup>(])</sup> 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::@]: I do have one objection to this point of redundancy, which you are ]. Here, an AfD was closed as "transwiki and delete", however, the admin who did the closure does not have the technical ability to transwiki pages to the English Wikibooks, meaning that I, who does, had to determine that the outcome was actually to transwiki rather than blindly accepting a request at ]. Then, I had to mark the pages for G6 deletion, that way an admin, in this case you, could determine that the page was ready to be deleted. Does this mean that that admin who closed the discussion shouldn't have closed it, since they only have the technical ability to delete, not transwiki? Could I have closed it, having the technical ability to transwiki, but not delete? Either way, someone else would have had to review it. Or, should only people who have importing rights on the target wiki ''and'' admin rights on the English Misplaced Pages be allowed to close discussions as "transwiki and delete"? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I do support being explicit when a non-administrator can close a discussion as "delete" and I think that explicitly extending to RfD and CfD is appropriate. First, there can be a backlog in both of these areas and there are often few comments in each discussion (and there is usually not the same passion as in an AfD). Second, the delete close of a non-administrator is reviewed by an administrator before action is taken to delete the link, or category (a delete close is a two-step process, the writeup and the delete action, so in theory the administrators workload is reduced). Third, non-admins do face ] for their actions, and can be subject to sanction. Fourth, the community has a role in reviewing closing decisions at DRV, so there is already a process in place to check a unexperienced editor or poor close. Finally, with many, if not most discussions for deletion the outcome is largely straight forward. --] (]) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*There is currently no rule against non-admin delete closures as far as I know; the issue is the practical one that you don't have the ability to delete. However, I ''have'' made non-admin delete closures at AfD. This occurred when an admin deleted the article under consideration (usually for COPYVIO) without closing the related AfD. The closures were not controversial and there was no DRV. ] ] 20:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] discussion ==
::The situation you're referring to is an exception allowed per ]: {{tq|If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale.}} --] <sup>(])</sup> 20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*Bad idea to allow, this sort of closure is just busy work, that imposes more work on the admin that then has to review the arguments, close and then delete. ] (]) 22:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Is this the same as ] above? ]] 23:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
**Yes, ]. Same issue coming from the same ]. ] (]) 03:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
* (1) As I've also ], the deletion process guidelines at ] do say non-admins shouldn't do "delete" closures and do recognize exceptions for CfD and TfD. There isn't a current inconsistency there between guidelines and practice. <br>(2) In circumstances where we do allow for non-admin "delete" closures, I would hope that the implementing admin isn't fully ] before implementing, but rather giving deference to any reasonable closure. That's how it goes with ] closers asking for technical help implementing a "moved" closure at ] (as noted at ], the closure will "generally be respected by the administrator (or page mover)" but can be reverted by an admin if "clearly improper"). ] ] 08:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - A couple things to note about the CFD process: It very much requires work by admins. The non-admin notes info about the close at WT:CFD/Working, and then an admin enters the info on the CFD/Working page (which is protected) so that the bot can perform the various actions. Remember that altering a category is potentially more labour intensive than merely editing or deleting a single page - every page in that category must be edited, and then the category deleted. (There are other technical things involved, like the mess that template transclusion can cause, but let's keep it simple.) So I wouldn't suggest that that process is very useful as a precedent for anything here. It was done at a time when there was a bit of a backlog at CfD, and this was a solution some found to address that. Also - since then, I think at least one of the regular non-admin closers there is now an admin. So there is that as well. - <b>]</b> 09:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on at ] (specifically ] about possible POV in an edit made to the policy in December 2004 and recently disputed. Please comment on the thread linked above. <font color="maroon">]</font>'''<small>]</small>''<font color="navy" face="cursive">]</font>''''' 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
*If the expectation is that an admin needs to review the deletion discussion to ensure they agree with that outcome before deleting via G6, as multiple people here are suggesting, then I'm not sure this is worthwhile. However, I have had many admins delete pages I've tagged with G6, and I have been assuming that they only check that the discussion was indeed closed as delete, and trust the closer to be responsible for the correctness of it. This approach makes sense to me, because if a non-admin is competent to close and be responsible for any other outcome of a discussion, I don't see any compelling reason they can't be responsible for a delete outcome and close accordingly. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Some closers, and you're among them, have closing accuracy similar to many sysops. But the sysop can't/shouldn't "trust" that your close is accurate. Trustworthy though you are, the sysop must, at very minimum, check firstly that the close with your signature on it was actually made by you (signatures are easily copied), secondly that the close wasn't manifestly unreasonable, and thirdly that the CSD is correct. ] holds the deleting sysop responsible for checking that the CSD were correctly applied. G6 is for uncontroversial deletions, and if there's been an XFD, then it's only "uncontroversial" if the XFD was unanimous or nearly so. We do have sysops who'll G6 without checking carefully, but they shouldn't. Basically, non-admin closing XFDs doesn't save very much sysop time. I think that if your motive as a non-admin is to relieve sysops of labour, the place you're of most use is at RfC.—] <small>]/]</small> 11:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*::{{tpq|if your motive as a non-admin is to relieve sysops of labour, the place you're of most use is at RfC}} alternatively you should consider becoming an administrator yourself. ] (]) 13:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::<small>If you're willing to tolerate the RFA process.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
*::In all the cases I have dealt with, the admin's reason for deletion (usually copyvio) was completely different to the issues being debated in the AfD (usually notability). The closing statement was therefore something like "Discussion is now moot due to article being deleted for <reason> by <admin>". ] ] 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think most all the time, experienced closers will do a great job and that will save admin time because they will not have to construct and explain the close from scratch, but there will be some that are bad and that will be costly in time not just for the admin but for the project's goal of completing these issues and avoiding disruption. I think that lost time is still too costly, so I would oppose non-admin delete closes. (Now if there were a proposal for a process to make a "delete-only admin permission" that would be good -- such motivated specialists would likely be more efficient.) ] (]) 16:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* As I said at the "Non-Admin XFD Close as Delete" section, I support non-admins closing RfDs as Delete. If TfDs have been made an exception, RfDs can be too, especially considering RfD backlogs. Closing a heavily discussed nomination at RfD is more about the reading, analysis and thought process at arriving at the outcome, and less about the technicality of the subsequent page actions. I don't see a significant difference between non-admins closing discussions as Delete vs non-Delete. It will help making non-admins mentally prepared to advance to admin roles.<span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
* The backlog at RFD is mostly lack of participation, not lack of admins not making closures. This would only be exacerbated if non-admins are given a reason not to !vote on discussions trending toward deletion so they can get the opportunity to close. RFD isn't as technical as CFD and TFD. In any case, any admin doing the deletion would still have to review the RFD. Except in the most obviously trivial cases, this will lead to duplicate work, and even where it doesn't (e.g. multiple !votes all in one direction), the value-add is minimal.
:-- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== Modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS ==
== External Links guideline ==
{{FYI}} A discussion has been started at ] re: modifying the text of BLPSPS. ] (]) 14:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a heated debate going on on ] about whether the wording should be changed to eliminate the use of the Open Directory Project as an alternative to having a large External Links section in an article. Things have got rather bogged down and it appears that sides have formed. Insightful input at ] as to how to proceed (and which version of the page should stand should no consensus be arrived at) would be gratefully received. -- ] | ] 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
== Upgrade ] to an official guideline ==
== WP project talk page template class parameter ==
] is an essay. I've been editing since 2010, and for the entire duration of that, this essay has been referred to and used extensively, and has even guided discussions regarding ascertaining if sources are reliable. I propose that it be formally upgraded to a status as an MOS guideline parallel to ].--] (] | ]) 14:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm broadly in favor of this proposal—I looked over the essay and most of it is aligned with what seems standard in album articles—but there are a few aspects that feel less aligned with current practice, which I'd want to reexamine before we move forward with promoting this:
In addition to FA, A, GA, B, Start, & Stub class some templates accommodate Template, Cat, and Disamb class values. Some even allow for a Needed-class. What is policy on having an Image-class for all images within a project falling in image space? Could I request such a wrinkle to the {{tl|ChicagoWikiProject}} template. Also, what is policy on ]? Should the category exist? Should I populate it? What is policy Needed-class articles? ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:* The section ] suggests {{tq|What other works of art is this producer known for?}} as one of the categories of information to include in a recording/production section. This can be appropriate in some cases (e.g., the '']'' article discusses how Butch Vig's work with Killdozer inspired Nirvana to try and work with him), but recommending it outright seems like it'd risk encouraging people to ]. My preference would be to cut the sentence I quoted and the one immediately following it.
:* The section ] suggests that the numbered-list be the preferred format for track listings, with other formats like {{tl|Track listing}} being alternative choices for "more complicated" cases. However, in my experience, using {{tlg|Track listing|nolink=yes}} rather than a numbered list tends to be the standard. All of the formatting options currently listed in the essay should continue to be mentioned, but I think portraying {{tlg|Track listing|nolink=yes}} as the primary style would be more reflective of current practice.
:* The advice in the ] section seems partially outdated. In my experience, review aggregators like Metacritic are conventionally discussed in the "Critical reception" section instead these days, and I'm uncertain to what extent we still link to databases like Discogs even in ELs.
:(As a disclaimer, my familiarity with album articles comes mostly from popular-music genres, rock and hip-hop in particular. I don't know if typical practice is different in areas like classical or jazz.) Overall, while I dedicated most of my comment volume to critiques, these are a fairly minor set of issues in what seems like otherwise quite sound guidance. If they're addressed, it's my opinion that this essay would be ready for prime time. ] (] • ]) 15:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd agree with all of this, given my experience. The jazz and classical that I've seen is mostly the same.--] (] | ]) 16:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Me too, though sometime last year, I unexpectedly had some (inexplicably strong) pushback on the tracklist part with an editor or two. In my experience, using the track list template is the standard, and I can't recall anyone giving me any pushback for it, but some editors apparently prefer just using numbers. I guess we can wait and see if there's any current pushback on it. 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) ] ] 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Was it pushback for how you had rendered the tracklist, or an existing tracklist being re-formatted by you or them?--] (] | ]) 18:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::They came to WT:ALBUMS upset that another editor was changing track lists from "numbered" to "template" formats. My main response was surprised, because in my 15+ years of article creations and rewrites, I almost exclusively used the tracklist template, and had never once received any pushback.
:::::So basically, I personally agree with you and MDT above, I'm merely saying I've heard someone disagree. I'll try to dig up the discussion. ] ] 17:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I found , though this was more about sticking to the current wording as is than it was about opposition against changing it. Not sure if there was another one or not. ] ] 18:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I remember one editor being strongly against the template, but they are now community banned. Everyone else I've seen so far uses the template. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">] ]</span> 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I can see the numbered-list format being used for very special cases like '']'', which was released with only two songs, and had the same co-writers and producer. But I imagine we have extremely few articles that are like that, so I believe the template should be the standard. ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 12:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|ModernDayTrilobite}}, regarding linking to ], some recent discussions I was in at the end of last year indicate that it is common to still link to Discogs as an EL, because it gives more exhaustive track, release history, and personnel listings that Misplaced Pages - generally - should not.--] (] | ]) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the clarification! In that case, I've got no objection to continuing to recommend it. ] (] • ]) 14:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::There were several discussions about Discogs and an RfC ]. As a user of {{tl|Discogs master}}, I agree with what other editors said there. We can't mention every version of an album in an article, so an external link to Discogs is invaluable IMO. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">] ]</span> 22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:We badly need this to become part of the MOS. As it stands, some editors have rejected the guidelines as they're just guidelines, not policies, which defeats the object of having them in the first place. ] (]) 16:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::I mean, they are guidelines, but deviation per ] should be for a good reason, not just because someone feels like it.--] (] | ]) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am very much in favor of this becoming an official MOS guideline per ] above. Very useful as a template for album articles. ] (]) 21:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I recently wrote my first album article and this essay was crucial during the process, to the extent that me seeing this post is like someone saying "I thought you were already an admin" in RFA; I figured this was already a guideline. I would support it becoming one. ] (]) 02:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have always wondered why all this time these pointers were categorized as an essay. It's about time we formalize them; as said earlier, there are some outdated things that need to be discussed (like in ] which advises not to use stores for credits, even though in the streaming era we have more and more albums/EPs that never get physical releases). Also, song articles should also have their own guidelines, IMV. ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 12:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'd be in favor of discussing turning the outline at the main page for ] into a guideline.--] (] | ]) 12:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I get the sense it'd have to be a separate section from this one, given the inherent complexity of album articles as opposed to that of songs. ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think it should be a separate, parallel guideline.--] (] | ]) 16:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it needs work--I recall that a former longtime album editor, Richard3120 (not pinging them, as I think they are on another break to deal with personal matters), floated a rewrite a couple of years ago. Just briefly: genres are a perennial problem, editors love unsourced exact release dates and chronology built on OR (many discography pages are sourced only to random ''Billboard'', AllMusic, and Discogs links, rather than sources that provide a comprehensive discography), and, like others, I think all the permutations of reissue and special edition track listings has gotten out of control, as well as these long lists of not notable personnel credits (eight second engineers, 30 backing vocalists, etc.). Also agree that the track listing template issue needs consensus; if three are acceptable, then three are acceptable--again, why change it to accommodate the names of six not notable songwriters? There's still a divide on the issue of commercial links in the body of the article--I have yet to see a compelling reason for their inclusion (WP is, uh, not for sale, remember?), when a better source can always be found (and editors have noted, not that I've made a study of it, that itunes often uses incorrect release dates for older albums). But I also acknowledge that since this "floated" rewrite never happened, then the community at large may be satisfied with the guidelines. ] (]) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Regarding the personnel and reissue/special edition track listing, I don't know if I can dig up the discussions, but there seems to be a consensus against being exhaustive and instead to put an external link to Discogs. I fail to see how linking to ''Billboard'' or AllMusic links for a release date on discographies is OR, unless you're talking about in the lead. At least in the case of Billboard, that's an established RS (AllMusic isn't the most accurate with dates).-- ] (] | ]) 13:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I meant that editors often use discography pages to justify chronology, even though ''Billboard'' citations are simply supporting chart positions, Discogs only states that an album exists, and AllMusic entries most often do not give a sequential number in their reviews, etc. There is often not a source (or sources) that states that the discography is complete, categorized properly, and in order. ] (]) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ah, okay, I understand now.--] (] | ]) 16:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Myself, I've noticed that some of the sourcing recommendations are contrary to WP:RS guidance (more strict, actually!) or otherwise outside consensus. For instance, MOS:ALBUMS currently says to not use vendors for track list or personnel credits, linking to ] in WP:RS, but AFFILIATE actually says that such use is acceptable but not preferred. Likewise, MOS:ALBUMS says not to use scans of liner notes, which is 1. absurd, and 2. not actual consensus, which in the discussions I've had is that actual scans are fine (which makes sense as it's a digital archived copy of the source).--] (] | ]) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
== Plot summary ==
:The tendency to be overreliant on liner notes is also a detriment. I've encountered some liner notes on physical releases that have missing credits (e.g. only the producers are credited and not the writers), or there are outright no notes at all. Tangentially, some physical releases of albums like '']'' and '']'' actually direct consumers to official websites to see the credits, which has the added problem of link rot ( for ''Still Over It'' and is a permanent dead link). ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 15:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there a guideline or policy on length of plot summaries? I've looked at the relevant bits of ] and ] but they're both a bit vague. There's a debate about this ]. ] 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::That turns editors to using stores like Spotify or Apple Music as the next-best choice, but a new problem arises -- the credits for a specific song can vary depending on the site you use. One important thing we should likely discuss is what sources should take priority wrt credits. For an example of what I mean, take "]". to check its credits and you'd find the name Sean Garrett -- , however, and that name is missing. I assume these digital credits have a chance to deviate from the albums' physical liner notes as well, if there is one available. ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 15:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Try ] although you won't find a fixed "no more than X words" suggestion three, either. ] ] 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Moreover, the credits in stores are not necessarily correct either. An example I encountered was on ], an amazing service and the only place where I could find detailed credits for one album (not even liner notes had them, since back then artists tried to avoid sample clearance). However, as I was double checking everything, one song made no sense: in its writing credits I found "Curtis Jackson", with a link to ]'s artist page. It seemed <em>extremely</em> unlikely that they would collaborate, nor any of his work was sampled here. Well, it turns out this song sampled a song written by Charles Jackson of ]. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">] ]</span> 16:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{u|PSA}} and {{u|AstonishingTunesAdmirer}}, I agree that it's difficult. I usually use both the physical liner notes and online streaming and retail sources to check for completeness and errors. I've also had the experience of ] being a great resource, and, luckily, so far I've yet to encounter an error. Perhaps advice for how to check multiple primary sources here for errors should be added to the proposed guideline.--] (] | ]) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::At this point, I am convinced as well that finding the right sources for credits should be on a case-by-case basis, with the right amount of discretion from the editor. While I was creating ], which included several SoundCloud songs where it was extremely hard to find songwriting credits, I found the useful for filling those missing gaps. More or less the credits there align with what's on the liner notes/digital credits. However, four issues, most of which you can see by looking at the list I started: 1) they don't necessarily align with physical liner notes either, 2) sometimes names are written differently depending on the entry, 3) there are entries where a writer (or co-writer) is unknown, and 4) some of the entries here were never officially released and confirmed as outtakes/leaks (why is "BET Awards 19 Nomination Special" here, whatever that means?). ] 🦗🐜 <sup><small>]'']</small></sup> 22:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, I've found it particularly tricky when working on technical personnel (production, engineering, mixing, etc.) and songwriting credits for individuals. I usually use the liner notes (if there are any), check AllMusic and ], and also check Tidal if necessary. But I'll also look at Spotify, too. I know they're user-generated, so I don't cite them, but I usually look at Discogs and Genius to get an idea if I'm missing something. Thank you for pointing me to Songview, that will probably also be really helpful. ] (] | ]) 12:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:(@], please see ] for advice on advertising discussions about promoting pages to a guideline. No, you ''don't'' have to start over. But maybe add an RFC tag or otherwise make sure that it is very widely publicized.) ] (]) 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. I'll notify the Manual of Style people. I did already post a notice at WP:ALBUMS. I'll inform other relevant WikiProjects as well.--] (] | ]) 12:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Before posting the RfC as suggested by {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, I'm proposing the following changes to the text of MOS:ALBUM as discussed above:
:Avoid "play-by-play" level of details. Focus on what you need to give basic background and to aid the article's real-world information sections. Additional general summary might be appropriate for fiction with large cultural significance/impact like Shakespeare, Superman, NedBoy. -- ] 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
# Eliminate {{!xt|What other works of art is this producer known for? Keep the list of other works short, as the producer will likely have their own article with a more complete list.}} from the "Recording, production" sub-section.
::I looked into that before, here's ] I found. ] 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
# Rework the text of the "Style and form" for tracklistings to:
:::Never found anything definitive or concrete though. ] 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{xt|1=The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing".}}
::::Maybe not, but it still helps. thanks. I'll point the WPers at this section. ] 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say three to four paragraphs ''at most'' (and that would be for a long novel with an intricate plot like ''Bleak House'' or some sort of epic miniseries). Shorter texts should receive shorter summaries. The problem with most of the plot summaries that I have seen on[REDACTED] (and I have looked at a lot since I specialize in literature) is that they try to retell the entire story in order. Plot summaries do not have to retell every subplot or follow the order of the original text. Misplaced Pages's pages on "classic" works, especially, should not begin to resemble sparknotes with a blow-by-blow account of the text. Film pages and TV episode pages often begin to resemble fan sites, in my opinion, when they meticulously relate every detail of a plot. I love ''Star Trek'' as much as the next person, but there are trekkie sites that fulfill that purpose and an encyclopedia is not the place for it. Oftentimes, relevant plot points or character descriptions (another thing that should go - character lists!) will enter into discussions of the text's or film's themes. ] 06:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{xt|1=A track listing should generally be formatted with the {{tl|Track listing}} template. Note, however, that the track listing template forces a numbering system, so tracks originally listed as "A", "B", etc., or with other or no designations, will not appear as such when using the template. Additionally, in the case of multi-disc/multi-sided releases, a new template may be used for each individual disc or side, if applicable.}}
: I agree with you, Awadewit, but I doubt we'll ever see this put in play: there are too many new Wikipedians, eager to show their ability, who don't understand the virtue of economy & swamp the article with too much information. There's the same problem with multiple links to the same article; I guess some writers feel doing this emphasizes the importance of the subject. And if we make it a rule (e.g., "No plot summary will be more than 4 paragraphs"), some Wikipedians will feel called on to enforce that rule, even to the detriment of the article. If you have a simpler solution than to educate each new Wikipedian as this matter comes up, I'd be glad to hear it. -- ] 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{xt|1=Alternate forms, such as a table or a ], are acceptable but usually not preferred. If a table is used, it should be formatted using class="wikitable", with column headings "No.", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively (see Help:Table). In special cases, such as '']'', a numbered list may be the most appropriate format.}}
::Well, I'm trying to work the 3-4 paragraph suggestion into the ] at the novel project right now. You might consider taking a look at the discussion I am involved in regarding the novel template, which deals with some of these issues ]. Those are some of the things I'm doing. Whenever I peer review, GAC review or FAC review, I try to encourage economy as well. I'm afraid those are small steps, but the more people I can make aware of this problem, I feel, the better. Do you have any additional suggestions? ] 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
# Move {{xt|1= Critical reception overviews like AcclaimedMusic (using {{tl|Acclaimed Music}}), AnyDecentMusic?, or Metacritic may be appropriate as well.}} from "External links" to "Album ratings templates" of "Critical reception", right before the sentence about using {{tl|Metacritic album prose}}.
== User and User talk pages ==
# Re-write this text from "Sourcing" under "Track listing" from {{!xt|However, if there is disagreement, there are other viable sources. Only provide a source for a track listing if there are exceptional circumstances, such as a dispute about the writers of a certain track. Per ], avoid commercial sources such as online stores and streaming platforms. In the rare instances where outside citations are required, explanatory text is useful to help other editors know why the album's liner notes are insufficient.}} to {{xt|Per ], commercial sources such as online stores and streaming platforms are acceptable to cite for track list information, but secondary coverage in independent reliable sources is preferred if available.}} Similarly, in the "Personnel" section, re-write {{!xt| Similar to the track listing requirements, it is generally assumed that a personnel section is sourced from the liner notes. In some cases, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers who are not credited in the liner notes. If you need to cite these, use {{tl|Cite AV media}} for the liner notes and do not use third party sources such as stores (per ]) or scans uploaded to image hosting sites or ] (per ]).}} to {{xt|1= Similar to the track listing requirements, it is generally assumed that a personnel section is sourced from the liner notes. If you need to cite the liner notes, use {{tl|Cite AV media}}. Scans of the physical media that have been uploaded in digital form to repositories or sites such as ] are acceptable for verification, but cite the physical notes themselves, not the ] transcriptions. Frequently, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers who are not credited in the liner notes. Per ], inline citations to e-commerce or streaming platforms to verify personnel credits are allowed. However, reliable secondary sources are preferred, if available.}}
# Additional guidance has been suggested for researching and verifying personnel and songwriting credits. I suggest adding {{xt|1=It is recommended to utilize a combination of the physical liner notes (if they exist) with e-commerce sites such as ] and ], streaming platforms such as ] and ], and databases such as ] credits listings and . Finding the correct credits requires careful, case-by-case consideration and editor discretion. If you would like assistance, you can reach out to ] or ] WikiProjects.}} The best section for this is probably in "Personnel", in the paragraph discussing that liner notes can be inaccurate.
# The excessive listing of personnel has been mentioned. I suggest adding the following to the paragraph in the "Personnel" section beginning with "The credits to an album can be extensive or sparse.": {{xt|1=If the listing of personnel is extensive, avoid excessive, exhaustive lists, in the spirit of ]. In such cases, provide an external link to ] and list only the major personnel to the list.}}
If you have any additional suggestions, or suggestions regarding the wording of any of the above (I personally think that four needs to be tightened up or expressed better), please give them. I'm pinging the editors who raised issues with the essay as currently written, or were involved in discussing those issues, for their input regarding the above proposed changes. {{u|ModernDayTrilobite}}, {{u|PSA}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, {{u|AstonishingTunesAdmirer}}, {{u|Caro7200}}, what do you think? Also, I realize that I never pinged {{u|Fezmar9}}, the author of the essay, for their thoughts on upgrading this essay to a guideline.--] (] | ]) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:The proposed edits all look good to me. I agree there's probably some room for improvement in the phrasing of #4, but in my opinion it's still clear enough as to be workable, and I haven't managed to strike upon any other phrasings I liked better for expressing its idea. If nobody else has suggestions, I'd be content to move forward with the language as currently proposed. ] (] • ]) 17:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Just what is and is not allowed on user and user talk pages? Can people create new accounts and new user pages at will? Can they put political screeds on their user pages? How about commercials and links to offsite webpages? How in the world are we going to determine a rational policy for this and enforce it? --] 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:It might be better to have this discussion on its talk page. That's where we usually talk about changes to a page. ] (]) 17:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:We already have one, ]. -- ] 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{u|WhatamIdoing}} - just the proposed changes, or the entire discussion about elevating this essay to a guideline?--] (] | ]) 18:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It would be normal to have both discussions (separately) on that talk page. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Okay, thank you. I started the proposal to upgrade the essay here, as it would be far more noticed by the community, but I'm happy for everything to get moved there.-- ] (] | ]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:These changes look good to me. Although, since we got rid of Acclaimed Music in the articles, we should probably remove it here too. <span style="background:#16171c; font-family:monospace; font-weight:600; padding:2px; box-shadow:#9b12f0 2px -2px">] ]</span> 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Sure thing.--] (] | ]) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
::Ok, looks reasonable to me. --] 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
== reverts all edits ==
== Template for articles translated by non-English speakers ==
Hello everyone. I have an idea for the Misplaced Pages coders. Would it be possible for you to design an option that, with the click of a button, automatically reverts all edits of a disruptive user? This idea came to my mind because some people create disposable accounts to cause disruption in all their edits... In this case, a lot of time and energy is consumed by administrators and reverting users to undo all the vandalism. If there were a template that could revert all the edits of a disruptive user with one click, it would be very helpful. If you think regular users might misuse this option, you could limit it to Misplaced Pages administrators only so they can quickly and easily undo the disruption. ] (]) 17:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, is there a template can be used for articles translated from other languages to English by someone who is not a native English speaker? Some zh.wp user is worried about the quality of articles translated by non-English speakers and might use that template to ask for quality improvements like grammar correction or reorganize the article. Thanks. --] (]|]) 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hi @], there's a script that does that: ]. Also, editors who use ] can single-click revert all consecutive edits of an editor. ] ] 17:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Is this tool active in all the different languages of Misplaced Pages? I couldn't perform such an action with the tool you mentioned. ] (]) 17:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::That script requires the ] permission, which is available only for admins and other trusted users. Admins and other users with the tool have gotten in trouble for using it inappropriately. I never use it myself, as I find the rollback in Twinkle quite sufficient for my needs. ] 17:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::(ec) I don't know about other languages. If you check the page I linked, you'll see that the script requires ]. ] ] 17:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Sorry. Does your ] can reverse all edits of a user in different page's with clicking on button ? i think you mean that massrollback can reverse all edits in a special wiki page... not all edits of edits of disruptive user in multiple pages ? or i'm wrong ??? ] (]) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you want this for the Persian Misplaced Pages, you should probably talk to ]. ] (]) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] Thank you. ] (]) 07:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
== Problem For Translate page ==
If there is no such template existed, what do you think to have a template like '''This article or section is been translated by someone who is not a native English speaker, you may help to improve it.'''?--] (]|]) 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:] has a couple of useful templates. <span style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 8pt;">] ]</span> 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:It would appear that <nowiki>{{Template:RoughTranslation|language}}</nowiki> is the one you are looking for. It is the fourth listed per the link provided by ]. ] 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I don’t know who is in charge for coding the Translate page on Misplaced Pages. But I wanted to send my message to the Misplaced Pages coders, and that is that in the Misplaced Pages translation system, the information boxes for individual persons (i.e personal biography box- see: ]) are not automatically translated, and it is time-consuming for Misplaced Pages users to manually translate and change the links one by one from English to another language. Please, could the coders come up with a solution for translating the information template boxes? Thank you. ] (]) 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::That's exactly what we are looking for, thanks. ;) --] (]|]) 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Hulu2024}}, this also applies to the section above. If your proposal only applies to the English Misplaced Pages then it is probably best to post it at ] in the first instance. If it is only about the Persian Misplaced Pages then you may wish to try there. If it is more general then you could try ], or, for more formal proposals, ]. ] (]) 18:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::@] Thank you. ] (]) 19:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== WritingArticles ==
== A discrimination policy ==
{{Discussion top|result= i quit this will go no where im extremely embarassed and feel horrible i dont think ill try again}}
<s>Ani cases:
I would like to write some articles em but I am not too good with writing. I haerd that there are people on here who you can pay to write articles for you. Where can I find them? ] 17:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
* ]
:]. ] 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
*
I would like to start this proposal by saying that this concept was a proposal in 2009 which failed for obvious reasons. But in this year, 2025, we need it as its happened a bunch. its already under personal attacks but this I feel and a couple other Wikipedians that it should be codified as their is precedent for blocking users who discriminate. Here’s a list of the things I want to include in this policy. edit: This policy is intended to target blatant and admitted instances of discrimination. If the intent behind an action is ambiguous, users should continue to assume good until the intent is.<br>
== What to do when terminology differs from one country to another ==
Just as being a member of a group does not give one special requirements to edit, it also does not endow any special privileges. One is not absolved of discrimination against a group just because one claims to be a member of that group.
What counts as discrimination
I am working on a group of topics in which the terminology varies dramatically from one country to another. The biggest and most controversial example is the definition of the term "Learning Disability" as used in the US as compared to the UK.
* ]
In the US, the term is used to mean a specific difficulty with learning that is unexpected given the cognitive ability of the affected person, for example, a specific difficulty in learning to read where the person's overall cognitive ability is intact and in the normal range. In contrast, in the UK the term is used to refer to severe cognitive deficits (the old term for this in the US is "mental retardation").
* Disability-will define this further
* Disease
* ]-different from sex neurological <ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc |title=Let’s All Get Past This Confusion About Trans People |date=2022-06-06 |last=Professor Dave Explains |access-date=2025-01-15 |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Altinay |first=Murat |last2=Anand |first2=Amit |date=2020-08-01 |title=Neuroimaging gender dysphoria: a novel psychobiological model |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11682-019-00121-8 |journal=Brain Imaging and Behavior |language=en |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=1281–1297 |doi=10.1007/s11682-019-00121-8 |issn=1931-7565}}</ref>
* ]-different then gender biological<ref>{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc |title=Let’s All Get Past This Confusion About Trans People |date=2022-06-06 |last=Professor Dave Explains |access-date=2025-01-15 |via=YouTube}}</ref>
* Sexuality
* Religion
* Hobbies (e.g furry ( most often harassed hobby))
* Relationship status
* Martial status
* (Idk how to word this but) lack of parental presence
* Political position (will be a hot topic)
* ] anything i missed would be in there
Clearly, this could cause confusion in readers, and could even be terribly offensive to some people coming to the article for information.
A disability is an umbrella term in my sight
Are there guidelines somewhere regarding what do do when the term relevant to a topic varies dramatically in different English-speaking countries?
you have mental and physical
Thanks in advance for any help,
examples for mental would be:
] 19:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:In that case, follow the procedure in ]. ] 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
* schizophrenia
== Citations ==
* autism
<s>
* ADHD
We need a standard for adding references into articles. It should be
a) <nowiki>Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia.<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref></nowiki>
* dyslexia (or any learning disability)
<br>
*
::which produces:
<br>
Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia.<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>
<br>
or b)
<br>
<nowiki>Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>.</nowiki>
<br>
::which produces:
<br>
Jimbo is the founder of wikipedia<ref>www.wikipedia.org</ref>.
<br>
Should the citation go before or after the period? I think it should go after because it makes the sentence look cleaner. This isn't in ] so I bought it here.
<br>
Thanks! ]<sup>] </sup><small> or </small><sub>]</sub> 23:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</s>
:You will find this covered in ]. ] ] 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thank you! ]<sup>] </sup><small> or </small><sub>]</sub> 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
examples of physical:
== Contributor's name in image title: ]? ==
* paralyzation
*]: to participate in this thread, please follow ] --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
* Pretty much any physical injury
* Im aware that this never really happens but its good to go over
A user may not claim without evidence that a user is affected by/are any of the above (idk how to term this).
A user may not claim that users with these disabilities/beliefs/races/genders shouldn’t edit Misplaced Pages.
Is there a policy on image-naming conventions that would settle whether it's permissible to include the name of the author and contributor of an image in the image's filename? The author/contributor in question is also a Misplaced Pages editor who uses his real name as his userid, and includes this name in the image's filename, so that the filename for a picture of a Corvette, for example, would be '''Corvette_by_<nowiki></nowiki>_<nowiki></nowiki>.jpg''' .
A user may not imply a user is below them based on the person.
I ], but also wonder if the purpose might not be ]: a Google search on the editor's real name returns hits for the image files on Misplaced Pages precisely because the author has included his name in the image's filename. I note that in several articles the editor has without explanation substituted his own work for perfectly adequate images. Doing so has not appreciably improved the articles, but it ''has'', of course, replaced the file with one bearing the editor's name and increased his visibility on the web.
calling people woke simply cause they are queer is discrimination.
In fact, on other websites the user advertises his work as a photographer by inviting people to view his work at Misplaced Pages -- ''and'' to visit his Misplaced Pages userpage, which raises the possibility that the userpage itself may be being used for self-promotion, contrary to ].
Also I would like to propose a condition.
I have hunted around without much success for relevant policies, and while I suspect ] is probably applicable, I'm wondering if there are other more precisely on point. Is there a policy on claiming authorship that might be applicable? --]<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think it is more of a case of proper attribution then self promotion. Especially in this time of copyright paranoia, it is particularly important to know exactly where an image comes from. If a Wikipedian takes an image, I don't see any problem with them making proper attribution in the file title. Now if they were a professional photographer including their phone# and hourly rate in the image file-that would cross into the self promotion line.]]/] 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Over reaction to what you think is discrimination (accidental misgendering and wrong pronouns) and the user apologizes for it is not grounds for an entry at ani.
:Not to mention, if the filename would otherwise be fairly generic (Corvette isn't too bad an example), I believe many users attach their username or some other unique identifier so that there's no issues over replacing an existing image, or to avoid a WP/Meta conflict where both images might be necessary for some purpose. ] 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::In fact, IIRC, an image creator may if s/he choses, relase an image under a license that '''requires''' a specific form of attribution. In any case, we are required to attribute the iamge to its source or creator. Unless the creator is including filenames that link to a business or soemthing of that sort, I don't see a problem with this. ] ] 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This should be used as a guideline.
== Fair USe Image's ==
I vaugley remember their being a policy about Fair Use images couldn't be above a certain resolution. Could anyone direct me towards a page or policy that confirms or denies this? ] 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Quote box
:No exact value is given, but ] and ] basically say "only use what is needed". If a non-free image is being used to show someone swinging a golf club, we only need enough res to be able to see that (and possibly other things that might be important, such as who is swinging the club, but not what brand name is on the golf club, etc). -- ] 01:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
| quote = discrimination is defined as acts, practices, or policies that wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in a salient social group. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. He or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to children of a particular race out of a racist attitude, he or she will be acting in a discriminatory way even if he or she actually benefits the people he discriminates against by donating some money to them.
| source = Misplaced Pages article on discrimination
}}
{{Paragraph break}}I would also like to say this would give us negative press coverage by right wing media and I’ll receive shit. But I don’t care i can deal with it ]] 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
== Proposed clarification to ] ==
*This largely seems like behavior that already is sanctionable per ] and ] (and the adoption of the latter drew complaints at the time that it in itself was already unnecessarily redundant with existing civility policy on en.wiki). What shortcomings do you see with those existing bodies of policy en force? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:The fact that punishments should be a little more severe for users who go after a whole group of editors. As its not an npa its an attack on a group ]] 16:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::NPA violations are already routinely met with blocks and sitebans, often on sight without prior warning for the level of disparagement you're describing. Do you have any recent examples on hand of cases where the community's response was insufficiently severe? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Ill grab some my issue is admins can unblock without community input it should be unblock from admin then= they have to appeal to the community ]] 17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::<small>Noting that I've now taken the time to read through the three cases listed at the top--two of them ended in NOTHERE blocks pretty quickly--I could see someone taking issue with the community's handling of RowanElder and Jwa05002, although it does seem that the discussion ultimately resulted in an indef block for one and an apparently sincere apology from the other. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) </small>
*:I think the real problem is that in order to block for any reason you have to take them to a place where random editors discuss whether they are a "net positive" or "net negative" to the wiki, which in principle would be a fair way to decide, but in reality is like the work of opening an RFC just in order to get someone to stop saying random racist stuff, and it's not worth it. Besides, remember the RSP discussion where the Daily Mail couldn't be agreed to be declared unreliable on transgender topics because "being 'gender critical' is a valid opinion" according to about half the people there? I've seen comments that were blatant bigoted insults beneath a thin veneer, that people did not take to ANI because it's just not worth the huge amount of effort. There really needs to be an easy way for administrators to warn (on first violation) and then block people who harass people in discriminatory ways without a huge and exhausting-for-the-complainer "discussion" about it -- and a very clear policy that says discrimination is not OK and is always "net negative" for the encyclopedia would reduce the complexity of that discussion, and I think is an important statement to make.
*:By allowing it to be exhaustively debated whether thinly-veiled homophobic insults towards gay people warrant banning is Misplaced Pages deliberately choosing not to take a stance on the topic. A stance needs to be taken, and it needs to be clear enough to allow rapid and decisive action that makes people actually afraid to discriminate against other editors, because they know that it isn't tolerated, rather than being reasonably confident their targets won't undergo another exhausting ANI discussion. ] (]) 17:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Said better then i could say i agree wholeheartedly it happens way too much ]] 17:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree that a blind eye shouldn't be turned against discrimination against groups of Misplaced Pages editors in general, but I don't see why we need a list that doesn't include social class but includes hobbies. The determining factor for deciding whether something is discrimination should be how much choice the individual has in the matter, which seems, in practice, to be the way ] is used. ] (]) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I agree hobbies doesn't need to be included. Haven't seen a lot of discrimination based on social class? I think this needs to be taken to the Idea Lab. ] (]) 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Sorry this was just me spit balling i personally have been harassed over my hobbies ]] 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*@] Strong support in general (see above) but I strongly suggest you take this to the idea lab, because it's not written as a clear and exact proposal and it would probably benefit a lot from being developed into an RFC before taking it here. In the current format it probably can't pass because it doesn't make specific changes to policy. ] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Your input is requested here: ]. This is a proposed clarification, to indicate that ] is a ] policy, but that "passive threats" can be uncivil. Thanks, ] 05:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*:Yeah sorry I’m new to this i was told to go here to get the ball rolling ]] 17:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*Wait...does this mean I won't be able to discriminate against people whose hobby is editing Misplaced Pages? Where's the fun in that? ] 17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I guess not :3 ]] 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:In general, I fail to see the problem this is solving. The UCoC and other policies/guidelines/essays (such as ], ], and others) already prohibit discriminatory behavior. And normal conduct processes already have the ability to lay down the strictest punishment theoretically possible - an indefinite ban - for anyone who engages in such behavior.
== Request for comments ==
:I do not like the idea of what amounts to bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. That is the ''best'' way I can put it. At worst, this is virtue signaling - it’s waving a flag saying “hey, public and editors, Misplaced Pages cares about discrimination so much we made a specific policy about it” - without even saying the next part “but our existing policies already get people who discriminate against other editors banned, so this was not necessary and a waste of time”. I’ll happily admit I’m proven wrong if someone can show evidence of a case where actual discrimination was not acted upon because people were “concerned” it wasn’t violating one of those other policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::To clarify, all the comments about "why is this included" or "why is this not included" are part of the reason I'm against a specific policy like this. Any disruption can be handled by normal processes, and a specific policy will lead to wikilawyering over what is or is not discrimination. There is no need to try to define/specifically treat discrimination when all discriminatory behaviors are adequately covered by other policies already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*We should be relating to other editors in a kind way. But this proposal appears to make the editing environment more hostile with more blocking on the opinion of one person. We do discrimonate against those that use Misplaced Pages for wrong purposes, such as vandalism, or advertising. Pushing a particular point of view is more grey area. The proposal by cyberwolf is partly point of view that many others would disagree with. So we should concentrate policies on how a user relates to other editors, rather than their motivations or opinions. ] (]) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think this is valuable by setting a redline for a certain sort of personal attack and saying, "this is a line nobody is permitted to cross while participating in this project." ] (]) 20:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* It is not possible for the content of a discussion to be "discriminatory". Discrimination is action, not speech. This proposal looks like an attempt to limit discourse to a certain point of view. That's not a good idea. --] (]) 21:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Discrimination can very much be speech. ] (]) 00:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Nope. --] (]) 00:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::: : "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their race, gender, sexuality, etc".
*:::So yes, that includes speech because you can treat people differently in speech. Speech is an act. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::OK, look, I'll concede part of the point here. Yes, if I'm a dick to (name of group) but not to (name of other group), I suppose that is discrimination, but I don't think a discrimination policy is a particularly useful tool for this, because what I ''should'' do is not be a dick to anybody.
*::::What I'm concerned about is that the policy would be used to assert that certain ''content'' is discriminatory. Say someone says, here's a reliable source that says biological sex is real and has important social consequences, and someone else says, you can't bring that up, it's discriminatory. Well, no, that's a category error. That sort of thing ''can't'' be discriminatory. --] (]) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::just drop it ]] 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would remove anything to do with polical position. Those on the far-right should be discriminated against. '']''<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Please comment on my suggested additions to ] about what lists should not be created, ]. Thanks in advance ]—] 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:* The examples you use show that we've been dealing effectively without this additional set of guidelines; it would be more convincing that something was needed if you had examples where the lack of this policy caused bad outcomes. And I can see it being used as a hammer; while we're probably picturing "as a White man, I'm sure that I understand chemistry better than any of you lesser types" as what we're going after, I can see some folks trying to wield it against "as a Comanche raised on the Comanche nation, I think I have some insights on the Comanche language that others here are overlooking." As such, I'm cautious. -- ] (]) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== marginal journalism ==
*'''Comment'''. I am sorry that ] discrimination is being ignored here. ] (]) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
*'''Not needed'''. Everything the proposal is talking about would constitute disruptive behavior, and we can block or ban someone for being disruptive already. No need to break disruption down into its component parts, and write rules for each. ] (]) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{Discussion bottom}}
An editor is trying to distort the ] article by using unreliable sources. None of these people in the sources have qualifications to speak authoritatively on religious issues, yet by including them in the article who give credence to their outlandish claims that Dobson is a "leader" in the "Dominionist movement." I have checked sources, ranging from the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, to various religious, sociological and political journals and magazines carried by major academic databases such as Academic Source Premier and UMI/Proquest. I cannot find any other sources who make this outlandish claims except for these small group of journalists (and an activist website Theocracy Watch, which is even more unreliable as source). If this inclusion can be carried as NPOV, then I am not sure what can be excluded from Misplaced Pages at all. Please advice. --LC 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== Repeated false retirement ==
:Initially, looks more like a edit-skirmish between yourself and a series of opposing view editors. The sources added by the anons would seem to pass ] - you can't exclude a source because the writer doesn't have the right qualifications. Perhaps a question of balance yes, and disturbing that they removed you NPOV tag, so I have reapplied it and started a discussion on the talk page. Will keep a watch on the article. Rgds, - ]
There is a user (who shall remain unnamed) who has "retired" twice and had the template removed from their page by other users because they were clearly still editing. They are now on their third "retirement", yet they last edited a few days ago. I don't see any policy formally prohibiting such behavior, but it seems extremely unhelpful for obvious reasons. ] 17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said at ] where LC posted exactly te same spurious complaint:
:Unless the material is harmful to Misplaced Pages or other users, users have considerable leeway in what they may post on their user page. Personally, I always take "retirement" notices with a grain of salt. If a user wants to claim they are retired even though they are still actively editing, I don't see the harm to anything but their credibility. If I want to know if an editor is currently active, I look at their contributions, not at notices on their user or talk page. ] 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
{{cquote| The sources I have added are:
:{{br}}I can't imagine that this calls for a policy. You're allowed to be annoyed if you want. No one can take that away from you. But I'm missing an explanation of why the rest of us should care. --] (]) 22:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* Michelle Goldberg, a journalist who teaches at NYU; the material comes from a book of hers on the subject published by W.W. Norton;
::This seems a little prickly, my friend. Clearly, the other two users who removed older retirement notices cared. At the end of the day, it's definitely not the most major thing, but it is helpful to have a reliable and simple indication as to whether or not a user can be expected to respond to any kind of communication or feedback. I'm not going to die on this hill. Cheers. ] 22:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* A article by Jane Lampman from the Christian Science Monitor;
:::A "retirement notice" from a Misplaced Pages editor is approximately as credible as a "retirement notice" from a famous rock and roll band. Ignore it. ] (]) 03:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* An article by Bob Moser in Rolling Stone; and
:::FWIW, those two other editors were in the wrong to edit another person's user page for this kind of thing. And the retired banner ''does'' indicate: don't expect a quick response, even if I made an edit a few days or even minutes ago, as I may not be around much. ] (]) 12:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
* Frederick Clarkson, a reputable journalist and author of a book on the topic.
:There's a lot of active editors on the project, with retirement templates on their user pages. ] (]) 03:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:I think it's kind of rude to edit someone else's user page unless there is an extreme reason, like reversing vandalism or something. On ] I don't see anything about retirement templates, but i do see it say "In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask." If someone wants to identify as retired but sometimes drop by and edit, that doesn't seem to hurt anything. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 03:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages is ], so even a "non-retired" editor might never edit again. And if someone is "retired" but still constructively edits, just consider that a bonus. What's more problematic is a petulant editor who "retires", but returns and edits disruptively; in such case, it's their disruptive behavior that would be the issue, not a trivial retirement notice. —] (]) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned it's just another userbox you can put on your userpage. We only remove userboxes and userspace material if they're claiming to have a right that they don't (ie. a user with an Administrator toolbox who isn't an admin). Retirement is not an official term defined in policy anywhere, and being retired confers no special status. '''] ]''' 11:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:If you see a retirement template that seems to be false you could post a message on the user talk page to ask if they are really retired. I suppose it could be just a tiny bit disruptive if we cannot believe such templates, but nowhere near enough to warrant sanctions or a change in policy. ] (]) 13:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
== What is the purpose of banning? ==
I also restored material from Theocracy Watch, which was present when LC whitewashed the whole section. I did not say "X is Y", I stated that "X has been described as being Y" and supplied the (reliable) sources. ] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC) }}
::You could try going a step further... and say "According to source Z, X has been described as being Y<nowiki><cite></nowiki>" ] 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In thinking about a recent banned user's request to be unblocked, I've been reading ] and ] trying to better understand the differences. In particular, I'm trying to better understand what criteria should be applied when deciding whether to end a sanction.
== Articles on Acts of Infamy ==
One thing that stuck me is that for blocks, we explicitly say {{tq|Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users}}. The implication being that a user should be unblocked if we're convinced they no longer present a threat of damage or disruption. No such statement exists for bans, which implies that bans ''are'' be a form of punishment. If that's the case, then the criteria should not just be "we think they'll behave themselves now", but "we think they've endured sufficiently onerous punishment to atone for their misbehavior", which is a fundamentally different thing.
I get the feeling this is going to be extremely controversial, but I think it's important to discuss. I'm not very neutral (since I'm a student at Virginia Tech and lost more than one close friend), so I won't suggest many specific ideas--just describe the problem.
I'm curious how other people feel about this. ] ] 16:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Freedom of information is important, but at some point it may become a violation of integrity. For example, the shooter at Virginia Tech sent a video to NBC of himself as he wanted to be seen. By airing this video, NBC gave him the voice he wanted even as he took away the voices of thirty-two other individuals.
:My understanding (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that blocks are made by individual admins, and may be lifted by an admin (noting that CU blocks should only be lifted after clearance by a CU), while bans are imposed by ARBCOM or the community and require ARBCOM or community discussion to lift. Whether block or ban, a restriction on editing should only be imposed when it is the opinion of the admin, or ARBCOM, or the community, that such restriction is necessary to protect the encyclopedia from further harm or disruption. I thinks bans carry the implication that there is less chance that the banned editor will be able to successfully return to editing than is the case for blocked editors, but that is not a punishment, it is a determination of what is needed to protect WP in the future. ] 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The worst part is that this voice is what will inspire (and in fact already has inspired) others to follow in his footsteps. He desired infamy, and he got it. Others will see that and try to get the same thing for themselves. This is pretty well-documented, I think (I don't remember names, but I think it's reasonably accepted by criminal psychologists).
:Good question. I'm interested in what ban evasion sources think about current policies, people who have created multiple accounts, been processed at SPI multiple times, made substantial numbers of edits, the majority of which are usually preserved by the community in practice for complicated reasons (a form of reward in my view - the community sends ban evading actors very mixed messages). What's their perspective on blocks and bans and how to reduce evasion? It is not easy to get this kind of information unfortunately as people who evade bans and blocks are not very chatty it seems. But I have a little bit of data from one source for interest, Irtapil. Here are a couple of views from the other side.
:* On socking - "automatic second chance after first offense with a 2 week ban / block, needs to be easier than making a third one so people don't get stuck in the loop"
:* On encouraging better conduct - "they need to gently restrict people, not shun and obliterate"
:No comment on the merits of these views, or whether punishment is what is actually happening, or is required, or effective, but it seems clear that it is likely to be perceived as punishment and counterproductive (perhaps unsurprisingly) by some affected parties. ] (]) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
:Blocks are a sanction authorized by the community to be placed by administrators on their own initiative, for specific violations as described by a policy, guideline, or arbitration remedy (in which case the community authorization is via the delegated authority to the arbitration committee). Blocks can also be placed to enforce an editing restriction. A ban is an editing restriction. As described on the banning policy page, it is a {{tq|formal prohibition from editing some or all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Misplaced Pages pages. Bans can be imposed for a specified or an indefinite duration.}} Aside from cases where the community has delegated authority to admins to enact bans on their own initiative, either through community authorization of discretionary sanctions, or arbitration committee designated contentious topics, editing restrictions are authorized through community discussion. They cover cases where there isn't a single specific violation for which blocking is authorized by guidance/arbitration remedy, and so a pattern of behaviour and the specific circumstances of the situation have to be discussed and a community consensus established.
:Historically, removing blocks and bans require a consensus from the authorizing party that removing it will be beneficial to the project. Generally, the community doesn't like to impose editing restrictions when there is promise for improved behaviour, so they're enacted for more severe cases of poor behaviour. Thus it's not unusual that the community is somewhat skeptical about lifting recently enacted restrictions (where "recent" can vary based on the degree of poor behaviour and the views of each community member). Personally I don't think this means an atonement period should be mandated. ] (]) 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*I think that a block is a preventive measure, whereas a ban is where the community's reached a consensus to uninvite a particular person from the site. Misplaced Pages is the site that anyone can edit, except for a few people we've decided we can't or won't work with. A ban is imposed by a sysop on behalf of the community whereas a block is imposed on their own authority.—] <small>]/]</small> 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
*:A ban does not always stop you from editing Misplaced Pages. It may prohibit you from editing in a certain topic area (BLP for example or policies) but you can still edit other areas. ] (solidly non-human), ], ] 00:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*Seems to be addressed in ], which explains that the criteria is ''not'' dependent upon an editor merely ''behaving'' with what appears to be "{{tq|good or good-faith edits}}". A ban is based on a persistent or long-term pattern of editing behavior that demonstrates a significant risk of "{{tq|disruption, issues, or harm}}" to the area in which they are banned from, despite any number of positive contributions said editor has made or is willing to make moving forward. As such, it naturally requires a higher degree of review (i.e. a form of community consensus) to be imposed or removed (though many simply expire upon a pre-determined expiration date without review). While some may interpret bans as a form of punishment, they are still a preventative measure at their core. At least that's my understanding. --] (]) 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
== Contacting/discussing organizations that fund Misplaced Pages editing ==
My very general proposal is that Wikipedians take steps to take away the voices of those who commit acts of infamy. While it is absolutely necessary to document their lives--ideally to prevent it from happening in the future--it is not necessary to show their videos and pictures in order to understand them better. If videos and such things must be kept, put them on a separate page on psychology of killers. Don't attach them to the killer him/herself.
I have seen it asserted that contacting another editor's employer is always harassment and therefore grounds for an indefinite block without warning. I absolutely get why we take it seriously and 99% of the time this norm makes sense. (I'm using the term "norm" because I haven't seen it explicitly written in policy.)
Additionally, if the shooter gets his or her own Misplaced Pages page, give each of the victims a page (rather than a redirect).
In some cases there is a conflict between this norm and the ways in which we handle disruptive editing that is funded by organizations. There are many types of organizations that fund disruptive editing - paid editing consultants, corporations promoting themselves, and state propaganda departments, to name a few. Sometimes the disruption is borderline or unintentional. There have been, for instance, WMF-affiliated outreach projects that resulted in copyright violations or other crap being added to articles.
A quick clarification: such a policy would not apply to, say, Hitler, because although Hitler was responsible for many acts of infamy, the acts themselves were committed by others at his behest. In the case of the shooter at Virginia Tech, the danger is not of history repeating itself in the group sense, but rather in the individual sense.
We regularly talk ] and off-wiki about organizations that fund Misplaced Pages editing. Sometimes there is consensus that the organization should either stop funding Misplaced Pages editing or should significantly change the way they're going about it. Sometimes the WMF legal team sends cease-and-desist letters.
In other words, studying Hitler tells people how to prevent/avoid acts of genocide. People are collectively capable of preventing those crimes. However, a shooting is not an act that involves any collective political momentum, and is very hard to prevent with any amount of study (except psychological).
Now here's the rub: Some of these organizations employ Misplaced Pages editors. If a view is expressed that the organizations should stop the disruptive editing, it is foreseeable that an editor will lose a source of income. Is it harassment for an editor to say "Organization X should stop/modify what it's doing to Misplaced Pages?" at AN/I? Of course not. Is it harassment for an editor to express the same view in a social media post? I doubt we would see it that way unless it names a specific editor.
Please, discuss. I may elect to stay out of the discussion, except to clarify individual points. --] 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet we've got this norm that we absolutely must not contact any organization that pays a Misplaced Pages editor, because this is a violation of the harassment policy. Where this leads is a bizarre situation in which we are allowed to discuss our beef with a particular organization on AN/I but nobody is allowed to email the organization even to say, "Hey, we're having a public discussion about you."
: I would like to note that ]. Just because you may not want someone to have an article because of evil deeds does not mean that the person in question should not have an article. ] ] 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I propose that '''if an organization is reasonably suspected to be funding Misplaced Pages editing, contacting the organization should not in and of itself be considered harassment.''' I ask that in this discussion, we not refer to real cases of alleged harassment, both to avoid bias-inducing emotional baggage and to prevent distress to those involved. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I'm right there with you, and not proposing censorship--merely VERY careful presentation of all of the facts. --] 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*If it's needful to contact an organisation about one of their employees' edits, Trust and Safety should do that. Not volunteers.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::There are two sides to a policy debate to my mind. The first is the proposal and debate around it; and the second is how to implement that consensus into something which an editor can comply with when creating or editting an article. Our primary purpose here is to document fact, in an open environment - the counter debate to your proposal could be: "we want everything in the open so that such people can be more easily spotted in the future, and the authorities/police do their job." You may not agree with that, but it is a valid stance - but the balance between the two positions in such sensitive ares is better debated on the articles talk page than in policy: and we don't censor input. In trying to implement such a proposal, how could we do this? Ban videos of murderes (the video is now public domain), ban media input (how could we create sources)? I can see there is a sensitivity around timing (same rules couldn't be applied to something fifty years old? Nah, there are some old horrors out there as well), but again I don't see how policy could be defined as to what is right/wrong in every situation. For an example of a debate on a sensitive issue, see the one on killing/murder above - almost there, but that's on only one word. I like the idea and have like many others I am sure a great deal of sympathy for you and your freinds at VirginiaTech as you come to terms with what happened. But, I can't see how clear policy could be created which would cover all situations and meet our primary objectives. With Best Regards, --] 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*:Let's say Acme Corporation has been spamming Misplaced Pages. If you post on Twitter "Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages" is that harassment? How about if you write "@Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages?" Should only Trust and Safety be allowed to add the @ sign? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 15:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::What you post on Twitter isn't something Misplaced Pages can control. But contacting another editor's employer about that editor's edits has a dark history on Misplaced Pages.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::The history is dark indeed. What I'm pointing out is that writing "@Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages" on Twitter '''is''' contacting another editor's employer. Should you be indef blocked without warning for doing that? ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 15:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::You want an "in principle" discussion without talking about specific cases, so the only way I can answer that is to say: Not always, but depending on the surrounding circumstances, possibly.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::I agree. You said it better than I did. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 18:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Another issue is that it sometimes doing that can place another link or two in a wp:outing chain, and IMO avoiding that is of immense importance. The way that you posed the question with the very high bar of "always" is probably not the most useful for the discussion. Also, a case like this is almost always involves a concern about a particular editor or center around edits made by a particular editor, which I think is a non-typical omission from your hypothetical example. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As far as videos and pictures go... I would say that the video diatribe put out by the VT killer should not be used... not because of censorship, but becuase it should be considered a primary source... the use of which is discouraged under our rules. It is important to any article about an infamous event or person that we discuss (in a neutral tone) why the event happened and the person did what they did... and that may require quoting their statements... but we should be using reliable secondary sources to do so. The VT killer's stated motives were discussed by numerous magazines and newspapers... we should cite and quote those, and not quote him directly. ] 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not sure what you mean by placing a link in an outing chain. Can you explain this further? I used the very high bar of "always" because I have seen admins refer to it as an "always" or a "bright line" and this shuts down the conversation. Changing the norm from "is always harassment" to "is usually harassment" is exactly what I'm trying to do.
== Protocols for Administrators ==
:Organizations that fund disruptive editing often hire just one person to do it but I've also seen plenty of initiatives that involve money being distributed widely, sometimes in the form of giving perks to volunteers. ''If'' the organization is represented by only one editor then there is obviously a stronger argument that contacting the organization constitutes harassment. ] (] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ]) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
* Does the community believe administrators, when settling disputes, should do their best to gather comment from all parties, prior to making their own comment (or any decision)? 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
* Does the community believe administrators, in any circumstance, should refrain from making comments regarding motivations, especially colloquial and disrespectful ones? 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC) {{unsigned|Alastair Haines}}
== General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed ==
Do you perhaps have a background from which you are asking these obviously leading questions? ] 10:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The original ] discussion, which set off these general reliability discussions in 2017, was supposed to reduce discussion about it, something which it obviously failed to do since we have had more than 20 different discussions about its reliability since then. Generally speaking, a review of ] does not support the idea that general reliability discussions have reduced discussion about the reliability of sources either. Instead, we see that we have repeated discussions about the reliability of sources, even where their reliability was never seriously questioned. We have had a grand total of 22 separate discussions about the reliability of the BBC, for example, 10 of which have been held since 2018. We have repeated discussions about sources that are cited in relatively few articles (e.g., Jacobin).
:Is this in relation to the debate on teh article about ]? Rgds, --] 10:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Moreover these discussions spark unnecessary conflict with parties off wiki that harm the reputation of the project. Most recently we have had an unnecessary conflict with the Anti-Defamation League sparked by a general reliability discussion with them, but the original Daily Mail discussion did this also. In neither case was usage of the source a problem generally on Misplaced Pages in any way that has been lessened by their deprecation - they were neither widely-used, nor permitted to be used in a way that was problematic by existing policy on using reliable sources.
== Creating a list at the exact moment a vote to delete a category is taking place ==
There is also some evidence, particularly from ], that some editors have sought to "claim scalps" by getting sources they are opposed to on ideological grounds 'banned' from Misplaced Pages. Comments in such discussions are often heavily influenced by people's impression of the bias of the source.
An interesting and important debate is taking place at ] about the correctness of creating a list for information in a category that is facing a CfD, at the exact time that the category is facing its own CfD. Are there any precedants for this, and does it run counter to procedures, similar to the rule of not emptying a category while a vote is taking place (when by creating the list, one is in effect doing the reverse of emptying the category by ''preserving'' the category -- or ''vice versa'')? Is it correct? Should it be permitted? Are there clear policy guidelines and what should (if anything) be done about it in terms of clarifying what the correct action should be? Thank you. ] 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see anything wrong with creating any article based on the timing of any particular CfD discussion. If there is something wrong with the article other than the timing of the CfD, the article can stand (or fall) after its own, unrelated AfD process. -- ] 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::But if it were a list with the exact information contained in the category, would it not be going around and in effect pre-empting the results of its mirror category, by doing an "end-run" (and "preserving" the information in the category) before that category's CfD was closed? ] 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Categories and lists have some similarities but in the end are different (edit histories, for instance). A CfD isn't about getting rid of the information in a category, it's about getting rid of the category itself. IMO. -- ] 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Well what's a category without it's information? Zero obviously. So it cannot be that when talknig of a category one can divorce it of its contents. ] 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::An empty category is not zero, but semantics aside, right. But it's not an "IfD". I still do not see the problem with going through both a CfD and an AfD, if both the category and the article are to be deleted. -- ] 19:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a the very least we need a ]-like requirement for these discussions, where the editors bringing the discussion have to show that the source is one for which the reliability of which has serious consequences for content on Misplaced Pages, and that they have tried to resolve the matter in other ways. The recent discussion about Jacobin, triggered simply by a comment by a Jacobin writer on Reddit, would be an example of a discussion that would be stopped by such a requirement. ] (]) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*I don't see it as a significant problem. Certainly, in some cases, the list/category issue can be a problem, as there have been poorly made categories converted into lists (and vice versa) which should be avoided, but it is not so disruptive that it is truly a problem. Especially since there are times where a list/category conversion can fix a problem. I would honestly concentrate on the specific issue, and not on any kind of procedure that needs to be followed. If a category is a bad idea, and a list is a bad idea, they can be deleted. If a list is a good idea, and a category a bad one, delete one, keep the other. ] 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*The purpose of this proposal is to reduce discussion of sources. I feel that evaluating the reliability of sources is the single most important thing that we as a community can do, and I don't want to reduce the amount of discussion about sources. So I would object to this.—] <small>]/]</small> 16:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
**I don't thinks meant to reduce but instead start more discussions at a more appropriate level than at VPP or RSP. Starting the discussion at the VPP/RSP level means you are trying to get all editors involved, which for most cases isn't really appropriate ( eg one editor has a beef about a source and brings it to wide discussion before getting other input first). Foarp us right that when these discussion are first opened at VPP or RSP without prior attempts to resolve elsewhere is a wear on the process.<span id="Masem:1737564932296:WikipediaFTTCLNVillage_pump_(policy)" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
***Oh, well that makes more sense. We could expand ] to cover WP:RSP?—] <small>]/]</small> 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
***:Basically this. I favour something for RSP along the lines of ]/], an ] if you will. ] (]) 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Yeah I would support anything to reduce the constant attempts to kill sources at RSN. It has become one of the busiest pages on all of Misplaced Pages, maybe even surpassing ANI. -- ]] 19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Oddly enough, I am wondering why this discussion is here? And not Talk RSN:], as it now seems to be a process discussion (more BEFORE) for RSN? ] (]) 22:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
*Some confusion about pages here, with some mentions of RSP actually referring to RSN. RSN is a type of "before" for RSP, and RSP is intended as a summary of repeated RSN discussions. One purpose of RSP is to put a lid on discussion of sources that have appeared at RSN too many times. This isn't always successful, but I don't see a proposal here to alleviate that. Few discussions are started at RSP; they are started at RSN and may or may not result in a listing or a change at RSP. Also, many of the sources listed at RSP got there due to a formal RfC at RSN, so they were already subject to RFCBEFORE (not always obeyed). I'm wondering how many listings at RSN are created due to an unresolved discussion on an article talk page—I predict it is quite a lot. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
*:“Not always obeyed” is putting it mildly. ] (]) 06:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Primary sources vs Secondary sources ==
:::As the creator of the list in question, I'm afraid that IZAK appears to misunderstand several things.
:::*There are important differences between a list and a category: see ] "Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances."
:::*Many CfD discussions agree on the deletion of a category precisely ''because'' the info is available in some other way. IZAK's assumption that a CFD decision to delete a category necessarily means a decision to delete the information is seriously mistaken: there are plenty of CfDs where a category which deemed not to be a defining attribute or otherwise useful for navigation is deleted precisely because the info is available elsewhere, and the category is therefore un-needed category clutter. Some lists make bad categories, and vice-versa.
:::*At the ], I explicitly said that I had created the list. IZAK is the only editor to object, and several explicitly supported the existence of the list.
:::*Far from being akin to emptying a category, this is pretty much the ''opposite'' of emptying a category. Once a category is emptied it is a pain-in-the-neck to retrieve the data, which is why emptying it is deprecated before a CfD decision, because editors then can't see what was in a category. Similarly, once a category is deleted, it is very hard work to create a list from it: if the list is created in advance of deletion, the option still exists to delete it.
:::I created the list in good faith, to preserve information which I thought that some editors would not want deleted, and which would be lost if the category was deleted. As I have explained to IZAK at great length, this was done openly and in good faith ... but not only has IZAK declined my requests to withdraw his suggestion that I tried to subvert CFD, he has been decidedly uncivil to other editors at ].
:::It may be that I have made a mistake, though I am not persuaded so far and no-one else has so far agreed with IZAK ... but if I have, I think it's a great pity that the response was to assume that I acted in bad faith.
:::The final thing that puzzles me about all of this is that I and others have repeatedly asked IZAK to explain why he thinks that the list should be deleted other than on procedural grounds. So far, he has declined, preferring to post long lists of essays and wikiprojects. Nobody at AfD so far agrees that the list as inappropriately created, but if the content of the list is so clearly inappropriate, what's the difficulty in producing a short explanation of why it made a bad list?
:::BTW, I remain neutral on whether the list should be deleted. My only concern here is that I created it in good faith, and I hope that if it is to be deleted, it will be deleted on grounds of its contents rather than a mistaken accusation of "sleight of hand". --] <small>] • (])</small> 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
{{main|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television#Episode Counts}}
BrownHairedGirl: Allow me to repeat myself. I am well aware of the differences between categories and lists and how they function and the subject of categories versus lists. I created ] about three years ago and I have done extensive work with all levels of categories and with lists. So that is not the discussion at hand. My concern in ] is very simple that it is highly problematic to create a list that mirrors the contents for a category at the '''exact moment''' that there is a CfD vote for the elimination of that category and its contents. Just as it goes against procedure for ''any'' editor to empty a category during a CfD vote, to do the reverse, of "preserving" the contents of that category via the creation of a list is also out of line. (If, as you say, there is a concern about information being lost, then there are other ways of saving it on Misplaced Pages, like so: ], but not by jumping to create a list for it ''before'' the debate has been concluded and closed.) That is the core of the objection, and ultimately the request for clarification, that I request here at the Village pump. Thank you, ] 20:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above has spiralled out of control, and needs clarification. The discussion revolves around how to count episodes for TV series when a traditionally shorter episode (e.g., 30 minutes) is broadcast as a longer special (e.g., 60 minutes). The main point of contention is whether such episodes should count as one episode (since they aired as a single entity) or two episodes (reflecting production codes and industry norms).
The simple question is: <u>when primary sources and secondary sources conflict, which we do use on Misplaced Pages?</u>
:Here's the thing, I don't see it as highly problematic. Potentially, maybe a cause for concern, but in terms of problems, a minor one at best. ] 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::IZAK, I have explained to why this is pretty much the opposite of emptying a category, but you appear to have chosen not to read that explanation :( And if you were aware if the difference betwen categories and lists, I doubt that we would be having this discussion.<br />There was no subterfuge: this was done openly, with the sole intention that the data not disappear from[REDACTED] when the category was emptied, unless there was a specific decision to delete it (which can still be made). Nobody else finds this problematic in this instance.<br />I am still bemused that you apparently would find it acceptable to create the list ''after'' the CfD is closed, but an outrageous violation of procedure to that I created it while discussion was underway and advertised its creation to participants in the CfD. That really is a back-to-front way of looking at things. --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
* The contentious article behind this discussion is at ], in which , and all state that the series has 100 episodes; article from TFC, which is a direct copy of the press release from Disney Channel, also states that the series has "100 half-hour episodes".
== Clarification on whether particular sources are reliable or not is needed ==
* The article has 97 episodes listed; the discrepancy is from three particular episodes that are all an hour long (in a traditionally half-hour long slot). These episode receive two production codes, indicating two episodes, but each aired as one singular, continuous release. An editor argues that the definition of an episode means that these count as a singular episode, and stand by these episode being the important primary sources.
"Whether a history article published in a general, but respected newspaper can be reliable if it is written by a journalist with no established record of writing on historical topics?" The editors involved with ] article are unable to agree (for weeks) on that issue. See also ]. Commons are very much appreciated, so that hopefully a clear majority of voices supporting one or another side can put an end to this dispute (and tag revert warring in article itself).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
* The discussion above discusses what an episode is. Should these be considered one episode (per the primary source of the episode), or two episodes (per the secondary sources provided)? This is where the primary conflict is.
:I won't wade into the whole thing, but of course a major newspaper can be a reliable source. On the other hand, it would not carry as much weight for me as a peer reviewed journal, since the editors of a newspaper are likely to review for factual accuracy and style while the reviewers of a peer reviewed journal will be applying subject matter expertise to the review. I would think our best work would use newspapers mainly for factual citations as to what occurred or where, and not for analysis. ] 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
* Multiple editors have stated that the secondary sources refer to the ''production'' of the episodes, despite the secondary sources not using this word in any format, and that the primary sources therefore override the "incorrect" information of the secondary sources. Some editors have argued that there are 97 episodes, because that's what's listed in the article.
* ] has been cited; {{tq|Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources}}. An editor argues that there is not the required consensus. ] was also cited.
Another example was provided at ].
* The same editor arguing for the importance of the primary source stated that he would have listed this as one episode, despite a reliable source stating that there is 14 episodes in the season.
* ] has been quoted multiple times:
** {{tq|Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.}}
** {{tq|While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.}}
** {{tq|Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.}}
* Other quotes from the editors arguing for the importance of primary over secondary includes:
** {{tq|When a secondary source conflicts with a primary source we have an issue to be explained but when the primary source is something like the episodes themselves and what is in them and there is a conflict, we should go with the primary source.}}
** {{tq|We shouldn't be doing "is considered to be"s, we should be documenting what actually happened as shown by sources, the primary authoritative sources overriding conflicting secondary sources.}}
** {{tq|Yep, secondary sources are not perfect and when they conflict with authoritative primary sources such as released films and TV episodes we should go with what is in that primary source.}}
Having summarized this discussion, the question remains: when primary sources and secondary sources conflict, which we do use on Misplaced Pages?
# Primary, as the episodes are authoritative for factual information, such as runtime and presentation?
# Or secondary, which guide Misplaced Pages's content over primary interpretations?
-- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== Request for research input to inform policy proposals about banners & logos ==
== Template:ChemicalSources - Self-reference ==
I am leading an initiative to review and make recommendations on updates to policies and procedures governing decisions to run project banners or make temporary logo changes. The initiative is focused on ensuring that project decisions to run a banner or temporarily change their logo in response to an “external” event (such as a development in the news or proposed legislation) are made based on criteria and values that are shared by the global Wikimedia community. The first phase of the initiative is research into past examples of relevant community discussions and decisions. If you have examples to contribute, please do so on ]. Thanks! --] (]) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The template {{tl|ChemicalSources}}, which I came across today, is a tricky case of being a self-reference that does serve a certain purpose, and I'm not sure what should be done with it. If the template does go, it needs to be noted that it's transcluded in over 3000 articles on chemical substances, which sounds like bot work to me. Unfortunately, I think it's meant to pass the name of the substance to the ] page to become a parameter in the searches, presumably in a fashion similar to ], but I have no idea how that's supposed to happen, and at the moment it looks like it doesn't. Can someone please explain this to me? ] 23:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.
If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Misplaced Pages:Noticeboards.
If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus that participants in this discussion wish to retain the "Option 2" status quo. We're past 30 days of discussion and there's not much traffic on the discussion now. It's unlikely the consensus would suddenly shift with additional discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 – Require former administrators to request restoration of their tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (BN) if they are eligible to do so (i.e., they do not fit into any of the exceptions).
Option 2 – Clarify Maintain the status quo that former administrators who would be eligible to request restoration via BN may instead request restoration of their tools via a voluntary request for adminship (RfA).
Option 3 – Allow bureaucrats to SNOW-close RfAs as successful if (a) 48 hours have passed, (b) the editor has right of resysop, and (c) a SNOW close is warranted.
2, after thought. I don't think 3 provides much benefit, and creating separate class of RfAs that are speedy passed feels a misstep. If there are serious issues surrounding wasting time on RfAs set up under what might feel to someone like misleading pretenses, that is best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)". CMD (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
best solved by putting some indicator next to their RFA candidate name. Maybe "Hog Farm (RRfA)" - I like this idea, if option 2 comes out as consensus I think this small change would be a step in the right direction, as the "this isn't the best use of time" crowd (myself included) would be able to quickly identify the type of RFAs they don't want to participate in. BugGhost🦗👻11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. I would support adding some text encouraging people who are considering seeking reconfirmation to add (RRfA) or (reconfirmation) after their username in the RfA page title. That way people who are averse to reading or participating in reconfirmations can easily avoid them, and no one is confused about what is going on. 28bytes (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
If we are differentiating three types of RFA we need three terms. Post-recall RFAs are referred to as "reconfirmation RFAs", "Re-RFAS" or "RRFAs" in multiple places, so ones of the type being discussed here are the ones that should take the new term. "Voluntary reconfirmation RFA" (VRRFA or just VRFA) is the only thing that comes to mind but others will probably have better ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2 I don't see why people trying to do the right thing should be discouraged from doing so. If others feel it is a waste of time, they are free to simply not participate. El Beeblerino21:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course they may request at RfA. They shouldn't but they may. This RfA feels like it does nothing to address the criticism actually in play and per the link to the idea lab discussion it's premature to boot. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
2 per my comments at the idea lab discussion and Queent of Hears, Beeblebrox and Scazjmd above. I strongly disagree with Barkeep's comment that "They shouldn't ". It shouldn't be made mandatory, but it should be encouraged where the time since desysop and/or the last RFA has been lengthy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
When to encourage it would be a worthwhile RfC and such a discussion could be had at the idea lab before launching an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
1 or 3. RFA is an "expensive" process in terms of community time. RFAs that qualify should be fast-tracked via the BN process. It is only recently that a trend has emerged that folks that don't need to RFA are RFAing again. 2 in the last 6 months. If this continues to scale up, it is going to take up a lot of community time, and create noise in the various RFA statistics and RFA notification systems (for example, watchlist notices and User:Enterprisey/rfa-count-toolbar.js). –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Making statistics "noisy" is just a reason to improve the way the statistics are gathered. In this case collecting statistics for reconfirmation RFAs separately from other RFAs would seem to be both very simple and very effective. If (and it is a very big if) the number of reconfirmation RFAs means that notifications are getting overloaded, then we can discuss whether reconfirmation RFAs should be notified differently. As far as differentiating them, that is also trivially simple - just add a parameter to template:RFA (perhaps "reconfirmation=y") that outputs something that bots and scripts can check for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm weakly opposed to option 3, editors who want feedback and a renewed mandate from the community should be entitled to it. If they felt that that a quick endorsement was all that was required then could have had that at BN, they explicitly chose not to go that route. Nobody is required to participate in an RFA, so if it is going the way you think it should, or you don't have an opinion, then just don't participate and your time has not been wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Added option 3 above. Maybe worth considering as a happy medium, where unsure admins can get a check on their conduct without taking up too much time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
2 – If a former admin wishes to subject themselves to RfA to be sure they have the requisite community confidence to regain the tools, why should we stop them? Any editor who feels the process is a waste of time is free to ignore any such RfAs. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I would also support option 3 if the time is extended to 72 hours instead of 48. That, however, is a detail that can be worked out after this RfC. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
A further note: option 3 gives 'crats the discretion to SNOW close a successful voluntary re-RfA; it doesn't require such a SNOW close, and I trust the 'crats to keep an RfA open if an admin has a good reason for doing so. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 (no change) – The sample size is far too small for us to analyze the impact of such a change, but I believe RfA should always be available. Now that WP:RECALL is policy, returning administrators may worry that they have become out of touch with community norms and may face a recall as soon as they get their tools back at BN. Having this familiar community touchpoint as an option makes a ton of sense, and would be far less disruptive / demoralizing than a potential recall. Taking this route away, even if it remains rarely used, would be detrimental to our desire for increased administrator accountability. – bradv22:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
2, distant second preference 3. I would probably support 3 as first pick if not for recall's rule regarding last RfA, but as it stands, SNOW-closing a discussion that makes someone immune to recall for a year is a non-starter. Between 1 and 2, though, the only argument for 1 seems to be that it avoids a waste of time, for which there is the much simpler solution of not participating and instead doing something else. Special:Random and Misplaced Pages:Backlog are always there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1. No second preference between 2 or 3. As long as a former administrator didn't resign under a cloud, picking up the tools again should be low friction and low effort for the entire community. If there are issues introduced by the recall process, they should be fixed in the recall policy itself. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, i.e. leave well enough alone. There is really not a problem here that needs fixing. If someone doesn’t want to “waste their time” participating in an RfA that’s not required by policy, they can always, well, not participate in the RfA. No one is required to participate in someone else’s RfA, and I struggle to see the point of participating but then complaining about “having to” participate. 28bytes (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3: Because it is incredibly silly to have situations like we do now of "this guy did something wrong by doing an RfA that policy explicitly allows, oh well, nothing to do but sit on our hands and dissect the process across three venues and counting." Your time is your own. No one is forcibly stealing it from you. At the same time it is equally silly to let the process drag on, for reasons explained in WP:SNOW. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 per Gnoming. I think 2 works, but it is a very long process and for someone to renew their tools, it feels like an unnecessarily long process compared to a normal RfA. Conyo14 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
As someone who supported both WormTT and Hog Farm's RfAs, option 1 > option 3 >> option 2. At each individual RfA the question is whether or not a specific editor should be an admin, and in both cases I felt that the answer was clearly "yes". However, I agree that RfA is a very intensive process. It requires a lot of time from the community, as others have argued better than I can. I prefer option 1 to option 3 because the existence of the procedure in option 3 implies that it is a good thing to go through 48 hours of RfA to re-request the mop. But anything which saves community time is a good thing. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I've seen this assertion made multiple times now that requires a lot of time from the community, yet nowhere has anybody articulated how why this is true. What time is required, given that nobody is required to participate and everybody who does choose to participate can spend as much or as little time assessing the candidate as they wish? How and why does a reconfirmation RFA require any more time from editors (individually or collectively) than a request at BN? Thryduulf (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think there are a number of factors and people are summing it up as "time-wasting" or similar:
BN Is designed for this exact scenario. It's also clearly a less contentious process.
Snow closures a good example of how we try to avoid wasting community time on unnecessary process and the same reasoning applies here. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to have a 7-day process when the outcome is a given.
If former administrators continue to choose re-RFAs over BN, it could set a problematic precedent where future re-adminship candidates feel pressured to go through an RFA and all that entails. I don't want to discourage people already vetted by the community from rejoining the ranks.
The RFA process is designed to be a thoughtful review of prospective administrators and I'm concerned these kinds of perfunctory RFAs will lead to people taking the process less seriously in the future.
Because several thousand people have RFA on their watchlist, and thousands more will see the "there's an open RFA" notice on theirs whether they follow it or not. Unlike BN, RFA is a process that depends on community input from a large number of people. In order to even realise that the RFA is not worth their time, they have to:
Read the opening statement and first few question answers (I just counted, HF's opening and first 5 answers are about 1000 words)
Think, "oh, they're an an ex-admin, I wonder why they're going through RFA, what was their cloud"
Read through the comments and votes to see if any issues have been brought up (another ~1000 words)
None have
Realise your input is not necessary and this could have been done at BN
That they were former admins has always been the first two sentences of their RfA’s statement, sentences which are immediately followed by that they resigned due to personal time commitment issues. You do not have to read the first 1000+ words to figure that out. If the reader wants to see if the candidate was lying in their statement, then they just have a quick skim through the oppose section. None of this should take more than 30 seconds in total. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Not everyone can skim things easily - it personally takes me a while to read sections. I don't know if they're going to bury the lede and say something like "Also I made 10,000 insane redirects and then decided to take a break just before arbcom launched a case" in paragraph 6. Hog Farm's self nom had two paragraphs about disputes and it takes more than 30 seconds to unpick that and determine if that is a "cloud" or not. Even for reconfirmations, it definitely takes more than 30 seconds to determine a conclusion. BugGhost🦗👻11:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
They said they resigned to personal time commitments. That is directly saying they wasn’t under a cloud, so I’ll believe them unless someone claims the contrary in the oppose section. If the disputes section contained a cloud, the oppose section would have said so. One chooses to examine such nominations like normal RfAs. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to double check, you're saying that whenever you go onto an RFA you expect any reason to oppose to already be listed by someone else, and no thought is required? I am begining to see how you are able to assess an RFA in under 30 seconds BugGhost🦗👻23:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Something in their statement would be an incredibly obvious reason. We are talking about the assessment whether to examine and whether the candidate could've used BN. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@Thryduulf let's not confuse "a lot of community time is spent" with "waste of time". Some people have characterized the re-RFAs as a waste of time but that's not the assertion I (and I think a majority of the skeptics) have been making. All RfAs use a lot of community time as hundreds of voters evaluate the candidate. They then choose to support, oppose, be neutral, or not vote at all. While editor time is not perfectly fixed - editors may choose to spend less time on non-Misplaced Pages activities at certain times - neither is it a resource we have in abundance anymore relative to our project. And so I think we, as a community, need to be thought about how we're using that time especially when the use of that time would have been spent on other wiki activities.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing compels anybody to spend any time evaluating an RFA. If you think your wiki time is better spent elsewhere than evaluating an RFA candidate, then spend it elsewhere. That way only those who do think it is a good use of their time will participate and everybody wins. You win by not spending your time on something that you don't think is worth it, those who do participate don't have their time wasted by having to read comments (that contradict explicit policy) about how the RFA is a waste of time. Personally I regard evaluating whether a long-time admin still has the approval of the community to be a very good use of community time, you are free to disagree, but please don't waste my time by forcing me to read comments about how you think I'm wasting my time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand how your argument that it is not a good use of community time is any different from arguing that it is a waste of time? Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 I don't mind the re-RFAs, but I'd appreciate if we encouraged restoration via BN instead, I just object to making it mandatory. EggRoll9706:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. Banning voluntary re-RfAs would be a step in the wrong direction on admin accountability. Same with SNOW closing. There is no more "wasting of community time" if we let the RfA run for the full seven days, but allowing someone to dig up a scandal on the seventh day is an important part of the RfA process. The only valid criticism I've heard is that folks who do this are arrogant, but banning arrogance, while noble, seems highly impractical. Toadspike07:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3, 1, then 2, per HouseBlaster. Also agree with Daniel Quinlan. I think these sorts of RFA's should only be done in exceptional circumstances. Graham87 (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1 as first preference, option 3 second. RFAs use up a lot of time - hundreds of editors will read the RFA and it takes time to come to a conclusion. When that conclusion is "well that was pointless, my input wasn't needed", it is not a good system. I think transparency and accountability is a very good thing, and we need more of it for resyssopings, but that should come from improving the normal process (BN) rather than using a different one (RFA). My ideas for improving the BN route to make it more transparent and better at getting community input is outlined over on the idea labBugGhost🦗👻08:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, though I'd be for option 3 too. I'm all for administrators who feel like they want/should go through an RfA to solicit feedback even if they've been given the tools back already. I see multiple people talk about going through BN, but if I had to hazard a guess, it's way less watched than RfA is. However I do feel like watchlist notifications should say something to the effect of "A request for re-adminship feedback is open for discussion" so that people that don't like these could ignore them. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 09:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 because WP:ADMINISTRATORS is well-established policy. Read WP:ADMINISTRATORS#Restoration of admin tools, which says quite clearly, Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. I went back 500 edits to 2017 and the wording was substantially the same back then. So, I simply do not understand why various editors are berating former administrators to the point of accusing them of wasting time and being arrogant for choosing to go through a process which is specifically permitted by policy. It is bewildering to me. Cullen328 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 & 3 I think that there still should be the choice between BN and re-RFA for resysops, but I think that the re-RFA should stay like it is in Option 3, unless it is controversial, at which point it could be extended to the full RFA period. I feel like this would be the best compromise between not "wasting" community time (which I believe is a very overstated, yet understandable, point) and ensuring that the process is based on broad consensus and that our "representatives" are still supported. If I were WTT or Hog, I might choose to make the same decision so as to be respectful of the possibility of changing consensus. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2, for lack of a better choice. Banning re-RFAs is not a great idea, and we should not SNOW close a discussion that would give someone immunity from a certain degree of accountability. I've dropped an idea for an option 4 in the discussion section below. Giraffer (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1 I agree with Graham87 that these sorts of RFAs should only be done in exceptional circumstances, and BN is the best place to ask for tools back. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 I don't think prohibition makes sense. It also has weird side effects. eg: some admins' voluntary recall policies may now be completely void, because they would be unable to follow them even if they wanted to, because policy prohibits them from doing a RFA. (maybe if they're also 'under a cloud' it'd fit into exemptions, but if an admins' policy is "3 editors on this named list tell me I'm unfit, I resign" then this isn't really a cloud.) Personally, I think Hog Farm's RFA was unwise, as he's textbook uncontroversial. Worm's was a decent RFA; he's also textbook uncontroversial but it happened at a good time. But any editor participating in these discussions to give the "support" does so using their own time. Everyone who feels their time is wasted can choose to ignore the discussion, and instead it'll pass as 10-0-0 instead of 198-2-4. It just doesn't make sense to prohibit someone from seeking a community discussion, though. For almost anything, really. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 It takes like two seconds to support or ignore an RFA you think is "useless"... can't understand the hullabaloo around them. I stand by what I said on WTT's re-RFA regarding RFAs being about evaluating trustworthiness and accountability. Trustworthy people don't skip the process. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2 is fine. Strong oppose to 1 and 3. Opposing option 1 because there is nothing wrong with asking for extra community feedback. opposing option 3 because once an RfA has been started, it should follow the standard rules. Note that RfAs are extremely rare and non-contentious RfAs require very little community time (unlike this RfC which seems a waste of community time, but there we are). —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2, with no opposition to 3. I see nothing wrong with a former administrator getting re-confirmed by the community, and community vetting seems like a good thing overall. If people think it's a waste of time, then just ignore the RfA. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
No individual is wasting their time participating. Instead the person asking for a re-rfa is using tons of editor time by asking hundreds of people to vet them. Even the choice not to participate requires at least some time to figure out that this is not a new RfA; though at least in the two we've had recently it would require only as long as it takes to get to the RfA - for many a click from the watchlist and then another click into the rfa page - and to read the first couple of sentences of the self-nomination which isn't terribly long all things considered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you (I think) that it's a matter of perspective. For me, clicking the RFA link in my watchlist and reading the first paragraph of Hog Farm's nomination (where they explained that they were already a respected admin) took me about 10 seconds. Ten seconds is nothing; in my opinion, this is just a nonissue. But then again, I'm not an admin, checkuser, or an oversighter. Maybe the time to read such a nomination is really wasting their time. I don't know. TheWikiToby (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm an admin and an oversighter (but not a checkuser). None of my time was wasted by either WTT or Hog Farm's nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2. This reminds me of banning plastic straws (bear with me). Sure, I suppose in theory, that this is a burden on the community's time (just as straws do end up in landfills/the ocean). However, the amount of community time that is drained is minuscule compared to the amount of community time drained in countless, countless other fora and processes (just like the volume of plastic waste contributed by plastic straws is less than 0.001% of the total plastic waste). When WP becomes an efficient, well oiled machine, then maybe we can talk about saving community time by banning re-RFA's. But this is much ado about nothing, and indeed this plan to save people from themselves, and not allow them to simply decide whether to participate or not, is arguably more damaging than some re-RFAs (just as banning straws convinced some people that "these save-the-planet people are so ridiculous that I'm not going to bother listening to them about anything."). And, in fact, on a separate note, I'd actually love it if more admins just ran a re-RFA whenever they wanted. They would certainly get better feedback than just posting "What do my talk page watchers think?" on their own talk page. Or waiting until they get yelled at on their talk page, AN/ANI, AARV, etc. We say we want admins to respect feedback; does it have to be in a recall petition? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What meaningful feedback has Hog Farm gotten? "A minority of people think you choose poorly in choosing this process to regain adminship". What are they supposed to do with that? I share your desire for editors to share meaningful feedback with administrators. My own attempt yielded some, though mainly offwiki where I was told I was both too cautious and too impetuous (and despite the seeming contradiction each was valuable in its own way). So yes let's find ways to get meaningful feedback to admins outside of recall or being dragged to ANI. Unfortunately re-RfA seems to be poorly suited to the task and so we can likely find a better way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
No hard rule, but we should socially discourage confirmation RfAs There is a difference between a hard rule, and a soft social rule. A hard rule against confirmation RfA's, like option 1, would not do a good job of accounting for edge cases and would thus be ultimately detrimental here. But a soft social rule against them would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that is not one of the options of this RfC. In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. (Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here.) That takes some introspection and humility to ask yourself: is it worth me inviting two or three hundred people to spend part of their lives to comment on me as a person?A lot of people have thrown around editor time in their reasonings. Obviously, broad generalizations about it aren't convincing anyone. So let me just share my own experience. I saw the watchlist notice open that a new RfA was being run. I reacted with some excitement, because I always like seeing new admins. When I got to the page and saw Hogfarm's name, I immediately thought "isn't he already an admin?" I then assumed, ah, its just the classic RfA reaction at seeing a qualified candidate, so I'll probably support him since I already think he's an admin. But then as I started to do my due diligence and read, I saw that he really, truly, already had been an admin. At that point, my previous excitement turned to a certain unease. I had voted yes for Worm's confirmation RfA, but here was another...and I realized that my blind support for Worm might have been the start of an entirely new process. I then thought "bet there's an RfC going about this," and came here. I then spent a while polishing up my essay on editor time, before taking time to write this message. All in all, I probably spent a good hour doing this. Previously, I'd just been clicking the random article button and gnoming. So, the longwinded moral: yeah, this did eat up a lot of my editor time that could have and was being spent doing something else. And I'd do it again! It was important to do my research and to comment here. But in the future...maybe I won't react quite as excitedly to seeing that RfA notice. Maybe I'll feel a little pang of dread...wondering if its going to be a confirmation RfA. We can't pretend that confirmation RfA's are costless, and that we don't lose anything even if editors just ignore them. When run, it should be because they are necessary. CaptainEek⚓03:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
In short, a person should have a good reason to do a confirmation RfA. If you're going to stand up before the community and ask "do you trust me," that should be for a good reason. It shouldn't just be because you want the approval of your peers. Asking the community whether you still have their trust to be an administrator, which is what an reconfirmation RFA is, is a good reason. I expect getting a near-unanimous "yes" is good for one's ego, but that's just a (nice) side-effect of the far more important benefits to the entire community: a trusted administrator.
The time you claim is being eaten up unnecessarily by reconfirmation RFAs was actually taken up by you choosing to spend your time writing an essay about using time for things you don't approve of and then hunting out an RFC in which you wrote another short essay about using time on things you don't approve of. Absolutely none of that is a necessary consequence of reconfirmation RFAs - indeed the response consistent with your stated goals would have been to read the first two sentences of Hog Farm's RFA and then closed the tab and returned to whatever else it was you were doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
WTT's and Hog Farm's RFAs would have been completely uncontentious, something I hope for at RfA and certainly the opposite of what I "dread" at RfA, if it were not for the people who attack the very concept of standing for RfA again despite policy being crystal clear that it is absolutely fine. I don't see how any blame for this situation can be put on WTT or HF. We can't pretend that dismissing uncontentious reconfirmation RfAs is costless; discouraging them removes one of the few remaining potentially wholesome bits about the process. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@CaptainEek Would you find it better if Watchlist notices and similar said "(re?)confirmation RFA" instead of "RFA"? Say for all voluntary RFAs from an existing admin or someone who could have used BN?
As a different point, I would be quite against any social discouraging if we're not making a hard rule as such. Social discouraging is what got us the opposes at WTT/Hog Farm's RFAs, which I found quite distasteful and badgering. If people disagree with a process, they should change it. But if the process remains the same, I think it's important to not enable RFA's toxicity by encouraging others to namecall or re-argue the process in each RRFA. It's a short road from social discouragement to toxicity, unfortunately. Soni (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 if people think there's a waste of community time, don't spend your time voting or discussing. Or add "reconfirmation" or similar to the watchlist notice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 (which I think is a subset of option 2, so I'm okay with the status quo, but I want to endorse giving 'crats the option to SNOW). While they do come under scrutiny from time to time for the extensive dicsussions in the "maybe" zone following RfAs, this should be taken as an indiciation that they are unlikely to do something like close it as SNOW in the event there is real and substantial concerns being rasied. This is an okay tool to give the 'crats. As far as I can tell, no one has ever accused the them of moving too quickly in this direction (not criticism; love you all, keep up the good work). Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 2. Further, if Option 2 passes, I expect it also ends all the bickering about lost community time. A consensus explicitly in favour of "This is allowed" should also be a consensus to discourage relitigation of this RFC. Soni (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2: Admins who do not exude entitlement are to be praised. Those who criticize this humility should have a look in the mirror before accusing those who ask for reanointment from the community of "arrogance". I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention in parentheses that the RFA is a reconfirmation (watchlist) and wouldn't see any problem with crats snow-closing after, say, 96 hours. -- SashiRolls18:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I know. I see a sizable amount of commenters here starting to say that voluntary re-RfAs should be encouraged, and your first sentence can be easily read as implying that admins who use the BN route exude entitlement. I disagree with that (see my reply to Thryduulf below). Aaron Liu (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
One way to improve the reputation of RFA is for there to be more RFAs that are not terrible, such as reconfirmations of admins who are doing/have done a good job who sail through with many positive comments. There is no proposal to make RFA mandatory in circumstances it currently isn't, only to reaffirm that those who voluntarily choose RFA are entitled to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I know it's not a proposal, but there's enough people talking about this so far that it could become a proposal. There's nearly nothing in between that could've lost the trust of the community. I'm sure there are many who do not want to be pressured into this without good reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely nobody is proposing, suggesting or hinting here that reconfirmation RFAs should become mandatory - other than comments from a few people who oppose the idea of people voluntarily choosing to do something policy explicitly allows them to choose to do. The best way to avoid people being pressured into being accused of arrogance for seeking reconfirmation of their status from the community is to sanction those people who accuse people of arrogance in such circumstances as such comments are in flagrant breach of AGF and NPA. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I’m saying that they should not become preferred. There should be no social pressure to do RfA instead of BN, only pressure intrinsic to the candidate. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Whether they should become preferred in any situation forms no part of this proposal in any way shape or form - this seeks only to reaffirm that they are permitted. A separate suggestion, completely independent of this one, is to encourage (explicitly not mandate) them in some (but explicitly not all) situations. All discussions on this topic would benefit if people stopped misrepresenting the policies and proposals - especially when the falsehoods have been explicitly called out. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I am talking and worrying over that separate proposal many here are suggesting. I don’t intend to oppose Option 2, and sorry if I came off that way. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. In fact, I'm inclined to encourage an RRfA over BN, because nothing requires editors to participate in an RRfA, but the resulting discussion is better for reaffirming community consensus for the former admin or otherwise providing helpful feedback. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2WP:RFA has said "Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA..." for over ten years and this is not a problem. I liked the opportunity to be consulted in the current RfA and don't consider this a waste of time. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
2 - If an administrator gives up sysop access because they plan to be inactive for a while and want to minimize the attack surface of Misplaced Pages, they should be able to ask for permissions back the quickest way possible. If an administrator resigns because they do not intend to do the job anymore, and later changes their mind, they should request a community discussion. The right course of action depends on the situation. Jehochman14:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1. I've watched a lot of RFAs and re-RFAs over the years. There's a darn good reason why the community developed the "go to BN" option: saves time, is straightforward, and if there are issues that point to a re-RFA, they're quickly surfaced. People who refuse to take the community-developed process of going to BN first are basically telling the community that they need the community's full attention on their quest to re-admin. Yes, there are those who may be directed to re-RFA by the bureaucrats, in which case, they have followed the community's carefully crafted process, and their re-RFA should be evaluated from that perspective. Risker (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 (status quo/no changes) per meh. This is bureaucratic rulemongering at its finest. Every time RFA reform comes up some editors want admins to be required to periodically reconfirm, then when some admins decide to reconfirm voluntarily, suddenly that's seen as a bad thing. The correct thing to do here is nothing. If you don't like voluntary reconfirmation RFAs, you are not required to participate in them. Ivanvector (/Edits) 19:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 I would probably counsel just going to BN most of the time, however there are exceptions and edge cases. To this point these RfAs have been few in number, so the costs incurred are relatively minor. If the number becomes large then it might be worth revisiting, but I don't see that as likely. Some people will probably impose social costs on those who start them by opposing these RfAs, with the usual result, but that doesn't really change the overall analysis. Perhaps it would be better if our idiosyncratic internal logic didn't produce such outcomes, but that's a separate issue and frankly not really worth fighting over either. There's probably some meta issues here I'm unaware off, it's long since I've had my finger on the community pulse so to speak, but they tend to matter far less than people think they do. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1, per WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOCIALNETWORK, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:NOTABOUTYOU, and related principles. We all have far better things to do that read through and argue in/about a totally unnecessary RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process and waste of community time and productivity. I could live with option 3, if option 1 doesn't fly (i.e. shut these silly things down as quickly as possible). But option 2 is just out of the question. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Except none of the re-RFAs complained about have been RfA invoked as a "Show me some love!" abuse of process, you're arguing against a strawman. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It's entirely a matter of opinion and perception, or A) this RfC wouldn't exist, and B) various of your fellow admins like TonyBallioni would not have come to the same conclusion I have. Whether the underlying intent (which no one can determine, lacking as we do any magical mind-reading powers) is solely egotistical is ultimately irrelevant. The actual effect (what matters) of doing this whether for attention, or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done, is precisely the same: a showy waste of community volunteers' time with no result other than a bunch of attention being drawn to a particular editor and their deeds, without any actual need for the community to engage in a lengthy formal process to re-examine them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
or because you've somehow confused yourself into think it needs to be done
Option 2. I see no legitimate reason why we should be changing the status quo. Sure, some former admins might find it easier to go through BN, and it might save community time, and most former admins already choose the easier option. However, if a candidate last ran for adminship several years ago, or if issues were raised during their tenure as admin, then it may be helpful for them to ask for community feedback, anyway. There is no "wasted" community time in such a case. I really don't get the claims that this violates WP:POINT, because it really doesn't apply when a former admin last ran for adminship 10 or 20 years ago or wants to know if they still have community trust.On the other hand, if an editor thinks a re-RFA is a waste of community time, they can simply choose not to participate in that RFA. Opposing individual candidates' re-RFAs based solely on opposition to re-RFAs in general is a violation of WP:POINT. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
But this isn't the status quo? We've never done a re-RfA before now. The question is whether this previously unconsidered process, which appeared as an emergent behavior, is a feature or a bug. CaptainEek⚓23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
There have been lots of re-RFAs, historically. There were more common in the 2000s. Evercat in 2003 is the earliest I can find, back before the re-sysopping system had been worked out fully. Croat Canuck back in 2007 was snow-closed after one day, because the nominator and applicant didn't know that they could have gone to the bureaucrats' noticeboard. For more modern examples, HJ Mitchell (2011) is relatively similar to the recent re-RFAs in the sense that the admin resigned uncontroversially but chose to re-RFA before getting the tools back. Immediately following and inspired by HJ Mitchell's, there was the slightly more controversial SarekOfVulcan. That ended successful re-RFAS until 2019's Floquenbeam, which crat-chatted. Since then, there have been none that I remember. There have been several re-RFAs from admins who were de-sysopped or at serious risk of de-sysopping, and a few interesting edge cases such as the potentially optional yet no-consensus SarekVulcan 3 in 2014 and the Rich Farmbrough case in 2015, but those are very different than what we're talking about today. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Well thank you both, I've learned something new today. It turns out I was working on a false assumption. It has just been so long since a re-RfA that I assumed it was a truly new phenomenon, especially since there were two in short succession. I still can't say I'm thrilled by the process and think it should be used sparingly, but perhaps I was a bit over concerned. CaptainEek⚓16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 or 3 per Gnoming and CaptainEek. Such RfAs only require at most 30 seconds for one to decide whether or not to spend their time on examination. Unlike other prohibited timesinks, it's not like something undesirable will happen if one does not sink their time. Voluntary reconfirmation RfAs are socially discouraged, so there is usually a very good reason for someone to go back there, such as accountability for past statements in the case of WTT or large disputes during adminship in the case of Hog Farm. I don't think we should outright deny these, and there is no disruption incurred if we don't. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 (fine with better labeling) These don't seem harmful to me and, if I don't have time, I'll skip one and trust the judgment of my fellow editors. No objection to better labeling them though, as discussed above. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1 because it's just a waste of time to go through and !vote on candidates who just want the mop restored when he or she or they could get it restored BN with no problems. But I can also see option 2 being good for a former mod not in good standing. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If you think it is a waste of time to !vote on a candidate, just don't vote on that candidate and none of your time has been wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 Just because someone may be entitled to get the bit back doesn't mean they necessarily should. Look at my RFA3. I did not resign under a cloud, so I could have gotten the bit back by request. However, the RFA established that I did not have the community support at that point, so it was a good thing that I chose that path. I don't particularly support option 3, but I could deal with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)16:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 1 Asking hundreds of people to vet a candidate who has already passed a RfA and is eligible to get the tools back at BN is a waste of the community's time. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 I really don't think there's a problem that needs to be fixed here. I am grateful at least a couple administrators have asked for the support of the community recently. SportingFlyerT·C00:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2. Keep the status quo of any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. Voluntary RfA are rare enough not to be a problem, it's not as though we are overburdened with RfAs. And it’s my time to waste. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 or Option 3. These are unlikely to happen anyway, it's not like they're going to become a trend. I'm already wasting my time here instead of other more important activities anyway, so what's a little more time spent giving an easy support?fanfanboy(blocktalk)16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 Agree with Daniel Quinlan that for the problematic editors eligible for re-sysop at BN despite unpopularity, we should rely on our new process of admin recall, rather than pre-emptive RRFAs. I'll add the novel argument that when goliaths like Hog Farm unnecessarily showcase their achievements at RFA, it scares off nonetheless qualified candidates. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 or Option 3 - if you regard a re-RfA as a waste of your time, just don't waste it by participating; it's not mandatory. Bastun12:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
@Voorts: If option 2 gets consensus how would this RfC change the wording Regardless of the process by which the admin tools are removed, any editor is free to re-request the tools through the requests for adminship process. Or is this an attempt to see if that option no longer has consensus? If so why wasn't alternative wording proposed? As I noted above this feels premature in multiple ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I've re-opened this per a request on my talk page. If other editors think this is premature, they can !vote accordingly and an uninvolved closer can determine if there's consensus for an early close in deference to the VPI discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion at VPI, which I have replied on, seems to me to be different enough from this discussion that both can run concurrently. That is, however, my opinion as a mere editor. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk)22:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts, can you please reword the RfC to make it clear that Option 2 is the current consensus version? It does not need to be clarified – it already says precisely what you propose. – bradv22:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Question: May someone clarify why many view such confirmation RfAs as a waste of community time? No editor is obligated to take up their time and participate. If there's nothing to discuss, then there's no friction or dis-cussing, and the RfA smooth-sails; if a problem is identified, then there was a good reason to go to RfA. I'm sure I'm missing something here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The intent of RfA is to provide a comprehensive review of a candidate for adminship, to make sure that they meet the community's standards. Is that happening with vanity re-RfAs? Absolutely not, because these people don't need that level of vetting. I wouldn't consider a week long, publicly advertized back patting to be a productive use of volunteer time. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but that logic could be used to justify any time sink. We're all volunteers and nobody is forced to do anything here, but that doesn't mean that we should promote (or stay silent with our criticism of, I suppose) things that we feel don't serve a useful purpose. I don't think this is a huge deal myself, but we've got two in a short period of time and I'd prefer to do a bit of push back now before they get more common. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Except someone who has no need for advanced tools and is not going to use them in any useful fashion, would then skate through with nary a word said about their unsuitability, regardless of the foregone conclusion. The point of RFA is not to rubber-stamp. Unless their is some actual issue or genuine concern they might not get their tools back, they should just re-request them at BN and stop wasting people's time with pointless non-process wonkery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I’m confused. Adminship requires continued use of the tools. If you think they’s suitable for BN, I don’t see how doing an RfA suddenly makes them unsuitable. If you have concerns, raise them. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the suggested problem (which I acknowledge not everyone thinks is a problem) is resolved by these options. Admins can still run a re-confirmation RfA after regaining adminsitrative privileges, or even initiate a recall petition. I think as discussed on Barkeep49's talk page, we want to encourage former admins who are unsure if they continue to be trusted by the community at a sufficient level to explore lower cost ways of determining this. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
In re the idea that RfAs use up a lot of community time: I first started editing Misplaced Pages in 2014. There were 62 RfAs that year, which was a historic low. Even counting all of the AElect candidates as separate RfAs, including those withdrawn before voting began, we're still up to only 53 in 2024 – counting only traditional RfAs it's only 18, which is the second lowest number ever. By my count we've has 8 resysop requests at BN in 2024; even if all of those went to RfA, I don't see how that would overwhelm the community. That would still leave us on 26 traditional RfAs per year, or (assuming all of them run the full week) one every other week. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
What about an option 4 encouraging eligible candidates to go through BN? At the end of the Procedure section, add something like "Eligible users are encouraged to use this method rather than running a new request for adminship." The current wording makes re-RfAing sound like a plausible alternative to a BN request, when in actual fact the former rarely happens and always generates criticism. Giraffer (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Discouraging RFAs is the second last thing we should be doing (after prohibiting them), rather per my comments here and in the VPI discussion we should be encouraging former administrators to demonstrate that they still have the approval of the community. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea if people do decide to go with option 2, if only to stave off any further mixed messages that people are doing something wrong or rude or time-wasting or whatever by doing a second RfA, when it's explicitly mentioned as a valid thing for them to do. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
If RFA is explicitly a valid thing for people to do (which it is, and is being reaffirmed by the growing consensus for option 2) then we don't need to (and shouldn't) discourage people from using that option. The mixed messages can be staved off by people simply not making comments that explicitly contradict policy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not new. We've had sporadic "vanity" RfAs since the early days of the process. I don't believe they're particularly harmful, and think that it unlikely that we will begin to see so many of them that they pose a problem. As such I don't think this policy proposal solves any problem we actually have. UninvitedCompany21:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This apparent negative feeling evoked at an RFA for a former sysop everyone agrees is fully qualified and trusted certainly will put a bad taste in the mouths of other former admins who might consider a reconfirmation RFA without first visiting BN. This comes in the wake of Worm That Turned's similar rerun. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Nobody should ever be discouraged from seeking community consensus for significant changes. Adminship is a significant change. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
No argument from me. I was a big Hog Farm backer way back when he was merely one of Misplaced Pages's best content contributors. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I went looking for @Tamzin's comment because I know they had hung up the tools and came back, and I was interested in their perspective. But they've given me a different epiphany. I suddenly realize why people are doing confirmation RfAs: it's because of RECALL, and the one year immunity a successful RfA gives you. Maybe everyone else already figured that one out and is thinking "well duh Eek," but I guess I hadn't :) I'm not exactly sure what to do with that epiphany, besides note the emergent behavior that policy change can create. We managed to generate an entirely new process without writing a single word about it, and that's honestly impressive :P CaptainEek⚓18:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Worm That Turned followed through on a pledge he made in January 2024, before the 2024 review of the request for adminship process began. I don't think a pattern can be extrapolated from a sample size of one (or even two). That being said, it's probably a good thing if admins occasionally take stock of whether or not they continue to hold the trust of the community. As I previously commented, it would be great if these admins would use a lower cost way of sampling the community's opinion. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
If people decide to go through a community vote to get a one year immunity from a process that only might lead to a community vote which would then have a lower threshold then the one they decide to go through, and also give a year's immunity, then good for them. CMD (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@CaptainEek I'm mildly bothered by this comment, mildly because I assume it's lighthearted and non-serious. But just in case anyone does feel this way - I was very clear about my reasons for RRFA, I've written a lot about it, anyone is welcome to use my personal recall process without prejudice, and just to be super clear - I waive my "1 year immunity" - if someone wants to start a petition in the next year, do not use my RRfA as a reason not to. I'll update my userpage accordingly. I can't speak for Hog Farm, but his reasoning seems similar to mine, and immunity isn't it. Worm(talk) 10:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned my quickly written comment was perhaps not as clear as it could have been :) I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that y'all had run for dubious reasons. As I said in my !vote, Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that is why either Worm or Hogfarm re-upped, I'm just trying to create a general purpose rule here. I guess what I really meant was that the reason that we're having this somewhat spirited conversation seems to be the sense that re-RfA could provide a protection from recall. If not for recall and the one year immunity period, I doubt we'd have cared so much as to suddenly run two discussions about this. CaptainEek⚓16:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree. No one else has raised a concern about someone seeking a one-year respite from a recall petition. Personally, I think essentially self-initiating the recall process doesn't really fit the profile of someone who wants to avoid the recall process. (I could invent some nefarious hypothetical situation, but since opening an arbitration case is still a possibility, I don't think it would work out as planned.) isaacl (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I really don't think this is the reason behind WTT's and HF's reconfirmation RFA's. I don't think their RFA's had much utility and could have been avoided, but I don't doubt for a second that their motivations were anything other than trying to provide transparency and accountability for the community. BugGhost🦗👻12:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really care enough about reconf RFAs to think they should be restricted, but what about a lighter ORCP-like process (maybe even in the same place) where fewer editors can indicate, "yeah OK, there aren't really any concerns here, it would probably save a bit of time if you just asked at BN". Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Can someone accurately describe for me what the status quo is? I reread this RfC twice now and am having a hard time figuring out what the current state of affairs is, and how the proposed alternatives will change them. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper -(talk)14:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 is the status quo. The goal of the RFC is to see if the community wants to prohibit reconfirmation RFAs (option 1). The idea is that reconfirmation RFAs take up a lot more community time than a BN request so are unnecessary. There were 2 reconfirmation RFAs recently after a long dry spell. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The status quo, documented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools, is that admins who resigned without being under controversy can seek readminship through either BN (where it's usually given at the discreetion of an arbitrary bureaucrat according to the section I linked) or RfA (where all normal RfA procedures apply, and you see a bunch of people saying "the candidate's wasting the community's time and could've uncontroversially gotten adminship back at BN instead). Aaron Liu (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guideline against use of AI images in BLPs and medical articles?
I have recently seen AI-generated images be added to illustrate both BLPs (e.g. Laurence Boccolini, now removed) and medical articles (e.g. Legionella#Mechanism). While we don't have any clear-cut policy or guideline about these yet, they appear to be problematic. Illustrating a living person with an AI-generated image might misinform as to how that person actually looks like, while using AI in medical diagrams can lead to anatomical inaccuracies (such as the lung structure in the second image, where the pleura becomes a bronnchiole twisting over the primary bronchi), or even medical misinformation. While a guideline against AI-generated images in general might be more debatable, do we at least have a consensus for a guideline against these two specific use cases?
I personally am strongly against using AI in biographies and medical articles - as you highlighted above, AI is absolutely not reliable in generating accurate imagery and may contribute to medical or general misinformation. I would 100% support a proposal banning AI imagery from these kinds of articles - and a recommendation to not use such imagery other than in specific scenarios. jolielover♥talk12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd prefer a guideline prohibiting the use of AI images full stop. There are too many potential issues with accuracy, honesty, copyright, etc. Has this already been proposed or discussed somewhere? – Joe (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
There is one very specific exception I would put to a very sensible blanket prohibition on using AI images to illustrate people, especially BLPs. That is where the person themselves is known to use that image, which I have encountered in Simon Ekpa. CMD (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
While the Ekpa portrait is just an upscale (and I'm not sure what positive value that has for us over its source; upscaling does not add accuracy, nor is it an artistic interpretation meant to reveal something about the source), this would be hard to translate to the general case. Many AI portraits would have copyright concerns, not just from the individual (who may have announced some appropriate release for it), but due to the fact that AI portraits can lean heavily on uncredited individual sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
For the purposes of discussing whether to allow AI images at all, we should always assume that, for the purposes of (potential) policies and guidelines, there exist AI images we can legally use to illustrate every topic. We cannot use those that are not legal (including, but not limited to, copyright violations) so they are irrelevant. An image generator trained exclusively on public domain and cc0 images (and any other licenses that explicitly allow derivative works without requiring attribution) would not be subject to any copyright restrictions (other than possibly by the prompter and/or generator's license terms, which are both easy to determine). Similarly we should not base policy on the current state of the technology, but assume that the quality of its output will improve to the point it is equal to that of a skilled human artist. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is, either there are public domain/CC0 images of the person (in which case they can be used directly) or there aren't, in which case the AI is making up how a person looks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
We tend to use art representations either where no photographs are available (in which case, AI will also not have access to photographs) or where what we are showing is an artist's insight on how this person is perceived, which is not something that AI can give us. In any case, we don't have to build policy now around some theoretical AI in the future; we can deal with the current reality, and policy can be adjusted if things change in the future. And even that theoretical AI does make it more difficult to detect copyvio -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it an upscale given whatever was done appears to have removed detail, but we use that image as it was specifically it is the edited image which was sent to VRT. CMD (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there any clarification on using purely AI-generated images vs. using AI to edit or alter images? AI tools have been implemented in a lot of photo editing software, such as to identify objects and remove them, or generate missing content. The generative expand feature would appear to be unreliable (and it is), but I use it to fill in gaps of cloudless sky produced from stitching together photos for a panorama (I don't use it if there are clouds, or for starry skies, as it produces non-existent stars or unrealistic clouds). Photos of Japan (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, my proposal is only about AI-generated images, not AI-altered ones. That could in fact be a useful distinction to make if we want to workshop a RfC on the matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need a clear cut policy or guideline against them... I think we treat them the same way as we would treat an editor's kitchen table sketch of the same figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
For those wanting to ban AI images full stop, well, you are too late. Most professional image editing software, including the software in one's smartphone as well as desktop, uses AI somewhere. Noise reduction software uses AI to figure out what might be noise and what might be texture. Sharpening software uses AI to figure out what should be smooth and what might have a sharp detail it can invent. For example, a bird photo not sharp enough to capture feather detail will have feather texture imagined onto it. Same for hair. Or grass. Any image that has been cleaned up to remove litter or dust or spots will have the cleaned area AI generated based on its surroundings. The sky might be extended with AI. These examples are a bit different from a 100% imagined image created from a prompt. But probably not in a way that is useful as a rule.
I think we should treat AI generated images the same as any user-generated image. It might be a great diagram or it might be terrible. Remove it from the article if the latter, not because someone used AI. If the image claims to photographically represent something, we may judge whether the creator has manipulated the image too much to be acceptable. For example, using AI to remove a person in the background of an image taken of the BLP subject might be perfectly fine. People did that with traditional Photoshop/Lightroom techniques for years. Using AI to generate what claims to be a photo of a notable person is on dodgy ground wrt copyright. -- Colin°19:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm talking about the case of using AI to generate a depiction of a living person, not using AI to alter details in the background. That is why I only talk about AI-generated images, not AI-altered images. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding some sort of brightline ban on the use of any such image in anything article medical related: absolutely not. For example, if someone wanted to use AI tools as opposed to other tools to make an image such as this one (as used in the "medical" article Fluconazole) I don't see a problem, so long as it is accurate. Accurate models and illustrations are useful and that someone used AI assistance as opposed to a chisel and a rock is of no concern. — xaosflux19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the appropriateness of AI images depends on how its used by the user. In BLP and medical articles, it is inappropriate for the images, but it is inappropriate to ban it completely across thw site. By the same logic, if you want full ban of AI, you are banning fire just because people can get burned, without considering cooking. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
AI generated medical related image. No idea if this is accurate, but if it is I don't see what the problem would be compared to if this was made with ink and paper. — xaosflux00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that AI-generated images should not be used in most cases. They essentially serve as misinformation. I also don't think that they're really comparable to drawings or sketches because AI-generation uses a level of photorealism that can easily trick the untrained eye into thinking it is real. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
AI doesn't need to be photorealistic though. I see two potential issues with AI. The first is images that might deceive the viewer into thinking they are photos, when they are not. The second is potential copyright issues. Outside of the copyright issues I don't see any unique concerns for an AI-generated image (that doesn't appear photorealistic). Any accuracy issues can be handled the same way a user who manually drew an image could be handled. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
AI-generated depictions of BLP subjects are often more "illustrative" than drawings/sketches of BLP subjects made by 'regular' editors like you and me. For example, compare the AI-generated image of Pope Francis and the user-created cartoon of Brigette Lundy-Paine. Neither image belongs on their respective bios, of course, but the AI-generated image is no more "misinformation" than the drawing. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I would argue the opposite: neither are made up, but the first one, because of its realism, might mislead readers into thinking that it is an actual photograph, while the second one is clearly a drawing. Which makes the first one less illustrative, as it carries potential for misinformation, despite being technically more detailed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
AI-generated images should always say "AI-generated image of " in the image caption. No misleading readers that way. Some1 (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and they don't always do it, and we don't have a guideline about this either. The issue is, many people have many different proposals on how to deal with AI content, meaning we always end up with "no consensus" and no guidelines on use at all, even if most people are against it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
always end up with "no consensus" and no guidelines on use at all, even if most people are against it Agreed. Even a simple proposal to have image captions note whether an image is AI-generated will have editors wikilawyer over the definition of 'AI-generated.' I take back my recommendation of starting an RfC; we can already predict how that RfC will end. Some1 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
We should absolutely not be including any AI images in anything that is meant to convey facts (with the obvious exception of an AI image illustrating the concept of an AI image). I also don't think we should be encouraging AI-altered images -- the line between "regular" photo enhancement and what we'd call "AI alteration" is blurry, but we shouldn't want AI edits for the same reason we wouldn't want fake Photoshop composites.
That said, I would assume good faith here: some of these images are probably being sourced from Commons, and Commons is dealing with a lot of undisclosed AI images. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you really mean to ban single images showing the way birds use their wings?
Sorry, should have been more clear -- composites that present themselves as the real thing, basically what people would use deepfakes for now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I think there is a very clear line between images built by a diffusion model and images modified using photoshop through techniques like compositing. That line is that the diffusion model is reverse-engineering an image to match a text prompt from a pattern of semi-random static associated with similar text prompts. As such it's just automated glurge, at best it's only as good as the ability of the software to parse a text prompt and the ability of a prompter to draft sufficiently specific language. And absolutely none of that does anything to solve the "hallucination" problem. On the other hand, in photoshop, if I put in two layers both containing a bird on a transparent background, what I, the human making the image, sees is what the software outputs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I think there is a very clear line between images built by a diffusion model and images modified using photoshop others do not. If you want to ban or restrict one but not the other then you need to explain how the difference can be reliably determined, and how one is materially different to the other in ways other than your personal opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think any guideline, let alone policy, would be beneficial and indeed on balance is more likely to be harmful. There are always only two questions that matter when determining whether we should use an image, and both are completely independent of whether the image is AI-generated or not:
Can we use this image in this article? This depends on matters like copyright, fair use, whether the image depicts content that is legal for an organisation based in the United States to host, etc. Obviously if the answer is "no", then everything else is irrelevant, but as the law and WMF, Commons and en.wp policies stand today there exist some images in both categories we can use, and some images in both categories we cannot use.
Does using this image in this article improve the article? This is relative to other options, one of which is always not using any image, but in many cases also involves considering alternative images that we can use. In the case of depictions of specific, non-hypothetical people or objects one criteria we use to judge whether the image improves the article is whether it is an accurate representation of the subject. If it is not an accurate representation then it doesn't improve the article and thus should not be used, regardless of why it is inaccurate. If it is an accurate representation, then its use in the article will not be misrepresentative or misleading, regardless of whether it is or is not AI generated. It may or may not be the best option available, but if it is then it should be used regardless of whether it is or is not AI generated.
The potential harm I mentioned above is twofold, firstly Misplaced Pages is, by definition, harmed when an images exists we could use that would improve an article but we do not use it in that article. A policy or guideline against the use of AI images would, in some cases, prevent us from using an image that would improve an article. The second aspect is misidentification of an image as AI-generated when it isn't, especially when it leads to an image not being used when it otherwise would have been.
Finally, all the proponents of a policy or guideline are assuming that the line between images that are and are not AI-generated is sharp and objective. Other commenters here have already shown that in reality the line is blurry and it is only going to get blurrier in the future as more AI (and AI-based) technology is built into software and especially firmware. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with almost the entirety of your post with a caveat on whether something "is an accurate representation". We can tell whether non-photorealistic images are accurate by assessing whether the image accurately conveys the idea of what it is depicting. Photos do more than convey an idea, they convey the actual look of something. With AI generated images that are photorealistic it is difficult to assess whether they accurately convey the look of something (the shading might be illogical in subtle ways, there could be an extra finger that goes unnoticed, a mole gets erased), but readers might be deceived by the photo-like presentation into thinking they are looking at an actual photographic depiction of the subject which could differ significantly from the actual subject in ways that go unnoticed. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
A policy or guideline against the use of AI images would, in some cases, prevent us from using an image that would improve an article. That's why I'm suggesting a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are by design more flexible, and WP:IAR still does (and should) apply in edge cases.The second aspect is misidentification of an image as AI-generated when it isn't, especially when it leads to an image not being used when it otherwise would have been. In that case, there is a licensing problem. AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that might have been AI-generated.Finally, all the proponents of a policy or guideline are assuming that the line between images that are and are not AI-generated is sharp and objective. Other commenters here have already shown that in reality the line is blurry and it is only going to get blurrier in the future as more AI (and AI-based) technology is built into software and especially firmware. In that case, it's mostly because the ambiguity in wording: AI-edited images are very common, and are sometimes called "AI-generated", but here we should focus on actual prompt outputs, of the style "I asked a model to generate me an image of a BLP". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Simply not having a completely unnecessary policy or guideline is infinitely better than relying on IAR - especially as this would have to be ignored every time it is relevant. When the AI image is not the best option (which obviously includes all the times its unsuitable or inaccurate) existing policies, guidelines, practice and frankly common sense mean it won't be used. This means the only time the guideline would be relevant is when an AI image is the best option and as we obviously should be using the best option in all cases we would need to ignore the guideline against using AI images.
AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that might have been AI-generated. The key words here are "supposed to be" and "shouldn't", editors absolutely will speculate that images are AI-generated and that the Commons labelling is incorrect. We are supposed to assume good faith, but this very discussion shows that when it comes to AI some editors simply do not do that.
Regarding your final point, that might be what you are meaning but it is not what all other commenters mean when they want to exclude all AI images. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
For your first point, the guideline is mostly to take care of the "prompt fed in model" BLP illustrations, where it is technically hard to prove that the person doesn't look like that (as we have no available image), but the model likely doesn't have any available image either and most likely just made it up. As my proposal is essentially limited to that (I don't include AI-edited images, only those that are purely generated by a model), I don't think there will be many cases where IAR would be needed.Regarding your two other points, you are entirely correct, and while I am hoping for nuance on the AI issue, it is clear that some editors might not do that. For the record, I strongly disagree with a blanket ban of "AI images" (which includes both blatant "prompt in model" creations and a wide range of more subtle AI retouching tools) or anything like that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
the guideline is mostly to take care of the "prompt fed in model" BLP illustrations, where it is technically hard to prove that the person doesn't look like that (as we have no available image). There are only two possible scenarios regarding verifiability:
The image is an accurate representation and we can verify that (e.g. by reference to non-free photos).
Verifiability is no barrier to using the image, whether it is AI generated or not.
If it is the best image available, and editors agree using it is better than not having an image, then it should be used whether it is AI generated or not.
The image is either not an accurate representation, or we cannot verify whether it is or is not an accurate representation
The only reasons we should ever use the image are:
It has been the subject of notable commentary and we are presenting it in that context.
The subject verifiably uses it as a representation of themselves (e.g. as an avatar or logo)
This is already policy, whether the image is AI generated or not is completely irrelevant.
In your first scenario, there is the issue of an accurate AI-generated image misleading people into thinking it is an actual photograph of the person, especially as they are most often photorealistic. Even besides that, a mostly accurate representation can still introduce spurious details, and this can mislead readers as they do not know to what level it is actually accurate. This scenario doesn't really happen with drawings (which are clearly not photographs), and is very much a consequence of AI-generated photorealistic pictures being a thing.In the second scenario, if we cannot verify that it is not an accurate representation, it can be hard to remove the image with policy-based reasons, which is why a guideline will again be helpful. Having a single guideline against fully AI-generated images takes care of all of these scenarios, instead of having to make new specific guidelines for each case that emerges because of them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
If the image is misleading or unverifiable it should not be used, regardless of why it is misleading or unverifiable. This is existing policy and we don't need anything specifically regarding AI to apply it - we just need consensus that the image is misleading or unverifiable. Whether it is or is not AI generated is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
AI-generated images on Commons are supposed to be clearly labeled as such. There is no guesswork here, and we shouldn't go hunting for images that might have been AI-generated.
I mean... yes, we should? At the very least Commons should go hunting for mislabeled images -- that's the whole point of license review. The thing is that things are absolutely swamped over there and there are hundreds of thousands of images waiting for review of some kind. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I just mean that given the reality of the backlogs, there are going to be mislabeled images, and there are almost certainly going to be more of them over time. That's just how it is. We don't have control over that, but we do have control over what images go into articles, and if someone has legitimate concerns about an image being AI-generated, then they should be raising those. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support blanket ban on AI-generated images on Misplaced Pages. As others have highlighted above, the is not just a slippery slope but an outright downward spiral. We don't use AI-generated text and we shouldn't use AI-generated images: these aren't reliable and they're also WP:OR scraped from who knows what and where. Use only reliable material from reliable sources. As for the argument of 'software now has AI features', we all know that there's a huge difference between someone using a smoothing feature and someone generating an image from a prompt. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Reply, the section of WP:OR concerning images is WP:OI which states "Original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Using AI to generate an image only violates WP:OR if you are using it to illustrate unpublished ideas, which can be assessed just by looking at the image itself. COPYVIO, however, cannot be assessed from looking at just the image alone, which AI could be violating. However, some images may be too simple to be copyrightable, for example AI-generated images of chemicals or mathematical structures potentially. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Prompt generated images are unquestionably violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: Type in your description and you get an image scraping who knows what and from who knows where, often Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages isn't an WP:RS. Get real. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
"Unquestionably"? Let me question that, @Bloodofox. ;-)
If an editor were to use an AI-based image-generating service and the prompt is something like this:
"I want a stacked bar chart that shows the number of games won and lost by FC Bayern Munich each year. Use the team colors, which are red #DC052D, blue #0066B2, and black #000000. The data is:
2014–15: played 34 games, won 25, tied 4, lost 5
2015–16: played 34 games, won 28, tied 4, lost 2
2016–17: played 34 games, won 25, tied 7, lost 2
2017–18: played 34 games, won 27, tied 3, lost 4
2018–19: played 34 games, won 24, tied 6, lost 4
2019–20: played 34 games, won 26, tied 4, lost 4
2020–21: played 34 games, won 24, tied 6, lost 4
2021–22: played 34 games, won 24, tied 5, lost 5
2022–23: played 34 games, won 21, tied 8, lost 5
2023–24: played 34 games, won 23, tied 3, lost 8"
I would expect it to produce something that is not a violation of either OR in general or OR's SYNTH section specifically. What would you expect, and why do you think it would be okay for me to put that data into a spreadsheet and upload a screenshot of the resulting bar chart, but you don't think it would be okay for me to put that same data into a image generator, get the same thing, and upload that?
Assuming you'd even get what you requested the model without fiddling with the prompt for a while, these sort of 'but we can use it for graphs and charts' devil's advocate scenarios aren't helpful. We're discussing generating images of people, places, and objects here and in those cases, yes, this would unquestionably be a form of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. As for the charts and graphs, there are any number of ways to produce these. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
We're discussing generating images of people, places, and objects here The proposal contains no such limitation. and in those cases, yes, this would unquestionably be a form of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. Do you have a citation for that? Other people have explained better than I can how that it is not necessarily true, and certainly not unquestionable. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As you're well aware, these images are produced by scraping and synthesized material from who knows what and where: it's ultimately pure WP:OR to produce these fake images and they're a straightforward product of synthesis of multiple sources (WP:SYNTH) - worse yet, these sources are unknown because training data is by no means transparent. Personally, I'm strongly for a total ban on generative AI on the site exterior to articles on the topic of generative AI. Not only do I find this incredible unethical, I believe it is intensely detrimental to Misplaced Pages, which is an already a flailing and shrinking project. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So you think the lead image at Gisèle Pelicot is a SYNTH violation? Its (human) creator explicitly says "This is not done from one specific photo. As I usually do when I draw portraits of people that I can't see in person, I look at a lot of photos of them and then create my own rendition" in the image description, which sounds like the product of synthesis of multiple sources" to me, and "these sources are unknown because" the the images the artist looked at are not disclosed.
A lot of my concern about blanket statements is the principle that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, too. If it's okay for a human to do something by hand, then it should be okay for a human using a semi-automated tool to do it, too.
(Just in case you hadn't heard, the rumors that the editor base is shrinking have been false for over a decade now. Compared to when you created your account in mid-2005, we have about twice as many high-volume editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Review WP:SYNTH and your attempts at downplaying a prompt-generated image as "semi-automated" shows the root of the problem: if you can't detect the difference between a human sketching from a reference and a machine scraping who-knows-what on the internet, you shouldn't be involved in this discussion. As for editor retention, this remains a serious problem on the site: while the site continues to grow (and becomes core fodder for AI-scraping) and becomes increasingly visible, editorial retention continues to drop. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Please scroll down below SYNTH to the next section titled "What is not original research" which begins with WP:OI, our policies on how images relate to OR. OR (including SYNTH) only applies to images with regards to if they illustrate "unpublished ideas or arguments". It does not matter, for instance, if you synthesize an original depiction of something, so long as the idea of that thing is not original. Photos of Japan (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, which explicitly states:
It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.
Using a machine to generate a fake image of someone is far beyond "manipulation" and it is certainly "false". Clearly we need explicit policies on AI-generated images of people or we wouldn't be having this discussion, but this as it stands clarly also falls under WP:SYNTH: there is zero question that this is a result of "synthesis of published material", even if the AI won't list what it used. Ultimately it's just a synthesis of a bunch of published composite images of who-knows-what (or who-knows-who?) the AI has scraped together to produce a fake image of a person. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The latter images you describe should be SVG regardless. If there are models that can generate that, that seems totally fine since it can be semantically altered by hand. Any generation with photographic or "painterly" characteristics (e.g. generating something in the style of a painting or any other convention of visual art that communicates aesthetic particulars and not merely abstract visual particulars) seems totally unacceptable. Remsense ‥ 论07:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
100 dots: 99 chocolate-colored dots and 1 baseball-shaped dot
@Bloodofox, here's an image I created. It illustrates the concept of 1% in an article. I made this myself, by typing 100 emojis and taking a screenshot. Do you really mean to say that if I'd done this with an image-generating AI tool, using a prompt like "Give me 100 dots in a 10 by 10 grid. Make 99 a dark color and 1, randomly placed, look like a baseball" that it would be hopelessly tainted, because AI is always bad? Or does your strongly worded statement mean something more moderate?
I'd worry about photos of people (including dead people). I'd worry about photos of specific or unique objects that have to be accurate or they're worse than worthless (e.g., artwork, landmarks, maps). But I'm not worried about simple graphs and charts like this one, and I'm not worried about ordinary, everyday objects. If you want to use AI to generate a photorealistic image of a cookie, or a spoon, and the output you get genuinely looks like those objects, I'm not actually going to worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
As you know, Misplaced Pages has the unique factor of being entirely volunteer-ran. Misplaced Pages has fewer and fewer editors and, long-term, we're seeing plummeting birth rates in areas where most Misplaced Pages editors do exist. I wouldn't expect a wave of new ones aimed at keeping the site free of bullshit in the near future.
In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's hair-brained continued effort to turn the site into its political cash machine is no doubt also not helping, harming the site's public perception and leading to fewer new editors.
Over the course of decades (I've been here for around 20 years), it seems clear that the site will be negatively impacted by all this, especially in the face of generative AI.
As a long-time editor who has frequently stumbled upon intense WP:PROFRINGE content, fended off armies of outside actors looking to shape the site into their ideological image (and sent me more than a few death threats), and who has identified large amount of politically-motivated nonsense explicitly designed to fool non-experts in areas I know intimately well (such as folklore and historical linguistics topics), I think it need be said that the use of generative AI for content is especially dangerous because of its capabilities of fooling Misplaced Pages readers and Misplaced Pages editors alike.
Misplaced Pages is written by people for people. We need to draw a line in the sand to keep from being flooded by increasingly accessible hoax-machines.
A blanket ban on generative AI resolves this issue or at least hands us another tool with which to attempt to fight back. We don't need what few editors we have here wasting what little time they can give the project checking over an ocean of AI-generated slop: we need more material from reliable sources and better tools to fend off bad actors usable by our shrinking editor base (anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation listening?), not more waves of generative AI garbage. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
A blanket ban doesn't actually resolve most of the issues though, and introduces new ones. Bad usages of AI can already be dealt with by existing policy, and malicious users will ignore a blanket ban anyways. Meanwhile, a blanket ban would harm many legitimate usages for AI. For instance, the majority of professional translators (at least Japanese to English) incorporate AI (or similar tools) into their workflow to speed up translations. Just imagine a professional translator who uses AI to help generate rough drafts of foreign language Misplaced Pages articles, before reviewing and correcting them, and another editor learning of this and mass reverting them for breaking the blanket ban, and ultimately causing them to leave. Many authors (particularly with carpal tunnel) use AI now to control their voice-to-text (you can train the AI on how you want character names spelled, the formatting of dialogue and other text, etc.). A[REDACTED] editor could train an AI to convert their voice into Misplaced Pages-formatted text. AI is subtly incorporated now into spell-checkers, grammar-checkers, photo editors, etc., in ways many people are not aware of. A blanket AI ban has the potential to cause many issues for a lot of people, without actually being that affective at dealing with malicious users. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think this is the least convincing one I've seen here yet: It contains the ol' 'there are AI features in programs now' while also attempting to invoke accessibility and a little bit of 'we must have machines to translate!'.
As a translator myself, I can only say: Oh please. Generative AI is notoriously terrible at translating and that's not likely to change. And I mean ever beyond a very, very basic level. Due to the complexities of communication and little matters like nuance, all machine translated material must be thoroughly checked and modified by, yes, human translators, who often encounter it spitting out complete bullshit scraped from who-knows-where (often Misplaced Pages itself).
I get that this topic attracts a lot of 'but what if generative AI is better than humans?' from the utopian tech crowd but the reality is that anyone who needs a machine to invent text and visuals for whatever reason simply shouldn't be using it on Misplaced Pages.
Either you, a human being, can contribute to the project or you can't. Slapping a bunch of machine-generated (generative AI) visuals and text (much of it ultimately coming from Misplaced Pages in the first place!) isn't some kind of human substitute, it's just machine-regurgitated slop and is not helping the project.
Over three thousand full-time professional translators from around the world responded to the surveys, which were broken into a survey for CAT tool users and one for those who do not use any CAT tool at all.
88% of respondents use at least one CAT tool for at least some of their translation tasks.
Of those using CAT tools, 83% use a CAT tool for most or all of their translation work.
Mind you, traditionally CAT tools didn't use AI, but many do now, which only adds to potential sources of confusion in a blanket ban of AI. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
You're barking up the tree with the pro-generative AI propaganda in response to me. I think we're all quite aware that generative AI tool integration is now common and that there's also a big effort to replace human translators — and anything that can be "written" with machines-generated text. I'm also keenly aware that generative AI is absolutely horrible at translation and all of it must be thoroughly checked by humans, as you would be if you were a translator yourself. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
"all machine translated material must be thoroughly checked and modified by, yes, human translators"
There are translators (particularly with non-creative works) who are using these tools to shift more towards reviewing. It should be up to them to decide what they think is the most efficient method for them. Photos of Japan (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
And any translator who wants to use generative AI to attempt to translate can do so off the site. We're not here to check it for them. I strongly support a total ban on any generative AI used on the site exterior to articles on generative AI. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I wonder what you mean by "on the site". The question here is "Is it okay for an editor to go to a completely different website, generate an image all by themselves, upload it to Commons, and put it in a Misplaced Pages article?" The question here is not "Shall we put AI-generating buttons on Misplaced Pages's own website?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm talking about users slapping machine-translated and/or machine-generated nonsense all over the site, only for us to have to go behind and not only check it but correct it. It takes users minutes to do this and it's already happening. It's the same for images. There are very few of us who volunteer here and our numbers are growing fewer. We need to be spending our time improving the site rather than opening the gate as wide as possible for a flood of AI-generated/rendered garbage. The site has enough problems that compound every day rather than having to fend off users armed with hoax machines at every corner. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, we're all opposed to "nonsense", but my question is: What about when the machine happens to generate something that is not "nonsense"?
I have some worries about AI content. I worry, for example, that they'll corrupt our sources. I worry that List of scholarly publishing stings will get dramatically longer, and also that even more undetected, unconfessed, unretracted papers will get published and believed to be true and trustworthy. I worry that academia will go back to a model in which personal connections are more important, because you really can't trust what's published. I worry that scientific journals will start refusing to publish research unless it comes from someone employed by a trusted institution, that is willing to put its reputation on the line by saying they have directly verified that the work described in the paper was actually performed to their standards, thus scuttling the citizen science movement and excluding people whose institutions are upset with them for other reasons (Oh, you thought you'd take a job elsewhere? Well, we refuse to certify the work you did for the last three years...).
But I'm not worried about a Misplaced Pages editor saying "Hey AI, give me a diagram of swingset" or "Make a chart for me out of the data I'm going to give you". In fact, if someone wants to pull the numbers out of Template:Misplaced Pages editor graph (100 per month), feed it to an AI, and replace the template's contents with an AI-generated image (until they finally fix the Graphs extension), I'd consider that helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Translators are not using generative AI for translation, the applicability of LLMs to regular translation is still in its infancy and regardless will not be implementing any generative faculties to its output since that is the exact opposite of what translation is supposed to do. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Translators are not using generative AI for translation this entirely depends on what you mean by "generative". There are at least three contradictory understandings of the term in this one thread alone. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Please, you can just go through the entire process with a simple prompt command now. The results are typically shit but you can generate a ton of it quickly, which is perfect for flooding a site like this one — especially without a strong policy against it. I've found myself cleaning up tons of AI-generated crap (and, yes, rendered) stuff here and elsewhere, and now I'm even seeing AI-generated responses to my own comments. It's beyond ridiculous. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban AI-generated from all articles, AI anything from BLP and medical articles is the position that seems it would permit all instances where there are plausible defenses that AI use does not fabricate or destroy facts intended to be communicated in the context of the article. That scrutiny is stricter with BLP and medical articles in general, and the restriction should be stricter to match. Remsense ‥ 论06:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think my previous comment is operative: almost anything we can see AI used programmatically to generate should be SVG, not raster—even if it means we are embedding raster images in SVG to generate examples like the above. I do not know if there are models that can generate SVG, but if there are I happily state I have no problem with that. I think I'm at risk of seeming downright paranoid—but understanding how errors can propagate and go unnoticed in practice, if we're to trust a black box, we need to at least be able to check what the black box has done on a direct structural level. Remsense ‥ 论07:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense that there would be. Again, maybe I come off like a paranoid lunatic, but I really need either the ability to check what the thing is doing, or the ability to check and correct exactly what a black box has done. (In my estimation, if you want to know what procedures person has done, theoretically you can ask them to get a fairly satisfactory result, and the pre-AI algorithms used in image manipulation are canonical and more or less transparent. Acknowledging human error etc., with AI there is not even the theoretical promise that one can be given a truthful account of how it decided to do what it did.) Remsense ‥ 论07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Like everyone said, there should be a de facto ban on using AI images in Misplaced Pages articles. They are effectively fake images pretending to be real, so they are out of step with the values of Misplaced Pages.--♦IanMacM♦08:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Except, not everybody has said that, because the majority of those of us who have refrained from hyperbole have pointed out that not all AI images are "fake images pretending to be real" (and those few that are can already be removed under existing policy). You might like to try actually reading the discussion before commenting further. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense, exactly how much "ability to check what the thing is doing" do you need to be able to do, when the image shows 99 dots and 1 baseball, to illustrate the concept of 1%? If the image above said {{pd-algorithm}} instead of {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, would you remove if from the article, because you just can't be sure that it shows 1%? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is a useful example to an extent, but it is a toy example. I really do think i is required in general when we aren't dealing with media we ourselves are generating. Remsense ‥ 论04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we differentiate in policy between a "toy example" (that really would be used in an article) and "real" examples? Is it just that if I upload it, then you know me, and assume I've been responsible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
There definitely exist generative AI for SVG files. Here's an example: I used generative AI in Adobe Illustrator to generate the SVG gear in File:Pinwheel scheduling.svg (from Pinwheel scheduling) before drawing by hand the more informative parts of the image. The gear drawing is not great (a real gear would have uniform tooth shape) but maybe the shading is better than I would have done by hand, giving an appearance of dimensionality and surface material while remaining deliberately stylized. Is that the sort of thing everyone here is trying to forbid?
I can definitely see a case for forbidding AI-generated photorealistic images, especially of BLPs, but that's different from human oversight of AI in the generation of schematic images such as this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd include BDPs, too. I had to get a few AI-generated images of allegedly Haitian presidents deleted a while ago. The "paintings" were 100% fake, right down to the deformed medals on their military uniforms. An AI-generated "generic person" would be okay for some purposes. For a few purposes (e.g., illustrations of Obesity) it could even be preferable to have a fake "person" than a real one. But for individual/named people, it would be best not to have anything unless it definitely looks like the named person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Of course, that's why I'm only looking at specific cases and refrain from proposing a blanket ban on generative AI. Regarding Donald Trump, we do have one AI-generated image of him that is reasonable to allow (in Springfield pet-eating hoax), as the image itself was the subject of relevant commentary. Of course, this is different from using an AI-generated image to illustrate Donald Trump himself, which is what my proposal would recommend against. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That's certainly true, but others are adopting much more extreme positions than you are, and it was the more extreme views that I wished to challenge.—S MarshallT/C11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Going off WAID's example above, perhaps we should be trying to restrict the use of AI where image accuracy/precision is essential, as it would be for BLP and medical info, among other cases, but in cases where we are talking generic or abstract concepts, like the 1% image, it's use is reasonable. I would still say we should strongly prefer am image made by a human with high control of the output, but when accuracy is not as important as just the visualization, it's reasonable to turn to AI to help. Masem (t) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support total ban of AI imagery - There are probable copyright problems and veracity problems with anything coming out of a machine. In a word of manipulated reality, Misplaced Pages will be increasingly respected for holding a hard line against synthetic imagery. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
For both issues AI vs not AI is irrelevant. For copyright, if the image is a copyvio we can't use it regardless of whether it is AI or not AI, if it's not a copyvio then that's not a reason to use or not use the image. If the images is not verifiably accurate then we already can (and should) exclude it, regardless of whether it is AI or not AI. For more detail see the extensive discussion above you've either not read or ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely should ban the use of AI-generated images in these subjects (and beyond, but that's outside the scope of this discussion). AI should not be used to make up a simulation of a living person. It does not actually depict the person and may introduce errors or flaws that don't actually exist. The picture does not depict the real person because it is quite simply fake.
Even worse would be using AI to develop medical images in articles in any way. The possibility for error there is unacceptable. Yes, humans make errors too, but there there is a) someone with the responsibility to fix it and b) someone conscious who actually made the picture, rather than a black box that spat it out after looking at similar training data. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 20:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It's incredibly disheartening to see multiple otherwise intelligent editors who have apparently not read and/or not understood what has been said in the discussion but rather responding with what appears to be knee-jerk reactions to anti-AI scaremongering. The sky will not fall in, Misplaced Pages is not going to be taken over by AI, AI is not out to subvert Misplaced Pages, we already can (and do) remove (and more commonly not add in the first placE) false and misleading information/images. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
So what benefit does allowing AI images bring? We shouldn't be forced to decide these on a case-by-case basis.
I'm sorry to dishearten you, but I still respectfully disagree with you. And I don't think this is "scaremongering" (although I admit that if it was, I would of course claim it wasn't). Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 21:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Determining what benefits any image brings to Misplaced Pages can only be done on a case-by-case basis. It is literally impossible to know whether any image improves the encyclopaedia without knowing the context of which portion of what article it would illustrate, and what alternative images are and are not available for that same spot.
The benefit of allowing AI images is that when an AI image is the best option for a given article we use it. We gain absolutely nothing by prohibiting using the best image available, indeed doing so would actively harm the project without bringing any benefits. AI images that are misleading, inaccurate or any of the other negative things any image can be are never the best option and so are never used - we don't need any policies or guidelines to tell us that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support blanket ban on AI-generated text or images in articles, except in contexts where the AI-generated content is itself the subject of discussion (in a specific or general sense). Generative AI is fundamentally at odds with Misplaced Pages's mission of providing reliable information, because of its propensity to distort reality or make up information out of whole cloth. It has no place in our encyclopedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Support blanket ban on AI-generated images except in ABOUTSELF contexts. This is especially a problem given the preeminence Google gives to Misplaced Pages images in its image search. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Ban across the board, except in articles which are actually about AI-generated imagery or the tools used to create them, or the image itself is the subject of substantial commentary within the article for some reason. Even in those cases, clearly indicating that the image is AI-generated should be required. Seraphimblade00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket bans that would forbid the use of AI assistance in creating diagrams or other deliberately stylized content. Also oppose blanket bans that would forbid AI illustrations in articles about AI illustrations. I am not opposed to banning photorealistic AI-generated images in non-AI-generation contexts or banning AI-generated images from BLPs unless the image itself is specifically relevant to the subject of the BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket bans AI is just a new buzzword so, for example, Apple phones now include "Apple Intelligence" as a standard feature. Does this means that photographs taken using Apple phones will be inadmissable? That would be silly because legacy technologies are already rife with issues of accuracy and verification. For example, there's an image on the main page right now (right). This purports to be a particular person ("The Father of Australia") but, if you check the image description, you find that it may have been his brother and even the attribution to the artist is uncertain. AI features may help in exposing such existing weaknesses in our image use and so we should be free to use them in an intelligent way. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
So, you expect an the AI, notoriously trained on Misplaced Pages (and whatever else is floating around on the internet), to correct Misplaced Pages where humans have failed... using the data it scraped from Misplaced Pages (and who knows where else)? :bloodofox: (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I tried using the Deep Research option of Gemini to assess the attribution of the Macquarie portrait. Its stated methodology seemed quite respectable and sensible.
The Opie Portrait of Lachlan Macquarie: An Examination of its Attribution: Methodology
To thoroughly investigate the attribution of the Opie portrait of Lachlan Macquarie, a comprehensive research process was undertaken. This involved several key steps:
Gathering information on the Opie portrait: This included details about its history, provenance, and any available information on its cost.
Reviewing scholarly articles and publications: This step focused on finding academic discussions specifically addressing the attribution of the portrait to John Opie.
Collecting expert opinions: Statements and opinions from art experts and historians were gathered to understand the range of perspectives on the certainty of the attribution.
Examining historical documents and records: This involved searching for any records that could shed light on the portrait's origins and authenticity, such as Macquarie's personal journals or contemporary accounts.
Exploring scientific and technical analyses: Information was sought on any scientific or technical analyses conducted on the portrait, such as pigment analysis or canvas dating, to determine its authenticity.
Comparing the portrait to other Opie works: This step involved analyzing the style and technique of the Opie portrait in comparison to other known portraits by Opie to identify similarities and differences.
It was quite transparent in listing and citing the sources that it used for its analysis. These included the Misplaced Pages image but if one didn't want that included, it would be easy to exclude it.
So, AIs don't have to be inscrutable black boxes. They can have programmatic parameters like the existing bots and scripts that we use routinely on Misplaced Pages. Such power tools seem needed to deal with the large image backlogs that we have on Commons. Perhaps they could help by providing captions and categories where these don't exist.
They don't have to be black boxes but they are by design: they exist in a legally dubious area and thus hide what they're scraping to avoid further legal problems. That's no secret. We know for example that Misplaced Pages is a core data set for likely most AIs today. They also notoriously and quite confidently spit out a lie ("hallucinate") and frequently spit out total nonsense. Add to that that they're restricted to whatever is floating around on the internet or whatever other data set they've been fed (usually just more internet), and many specialist topics, like texts on ancient history and even standard reference works, are not accessible on the internet (despite Google's efforts). :bloodofox: (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
While its stated methodology seems sensible, there's no evidence that it actually followed that methodology. The bullet points are pretty vague, and are pretty much the default methodologies used to examine actual historical works. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, there's evidence. As I stated above, the analysis is transparent and cites the sources that it used. And these all seem to check out rather than being invented. So, this level of AI goes beyond the first generation of LLM and addresses some of their weaknesses. I suppose that image generation is likewise being developed and improved and so we shouldn't rush to judgement while the technology is undergoing rapid development. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket ban: best of luck to editors here who hope to be able to ban an entirely undefined and largely undetectable procedure. The term 'AI' as commonly used is no more than a buzzword - what exactly would be banned? And how does it improve the encyclopedia to encourage editors to object to images not simply because they are inaccurate, or inappropriate for the article, but because they subjectively look too good? Will the image creator be quizzed on Commons about the tools they used? Will creators who are transparent about what they have created have their images deleted while those who keep silent don’t? Honestly, this whole discussion is going to seem hopelessly outdated within a year at most. It’s like when early calculators were banned in exams because they were ‘cheating’, forcing students to use slide rules. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I am genuinely confused as to why this has turned into a discussion about a blanket ban, even though the original proposal exclusively focused on AI-generated images (the kind that is generated by an AI model from a prompt, which are already tagged on Commons, not regular images with AI enhancement or tools being used) and only in specific contexts. Not sure where the "subjectively look too good" thing even comes from, honestly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That just show how ill-defined the whole area is. It seem you restrict the term 'AI-generated' to mean "images generated solely(?) from a text prompt". The question posed above has no such restriction. What a buzzword means is largely in the mind of the reader, of course, but to me and I think to many, 'AI-generated' means generated by AI. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I used the text prompt example because that is the most common way to have an AI model generate an image, but I recognize that I should've clarified it better. There is definitely a distinction between an image being generated by AI (like the Laurence Boccolini example below) and an image being altered or retouched by AI (which includes many features integrated in smartphones today). I don't think it's a "buzzword" to say that there is a meaningful difference between an image being made up by an AI model and a preexisting image being altered in some way, and I am surprised that many people understand "AI-generated" as including the latter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose as unenforceable. I just want you to imagine enforcing this policy against people who have not violated it. All this will do is allow Wikipedians who primarily contribute via text to accuse artists of using AI because they don't like the results to get their contributions taken down. I understand the impulse to oppose AI on principle, but the labor and aesthetic issues don't actually have anything to do with Misplaced Pages. If there is not actually a problem with the content conveyed by the image—for example, if the illustrator intentionally corrected any hallucinations—then someone objecting over AI is not discussing page content. If the image was not even made with AI, they are hallucinating based on prejudices that are irrelevant to the image. The bottom line is that images should be judged on their content, not how they were made. Besides all the policy-driven stuff, if Misplaced Pages's response to the creation of AI imaging tools is to crack down on all artistic contributions to Misplaced Pages (which seems to be the inevitable direction of these discussions), what does that say? Categorical bans of this kind are ill-advised and anti-illustrator. lethargilistic (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
And the same applies to photography, of course. If in my photo of a garden I notice there is a distracting piece of paper on the lawn, nobody would worry if I used the old-style clone-stamp tool to remove it in Photoshop, adding new grass in its place (I'm assuming here that I don't change details of the actual landscape in any way). Now, though, Photoshop uses AI to achieve essentially the same result while making it simpler for the user. A large proportion of all processed photos will have at least some similar but essentially undetectable "generated AI" content, even if only a small area of grass. There is simply no way to enforce the proposed policy, short of banning all high-quality photography – which requires post-processing by design, and in which similar encyclopedically non-problematic edits are commonplace. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Before anyone objects that my example is not "an image generated from a text prompt", note that there's no mention of such a restriction in the proposal we are discussing. Even if there were, it makes no difference. Photoshop can already generate photo-realistic areas from a text prompt. If such use is non-misleading and essentially undetectable, it's fine; if if changes the image in such a way as to make it misleading, inaccurate or non-encycpopedic in any way it can be challenged on that basis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said previously, the text prompt is just an example, not a restriction of the proposal. The point is that you talk about editing an existing image (which is what you talk about, as you say if if changes the image), while I am talking about creating an image ex nihilo, which is what "generating" means. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm talking about a photograph with AI-generated areas within it. This is commonplace, and is targeted by the proposal. Categorical bans of the type suggested are indeed ill-advised. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if the ban is unenforceable, there are many editors who will choose to use AI images if they are allowed and just as cheerfully skip them if they are not allowed. That would mean the only people posting AI images are those who choose to break the rule and/or don't know about it. That would probably add up to many AI images not used. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blanket ban because "AI" is a fundamentally unethical technology based on the exploitation of labor, the wanton destruction of the planetary environment, and the subversion of every value that an encyclopedia should stand for. ABOUTSELF-type exceptions for "AI" output that has already been generated might be permissible, in order to document the cursed time in which we live, but those exceptions are going to be rare. How many examples of Shrimp Jesus slop do we need? XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blanket ban - Primarily because of the "poisoning the well"/"dead internet" issues created by it. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Support that WP:POLICY applies to images: images should be verifiable, neutral, and absent of original research. AI is just the latest quickest way to produce images that are original, unverifiable, and potentially biased. Is anyone in their right mind saying that we allow people to game our rules on WP:OR and WP:V by using images instead of text? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As an aside on this: in some cases Commons is being treated as a way of side-stepping WP:NOR and other restrictions. Stuff that would get deleted if it were written content on WP gets in to WP as images posted on Commons. The worst examples are those conflict maps that are created from a bunch of Twitter posts (eg the Syrian civil war one). AI-generated imagery is another field where that appears to be happening. FOARP (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Support temporary blanket ban with a posted expiration/requred rediscussion date of no more than two years from closing. AI as the term is currently used is very, very new. Right now these images would do more harm than good, but it seems likely that the culture will adjust to them. I support an exception for the when the article is about the image itself and that image is notable, such as the photograph of the black-and-blue/gold-and-white dress in The Dress and/or examples of AI images in articles in which they are relevant. E.g. "here is what a hallucination is: count the fingers." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
First, I think any guidance should avoid referring to specific technology, as that changes rapidly and is used for many different purposes. Second, assuming that the image in question has a suitable copyright status for use on Misplaced Pages, the key question is whether or not the reliability of the image has been established. If the intent of the image is to display 100 dots with 99 having the same appearance and 1 with a different appearance, then ordinary math skills are sufficient and so any Misplaced Pages editor can evaluate the reliability without performing original research. If the intent is to depict a likeness of a specific person, then there needs to be reliable sources indicating that the image is sufficiently accurate. This is the same for actual photographs, re-touched ones, drawings, hedcuts, and so forth. Typically this can be established by a reliable source using that image with a corresponding description or context. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Blanket Ban on AI generated imagery per most of the discussion above. It's a very slippery slope. I might consider a very narrow exception for an AI generated image of a person that was specifically authorized or commissioned by the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose blanket ban It is far too early to take an absolutist position, particularly when the potential is enormous. Misplaced Pages is already is image desert and to reject something that is only at the cusp of development is unwise. scope_creep20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blanket ban on AI-generated images except in ABOUTSELF contexts. An encyclopedia should not be using fake images. I do not believe that further nuance is necessary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Support blanket ban as the general guideline, as accuracy, personal rights, and intellectual rights issues are very weighty, here (as is disclosure to the reader). (I could see perhaps supporting adoption of a sub-guideline for ways to come to a broad consensus in individual use cases (carve-outs, except for BLPs) which address all the weighty issues on an individual use basis -- but that needs to be drafted and agreed to, and there is no good reason to wait to adopt the general ban in the meantime). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Which parts of this photo are real?
Support indefinite blanket ban except ABOUTSELF and simple abstract examples (such as the image of 99 dots above). In addition to all the issues raised above, including copyvio and creator consent issues, in cases of photorealistic images it may never be obvious to all readers exactly which elements of the image are guesswork. The cormorant picture at the head of the section reminded me of the first video of a horse in gallop, in 1878. Had AI been trained on paintings of horses instead of actual videos and used to "improve" said videos, we would've ended up with serious delusions about the horse's gait. We don't know what questions -- scientific or otherwise -- photography will be used to settle in the coming years, but we do know that consumer-grade photo AI has already been trained to intentionally fake detail to draw sales, such as on photos of the Moon. I think it's unrealistic to require contributors to take photos with expensive cameras or specially-made apps, but Misplaced Pages should act to limit its exposure to this kind of technology as far as is feasible. DaßWölf20:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Support at least some sort of recomendation against the use AI generated imagery in non-AI contexts−except obviously where the topic of the article is specificly related to AI generated imagery (Generative artificial intelligence, Springfield pet-eating hoax, AI slop, etc.). At the very least the consensus bellow about BLPs should be extened to all historical biographies, as all the examples I've seen (see WP:AIIMAGE) fail WP:IMAGERELEVANCE (failing to add anything to the sourced text) and serving only to mislead the reader. We inclued images for a reason, not just for decoration. I'm also reminded the essay WP:PORTRAIT, and the distinction it makes between notable depictions of histoical people (which can be useful to illustarate articles) and non-notable fictional portraits which in its (imo well argued) view have no legitimate encyclopedic function whatsoever. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk14:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Anything that fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE can be, should be, and is, excluded from use already, likewise any images which have no legitimate encyclopedic function whatsoever. This applies to AI and none AI images equally and identically. Just as we don't have or need a policy or guideline specifically saying don't use irrelevant or otherwise non-encyclopaedic watercolour images in articles we don't need any policy or guideline specifically calling out AI - because it would (as you demonstrate) need to carve out exceptions for when it's use is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That would be an easy change; just add a sentence like "AI-generated images of individual people are primarily decorative and should not be used". We should probably do that no matter what else is decided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Except that is both not true and irrelevant. Some AI-generated images of individual people are primarily decorative, but not all of them. If an image is purely decorative it shouldn't be used, regardless of whether it is AI-generated or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an AI-generated image of an individual person that is (a) not primarily decorative and also (b) not copied from the person's social media/own publications, and that (c) at least some editors think would be a good idea?
"Hey, AI, please give me a realistic-looking photo of this person who died in the 12th century" is not it. "Hey, AI, we have no freely licensed photos of this celebrity, so please give me a line-art caricature" is not it. What is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Criteria (b) and (c) were not part of the statement I was responding to, and make it a very significantly different assertion. I will assume that you are not making motte-and-bailey arguments in bad faith, but the frequent fallacious argumentation in these AI discussions is getting tiresome.
Even with the additional criteria it is still irrelevant - if no editor thinks an image is a good idea, then it won't be used in an article regardless of why they don't think it's a good idea. If some editors think an individual image is a good idea then it's obviously potentially encyclopaedic and needs to be judged on its merits (whether it is AI-generated is completely irrelevant to it's encyclopaedic value). An image that the subject uses on their social media/own publications to identify themselves (for example as an avatar) is the perfect example of the type of image which is frequently used in articles about that individual. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
BLPs
CONSENSUS AGAINST
There is clear consensus against using AI-generated imagery to depict BLP subjects. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) can be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I will add a sentence reflecting this consensus to the image use policy and the BLP policy. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are AI-generated images (generated via text prompts, see also: text-to-image model) okay to use to depict BLP subjects? The Laurence Boccolini example was mentioned in the opening paragraph. The image was created using Grok / Aurora, a text-to-image model developed by xAI, to generate images...As with other text-to-image models, Aurora generates images from natural language descriptions, called prompts.AI-generated image of Laurence BoccoliniSome1 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)AI-generated cartoon portrait of Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco
03:58, January 3, 2025: Note: that these images can either be photorealistic in style (such as the Laurence Boccolini example) or non-photorealistic in style (see the Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco example, which was generated using DALL-E, another text-to-image model).
No. I don't think they are at all, as, despite looking photorealistic, they are essentially just speculation about what the person might look like. A photorealistic image conveys the look of something up to the details, and giving a false impression of what the person looks like (or, at best, just guesswork) is actively counterproductive. (Edit 21:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC): clarified bolded !vote since everyone else did it) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
There are plenty of non-free images of Laurence Boccolini with which this image can be compared. Assuming at least most of those are accurate representations of them (I've never heard of them before and have no other frame of reference) the image above is similar to but not an accurate representation of them (most obviously but probably least significantly, in none of the available images are they wearing that design of glasses). This means the image should not be used to identify them unless they use it to identify themselves. It should not be used elsewhere in the article unless it has been the subject of notable commentary. That it is an AI image makes absolutely no difference to any of this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Well, that was easy.They are fake images; they do not actually depict the person. They depict an AI-generated simulation of a person that may be inaccurate. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 20:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No, with the caveat that its mostly on the grounds that we don't have enough information and when it comes to BLP we are required to exercise caution. If at some point in the future AI generated photorealistic simulacrums living people become mainstream with major newspapers and academic publishers it would be fair to revisit any restrictions, but in this I strongly believe that we should follow not lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
No. The use of AI-generated images to depict people (living or otherwise) is fundamentally misleading, because the images are not actually depicting the person. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, when that image is an accurate representation and better than any available alternative, used by the subject to represent themselves, or the subject of notable commentary. However, as these are the exact requirements to use any image to represent a BLP subject this is already policy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
How well can we determine how accurate a representation it is? Looking at the example above, I'd argue that the real Laurence Boccolini has a somewhat rounder/pointier chin, a wider mouth, and possibly different eye wrinkles, although the latter probably depends quite a lot on the facial expression.
How well can we determine how accurate a representation it is? in exactly the same way that we can determine whether a human-crafted image is an accurate representation. How accurate a representation any image is is ultimately a matter of editor opinion. Whether an image is AI or not is irrelevant. I agree the example image above is not sufficiently accurate, but we wouldn't ban photoshopped images because one example was not deemed accurate enough, because we are rational people who understand that one example is not representative of an entire class of images - at least when the subject is something other than AI. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think except in a few exceptional circumstances of actual complex restorations, human photoshopping is not going to change or distort a person's appearance in the same way an AI image would. Modifications done by a person who is paying attention to what they are doing and merely enhancing an image, by person who is aware, while they are making changes, that they might be distorting the image and is, I only assume, trying to minimise it – those careful modifications shouldn't be equated with something made up by an AI image generator. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
A photo of a person can be connected to a specific time, place, and subject that existed. It can be compared to other images sharing one or more of those properties. A photo that was PhotoShopped is still either a generally faithful reproduction of a scene that existed, or has significant alterations that can still be attributed to a human or at least to a specific algorithm, e.g. filters. The artistic license of a painting can still be attributed to a human and doesn't run much risk of being misidentified as real, unless it's by Chuck Close et al. An AI-generated image cannot be connected to a particular scene that ever existed and cannot be attributable to a human's artistic license (and there is legal precedent that such images are not copyrightable to the prompter specifically because of this). Individual errors in a human-generated artwork are far more predictable, understandable, identifiable, traceable... than those in AI-generated images. We have innate assumptions when we encounter real images or artwork that are just not transferable. These are meaningful differences to the vast majority of people: according to a Getty poll, 87% of respondents want AI-generated art to at least be transparent, and 98% consider authentic images "pivotal in establishing trust". And even if you disagree with all that, can you not see the larger problem of AI images on Misplaced Pages getting propagated into generative AI corpora? JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that our old assumptions don't hold true. I think the world will need new assumptions. We will probably have those in place in another decade or so.
Absolutely no fake/AI images of people, photorealistic or otherwise. How is this even a question? These images are fake. Readers need to be able to trust Misplaced Pages, not navigate around whatever junk someone has created with a prompt and presented as somehow representative. This includes text. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
For the requested clarification by Some1, no AI-generated images (except when the image itself is specifically discussed in the article, and even then it should not be the lead image and it should be clearly indicated that the image is AI-generated), no drawings, no nothing of that sort. Actual photographs of the subject, nothing else. Articles are not required to have images at all; no image whatsoever is preferable to something which is not an image of the person. Seraphimblade05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No, but with exceptions. I could imagine a case where a specific AI-generated image has some direct relevance to the notability of the subject of a BLP. In such cases, it should be included, if it could be properly licensed. But I do oppose AI-generated images as portraits of BLP subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Since I was pinged on this point: when I wrote "I do oppose AI-generated images as portraits", I meant exactly that, including all AI-generated images, such as those in a sketchy or artistic style, not just the photorealistic ones. I am not opposed to certain uses of AI-generated images in BLPs when they are not the main portrait of the subject, for instance in diagrams (not depicting the subject) to illustrate some concept pioneered by the subject, or in case someone becomes famous for being the subject of an AI-generated image. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No, and no exceptions or do-overs. Better to have no images (or Stone-Age style cave paintings) than Frankenstein images, no matter how accurate or artistic. Akin to shopped manipulated photographs, they should have no room (or room service) at the WikiInn. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Some "shopped manipulated photographs" are misleading and inaccurate, others are not. We can and do exclude the former from the parts of the encyclopaedia where they don't add value without specific policies and without excluding them where they are relevant (e.g. Photograph manipulation) or excluding those that are not misleading or inaccurate. AI images are no different. Thryduulf (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Assuming we know. Assuming it's material. The infobox image in – and the only extant photo of – Blind Lemon Jefferson was "photoshopped" by a marketing team, maybe half a century before Adobe Photoshop was created. They wanted to show him wearing a necktie. I don't think that this level of manipulation is actually a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No Not at all relevant for pictures of people, as the accuracy is not enough and can misrepresent. Also (and I'm shocked as it seems no one has mentioned this), what about Copyright issues? Who holds the copyright for an AI-generated image? The user who wrote the prompt? The creator(s) of the AI model? The creator(s) of the images in the database that the AI used to create the images? It's sounds to me such a clusterfuck of copyright issues that I don't understand how this is even a discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Under the US law / copyright office, machine-generated images including those by AI cannot be copyrighted. That also means that AI images aren't treated as derivative works. What is still under legal concern is whether the use of bodies of copyrighted works without any approve or license from the copyright holders to train AI models is under fair use or not. There are multiple court cases where this is the primary challenge, and none have yet to reach a decision yet. Assuming the courts rule that there was no fair use, that would either require the entity that owns the AI to pay fines and ongoing licensing costs, or delete their trained model to start afresh with free licensed/works, but in either case, that would not impact how we'd use any resulting AI image from a copyright standpoint. — Masem (t) 14:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I'm in agreeance with Seraphimblade here. Whether we like it or not, the usage of a portrait on an article implies that it's just that, a portrait. It's incredibly disingenuous to users to represent an AI generated photo as truth. Doawk7 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
So you just said a portrait can be used because[REDACTED] tells you it's a portrait, and thus not a real photo. Can't AI be exactly the same? As long as we tell readers it is an AI representation? Heck, most AI looks closer to the real thing than any portrait. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't mean "portrait" as in "painting," I meant it as "photo of person."
However, I really want to stick to what you say at the end there: Heck, most AI looks closer to the real thing than any portrait.
That's exactly the problem: by looking close to the "real thing" it misleads users into believing a non-existent source of truth.
Per the wording of the RfC of "depict BLP subjects," I don't think there would be any valid case to utilize AI images. I hold a strong No. Doawk7 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No. We should not use AI-generated images for situations like this, they are basically just guesswork by a machine as Quark said and they can misinform readers as to what a person looks like. Plus, there's a big grey area regarding copyright. For an AI generator to know what somebody looks like, it has to have photos of that person in its dataset, so it's very possible that they can be considered derivative works or copyright violations. Using an AI image (derivative work) to get around the fact that we have no free images is just fair use with extra steps. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Gisèle Pelicot?
Maybe There was a prominent BLP image which we displayed on the main page recently. (right) This made me uneasy because it was an artistic impression created from photographs rather than life. And it was "colored digitally". Functionally, this seems to be exactly the same sort of thing as the Laurence Boccolini composite. The issue should not be whether there's a particular technology label involved but whether such creative composites and artists' impressions are acceptable as better than nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Except it is clear to everyone that the illustration to the right is a sketch, a human rendition, while in the photorealistic image above, it is less clear. Cremastra (u — c) 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Except it says right below it "AI-generated image of Laurence Boccolini." How much more clear can it be when it say point-blank "AI-generated image." Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
People taking a quick glance at an infobox image that looks pretty like a photograph are not going to scrutinize commons tagging. Cremastra (u — c) 14:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind that many AIs can produce works that match various styles, not just photographic quality. It is still possible for AI to produce something that looks like a watercolor or sketched drawing. — Masem (t) 14:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Same thing I wrote above, but for "photoshopping" read "drawing": (Bold added for emphasis)
...human is not going to change or distort a person's appearance in the same way an AI image would. done by a person who is paying attention to what they are doing by person who is aware, while they are making , that they might be distorting the image and is, I only assume, trying to minimise it – those careful modifications shouldn't be equated with something made up by an AI image generator.Cremastra (u — c) 20:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Cremastra then why are you advocating for a ban on AI images rather than a ban on distorted images? Remember that with careful modifications by someone who is aware of what they are doing that AI images can be made more accurate. Why are you assuming that a human artist is trying to minimise the distortions but someone working with AI is not? Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe that AI-generated images are fundamentally misleading because they are a simulation by a machine rather than a drawing by a human. To quote pythoncoder above: The use of AI-generated images to depict people (living or otherwise) is fundamentally misleading, because the images are not actually depicting the person.Cremastra (u — c) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Once again your actual problem is not AI, but with misleading images. Which can be, and are, already a violation of policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think all AI-generated images, except simple diagrams as WhatamIdoing point out above, are misleading. So yes, my problem is with misleading images, which includes all photorealistic images generated by AI, which is why I support this proposal for a blanket ban in BLPs and medical articles. Cremastra (u — c) 02:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Despite the fact that not all AI-generated images are misleading, not all misleading images are AI-generated and it is not always possible to tell whether an image is or is not AI-generated? Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Enforcement is a separate issue. Whether or not all (or the vast majority) of AI images are misleading is the subject of this dispute.
I'm not going to mistreat the horse further, as we've each made our points and understand where the other stands. Cremastra (u — c) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Even "simple diagrams" are not clear-cut. The process of AI-generating any image, no matter how simple, is still very complex and can easily follow any number of different paths to meet the prompt constraints. These paths through embedding space are black boxes and the likelihood they converge on the same output is going to vary wildly depending on the degrees of freedom in the prompt, the dimensionality of the embedding space, token corpus size, etc. The only thing the user can really change, other than switching between models, is the prompt, and at some point constructing a prompt that is guaranteed to yield the same result 100% of the time becomes a Borgesian exercise. This is in contrast with non-generative AI diagram-rendering software that follow very fixed, reproducible, known paths. JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Why does the path matter? If the output is correct it is correct no matter what route was taken to get there. If the output is incorrect it is incorrect no matter what route was taken to get there. If it is unknown or unknowable whether the output is correct or not that is true no matter what route was taken to get there. Thryduulf (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
If I use BioRender or GraphPad to generate a figure, I can be confident that the output does not have errors that would misrepresent the underlying data. I don't have to verify that all 18,000 data points in a scatter plot exist in the correct XYZ positions because I know the method for rendering them is published and empirically validated. Other people can also be certain that the process of getting from my input to the product is accurate and reproducible, and could in theory reconstruct my raw data from it. AI-generated figures have no prescribed method of transforming input beyond what the prompt entails; therefore I additionally have to be confident in how precise my prompt is and confident that the training corpus for this procedure is so accurate that no error-producing paths exist (not to mention absolutely certain that there is no embedded contamination from prior prompts). Other people have all those concerns, and on top of that likely don't have access to the prompt or the raw data to validate the output, nor do they necessarily know how fastidious I am about my generative AI use. At least with a hand-drawn diagram viewers can directly transfer their trust in the author's knowledge and reliability to their presumptions about the diagram's accuracy. JoelleJay (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The original "simple geometric diagrams" comment was referring to your 100 dots image. I don't think increasing the dots materially changes the discussion beyond increasing the laboriousness of verifying the accuracy of the image. Photos of Japan (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but since "the laboriousness of verifying the accuracy of the image" is exactly what she doesn't want to undertake for 18,000 dots, then I think that's very relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
And where is that cutoff supposed to be? 1000 dots? A single straight line? An atomic diagram? What is "simple" to someone unfamiliar with a topic may be more complex.And I don't want to count 100 dots either! JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you don't. But I know for certain that you can count 10 across, 10 down, and multiply those two numbers to get 100. That's what I did when I made the image, after all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: when you Google search someone (at least from the Chrome browser), often the link to the Misplaced Pages article includes a thumbnail of the lead photo as a preview. Even if the photo is labelled as an AI image in the article, people looking at the thumbnail from Google would be misled (if the image is chosen for the preview). Photos of Japan (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This is why we should not use inaccurate images, regardless of how the image was created. It has absolutely nothing to do with AI. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Already opposed a blanket ban: It's unclear to me why we have a separate BLP subsection, as BLPs are already included in the main section above. Anyway, I expressed my views there. MichaelMaggs (talk)
No For at least now, let's not let the problems of AI intrude into BLP articles which need to have the highest level of scrutiny to protect the person represented. Other areas on WP may benefit from AI image use, but let's keep it far out of BLP at this point. --Masem (t) 14:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not a fan of “banning” AI images completely… but I agree that BLPs require special handling. I look at AI imagery as being akin to a computer generated painting. In a BLP, we allow paintings of the subject, but we prefer photos over paintings (if available). So… we should prefer photos over AI imagery. That said, AI imagery is getting good enough that it can be mistaken for a photo… so… If an AI generated image is the only option (ie there is no photo available), then the caption should clearly indicate that we are using an AI generated image. And that image should be replaced as soon as possible with an actual photograph. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue with the latter is that Misplaced Pages images get picked up by Google and other search engines, where the caption isn't there anymore to add the context that a photorealistic image was AI-generated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect commercial search engine companies.
I think my view aligns with Blueboar's (except that I find no firm preference for photos over classical portrait paintings): We shouldn't have inaccurate AI images of people (living or dead). But the day appears to be coming when AI will generate accurate ones, or at least ones that are close enough to accurate that we can't tell the difference unless the uploader voluntarily discloses that information. Once we can no longer tell the difference, what's the point in banning them? Images need to look like the thing being depicted. When we put an photorealistic image in an article, we could be said to be implicitly claiming that the image looks like whatever's being depicted. We are not necessarily warranting that the image was created through a specific process, but the image really does need to look like the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
You are presuming that sufficient accuracy will prevent us from knowing whether someone is uploading an AI photo, but that is not the case. For instance, if someone uploads large amounts of "photos" of famous people, and can't account for how they got them (e.g. can't give a source where they scraped them from, or dates or any Exif metadata at all for when they were taken), then it will still be obvious that they are likely using AI. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As another editor pointed out in their comment, there's the ethics/moral dilemma of creating fake photorealistic pictures of people and putting them on the internet, especially on a site such as Misplaced Pages and especially on their own biography. WP:BLP says the bios must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.Some1 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Once we can no longer tell the difference, what's the point in banning them? Sounds like a wolf's in sheep's clothing to me. Just because the surface appeal of fake pictures gets better, doesn't mean we should let the horse in. Cremastra (u — c) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If there are no appropriately-licensed images of a person, then by definition any AI-generated image of them will be either a copyright infringement or a complete fantasy. JoelleJay (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Whether it would be a copyright infringement or not is both an unsettled legal question and not relevant: If an image is a copyvio we can't use it and it is irrelevant why it is a copyvio. If an image is a "complete fantasy" then it is exactly as unusable as a complete fantasy generated by non-AI means, so again AI is irrelevant. I've had to explain this multiple times in this discussion, so read that for more detail and note the lack of refutation. Thryduulf (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Ooooh, I'm not sure that we can assume that humans aren't blatantly copying something. We can assume that they meant to be helpful, but that's not quite the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
What this conversation is really circling around is banning entire skillsets from contributing to Misplaced Pages merely because some of us are afraid of AI images and some others of us want to engineer a convenient, half-baked, policy-level "consensus" to point to when they delete quality images from Misplaced Pages. Every time someone generates text based on a source, they are doing some acceptable level of interpretation to extract facts or rephrase it around copyright law, and I don't think illustrations should be considered so severely differently as to justify a categorical ban. For instance, the Gisele Pelicot portrait is based on non-free photos of her. Once the illustration exists, it is trivial to compare it to non-free images to determine if it is an appropriate likeness, which it is. That's no different than judging contributed text's compliance with fact and copyright by referring to the source. It shouldn't be treated differently just because most Wikipedians contribute via text. Additionally, referring to interpretive skillsets that synthesize new information like, random example, statistical analysis. Excluding those from Misplaced Pages is current practice and not controversial. Meanwhile, I think the ability to create images is more fundamental than that. It's not (inheretly) synthesizing new information. A portrait of a person (alongside the other examples in this thread) contains verifiable information. It is current practice to allow them to fill the gaps where non-free photos can't. That should continue. Honestly, it should expand.
Additionally, in direct response to "these images are fake": All illustrations of a subject could be called "fake" because they are not photographs. (Which can also be faked.) The standard for the inclusion of an illustration on Misplaced Pages has never been photorealism, medium, or previous publication in a RS. The standard is how adequately it reflects the facts which it claims to depict. If there is a better image that can be imported to Misplaced Pages via fair use or a license, then an image can be easily replaced. Until such a better image has been sourced, it is absolutely bewildering to me that we would even discuss removing images of people from their articles. What a person looked like is one of the most basic things that people want to know when they look someone up on Misplaced Pages. Including an image of almost any quality (yes, even a cartoon) is practically by definition an improvement to the article and addressing an important need. We should be encouraging artists to continue filling the gaps that non-free images cannot fill, not creating policies that will inevitably expand into more general prejudices against all new illustrations on Misplaced Pages. lethargilistic (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
By "Oppose", I'm assuming your answer to the RfC question is "Yes". And this RfC is about using AI-generated images (generated via text prompts, see also: text-to-image model) to depict BLP subjects, not regarding human-created drawings/cartoons/sketches, etc. of BLPs. Some1 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I've changed it to "yes" to reflect the reversed question. I think all of this is related because there is no coherent distinguishing point; AI can be used to create images in a variety of styles. These discussions have shown that a policy of banning AI images will be used against non-AI images of all kinds, so I think it's important to say these kinds of things now. lethargilistic (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Photorealistic images scraped from who knows where from who knows what sources are without question simply fake photographs and also clear WP:OR and outright WP:SYNTH. There's no two ways about it. Articles do not require images: An article with some Frankenstein-ed image scraped from who knows what, where and, when that you "created" from a prompt is not an improvement over having no image at all. If we can't provide a quality image (like something you didn't cook up from a prompt) then people can find quality, non-fake images elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I really encourage you to read the discussion I linked before because it is on the WP:NOR talk page. Images like these do not inherently include either OR or SYNTH, and the arguments that they do cannot be distinguished from any other user-generated image content. But, briefly, I never said articles required images, and this is not about what articles require. It is about improvements to the articles. Including a relevant picture where none exists is almost always an improvement, especially for subjects like people. Your disdain for the method the person used to make an image is irrelevant to whether the content of the image is actually verifiable, and the only thing we ought to care about is the content. lethargilistic (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Images like these are absolutely nothing more than synthesis in the purest sense of the world and are clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH: Again, you have no idea what data was used to generate these images and you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone to describe them as anything other than outright fakes.
A reminder that WP:SYNTH shuts down attempts at manipulation of images ("It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.") and generating a photorealistic image (from who knows what!) is far beyond that.
Fake images of people do not improve our articles in any way and only erode reader trust. What's next, an argument for the fake sources LLMs also love to "hallucinate"? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So, if you review the first sentence of SYNTH, you'll see it has no special relevance to this discussion: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. My primary example has been a picture of a person; what a person looks like is verifiable by comparing the image to non-free images that cannot be used on Misplaced Pages. If the image resembles the person, it is not SYNTH. An illustration of a person created and intended to look like that person is not a manipulation. The training data used to make the AI is irrelevant to whether the image in fact resembles the person. You should also review WP:NOTSYNTH because SYNTH is not a policy; NOR is the policy: If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH. Additionally, not all synthesis is even SYNTH. A categorical rule against AI cannot be justified by SYNTH because it does not categorically apply to all use cases of AI. To do so would be illogical on top of ill-advised. lethargilistic (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"training data used to make the AI is irrelevant" — spoken like a true AI evangelist! Sorry, 'good enough' photorealism is still just synthetic slop, a fake image presented as real of a human being. A fake image of someone generated from who-knows-what that 'resembles' an article's subject is about as WP:SYNTH as it gets. Yikes. As for the attempts to pass of prompt-generated photorealistic fakes of people as somehow the same as someone's illustration, you're completely wasting your time. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
NOR is a content policy and SYNTH is content guidance within NOR. Because you have admitted that this is not about the content for you, NOR and SYNTH are irrelevant to your argument, which boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and, now, inaccurate personal attacks. Continuing this discussion between us would be pointless. lethargilistic (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This is in fact entirely about content (why the hell else would I bother?) but it is true that I also dismissed your pro-AI 'it's just like a human drawing a picture!' as outright nonsense a while back. Good luck convincing anyone else with that line - it didn't work here. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe: there is an implicit assumption with this RFC that an AI generated image would be photorealistic. There hasn't been any discussion of an AI generated sketch. If you asked an AI to generate a sketch (that clearly looked like a sketch, similar to the Gisèle Pelicot example) then I would potentially be ok with it. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought to consider. At the same time, I worry about (well-intentioned) editors inundating image-less BLP articles with AI-generated images in the style of cartoons/sketches (if only photorealistic ones are prohibited) etc. At least requiring a human to draw/paint/whatever creates a barrier to entry; these AI-generated images can be created in under a minute using these text-to-image models. Editors are already wary about human-created cartoon portraits (see the NORN discussion), now they'll be tasked with dealing with AI-generated ones in BLP articles. Some1 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It sounds like your problem is not with AI but with cartoon/sketch images in BLP articles, so AI is once again completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That is a good concern you brought up. There is a possibility of the spamming of low quality AI-generated images which would be laborious to discuss on a case-by-case basis but easy to generate. At the same time though that is a possibility, but not yet an actuality, and WP:CREEP states that new policies should address current problems rather than hypothetical concerns. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Easy no for me. I am not against the use of AI images wholesale, but I do think that using AI to represent an existent thing such as a person or a place is too far. Even a tag wouldn't be enough for me. Cessaune19:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
No obviously, per previous discussions about cartoonish drawn images in BLPs. Same issue here as there, it is essentially original research and misrepresentation of a living person's likeness. Zaathras (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
No to photorealistic, no to cartoonish... this is not a hard choice. The idea that "this has nothing to do with AI" when "AI" magnifies the problem to stupendous proportions is just not tenable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
While AI might "amplify" the thing you dislike, that does not make AI the problem. The problem is whatever underlying thing is being amplified. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That is arguable, but banning the amplifier does not do anything to solve the problem. In this case, banning the amplifier would cause multiple other problems that nobody supporting this proposal as even attempted to address, let alone mitigate. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No - We should not be hosting faked images (except as notable fakes). We should also not be hosting copyvios ("Whether it would be a copyright infringement or not is both an unsettled legal question and not relevant" is just totally wrong - we should be steering clear of copyvios, and if the issue is unsettled then we shouldn't use them until it is).
If people upload faked images to WP or Commons the response should be as it is now. The fact that fakes are becoming harder to detect simply from looking at them hardly affects this - we simply confirm when the picture was supposed to have been taken and examine the plausibility of it from there. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
we should be steering clear of copyvio we do - if an image is a copyright violation it gets deleted, regardless of why it is a copyright violation. What we do not do is ban using images that are not copyright violations because they are copyright violations. Currently the WMF lawyers and all the people on Commons who know more about copyright than I do say that at least some AI images are legally acceptable for us to host and use. If you want to argue that, then go ahead, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
if people upload faked images the response should be as it is now in other words you are saying that the problem is faked images not AI, and that current policies are entirely adequate to deal with the problem of faked images. So we don't need any specific rules for AI images - especially given that not all AI images are fakes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The idea that current policies are entirely adequate is like saying that a lab shouldn't have specific rules about wearing eye protection when it already has a poster hanging on the wall that says "don't hurt yourself". XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"in other words you are saying that the problem is faked images not AI" - AI generated images *are* fakes. This is merely confirming that for the avoidance of doubt.
"at least some AI images are legally acceptable for us" - Until they decide which ones that isn't much help. FOARP (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Those specific rules exist because generic warnings have proven not to be sufficient. Nobody has presented any evidence that the current policies are not sufficient, indeed quite the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I think that no AI-generated images are acceptable in BLP articles, regardless of whether they are photorealistic or not. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No, unless the AI image has encyclopedic significance beyond "depicts a notable person". AI images, if created by editors for the purpose of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, convey little reliable information about the person they depict, and the ways in which the model works are opaque enough to most people as to raise verifiability concerns. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, do you object to uses of an AI image in a BLP when the subject uses that image for self-identification? I presume that AI images that have been the subject of notable discussion are an example of "significance beyond depict a notable person"? Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
If the subject uses the image for self-identification, I'd be fine with it - I think that'd be analogous to situations such as "cartoonist represented by a stylized self-portrait", which definitely has some precedent in articles like Al Capp. I agree with your second sentence as well; if there's notable discussion around a particular AI image, I think it would be reasonable to include that image on Misplaced Pages. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No, with obvious exceptions, including if the subject theyrself uses the image as a their representation, or if the image is notable itself. Not including the lack of a free aleternative, if there is no free alternative... where did the AI find data to build an image... non free too. Not including images generated by WP editors (that's kind of original research... - Nabla (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC
Maybe I think the question is unfair as it is illustrated with what appears to be a photo of the subject but isn't. People are then getting upset that they've been misled. As others note, there are copyright concerns with AI reproducing copyrighted works that in turn make an image that is potentially legally unusable. But that is more a matter for Commons than for Misplaced Pages. As many have noted, a sketch or painting never claims to be an accurate depiction of a person, and I don't care if that sketch or painting was done by hand or an AI prompt. I strongly ask Some1 to abort the RFC. You've asked people to give a yes/no vote to what is a more complex issue. A further problem with the example used is the unfortunate prejudice on Misplaced Pages against user-generated content. While the text-generated AI of today is crude and random, there will come a point where many professionally published photos illustrating subjects, including people, are AI generated. Even today, your smartphone can create a groupshot where everyone is smiling and looking at the camera. It was "trained" on the 50 images it quickly took and responded to the build-in "text prompt" of "create a montage of these photos such that everyone is smiling and looking at the camera". This vote is a knee jerk reaction to content that is best addressed by some other measure (such as that it is a misleading image). And a good example of asking people to vote way too early, when the issues haven't been throught out -- Colin°18:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No This would very likely set a dangerous precedent. The only exception I think should be if the image itself is notable. If we move forward with AI images, especially for BLPs, it would only open up a whole slew of regulations and RfCs to keep them in check. Better no image than some digital multiverse version of someone that is "basically" them but not really. Not to mention the ethics/moral dilemma of creating fake photorealistic pictures of people and putting them on the internet. Tepkunset (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No. LLMs don't generate answers, they generate things that look like answers, but aren't; a lot of the time, that's good enough, but sometimes it very much isn't. It's the same issue for text-to-image models: they don't generate photos of people, they generate things that look like photos. Using them on BLPs is unacceptable. DS (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No. I would be pissed if the top picture of me on Google was AI-generated. I just don't think it's moral for living people. The exceptions given above by others are okay, such as if the subject uses the picture themselves or if the picture is notable (with context given). win8x (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No. Uploading alone, although mostly a Commons issue, would already a problem to me and may have personality rights issues. Illustrating an article with a fake photo (or drawing) of a living person, even if it is labeled as such, would not be acceptable. For example, it could end up being shown by search engines or when hovering over a Misplaced Pages link, without the disclaimer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I was going to say no... but we allow paintings as portraits in BLPs. What's so different between an AI generated image, and a painting? Arguments above say the depiction may not be accurate, but the same is true of some paintings, right? (and conversely, not true of other paintings) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
A painting is clearly a painting; as such, the viewer knows that it is not an accurate representation of a particular reality. An AI-generated image made to look exactly like a photo, looks like a photo but is not.
Not all paintings are clearly paintings. Not all AI-generated images are made to look like photographs. Not all AI-generated images made to look like photos do actually look like photos. This proposal makes no distinction. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Not to mention, hyper-realism is a style an artist may use in virtually any medium. Colored pencils can be used to make extremely realistic portraits. If Misplaced Pages would accept an analog substitute like a painting, there's no reason Misplaced Pages shouldn't accept an equivalent painting made with digital tools, and there's no reason Misplaced Pages shouldn't accept an equivalent painting made with AI. That is, one where any obvious defects have been edited out and what remains is a straightforward picture of the subject. lethargilistic (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record (and for any media watching), while I personally find it fascinating that a few editors here are spending a substantial amount of time (in the face of an overwhelming 'absolutely not' consensus no less) attempting to convince others that computer-generated (that is, faked) photos of human article subjects are somehow a good thing, I also find it interesting that these editors seem to express absolutely no concern for the intensely negative reaction they're already seeing from their fellow editors and seem totally unconcerned about the inevitable trust drop we'd experience from Misplaced Pages readers when they would encounter fake photos on our BLP articles especially. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's reputation would not be affected positively or negatively by expanding the current-albeit-sparse use of illustrations to depict subjects that do not have available pictures. In all my writing about this over the last few days, you are the only one who has said anything negative about me as a person or, really, my arguments themselves. As loath as I am to cite it, WP:AGF means assuming that people you disagree with are not trying to hurt Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf, I, and others have explained in detail why we think our ultimate ideas are explicit benefits to Misplaced Pages and why our opposition to these immediate proposals comes from a desire to prevent harm to Misplaced Pages. I suggest taking a break to reflect on that, matey. lethargilistic (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Look, I don't know if you've been living under a rock or what for the past few years but the reality is that people hate AI images and dumping a ton of AI/fake images on Misplaced Pages, a place people go for real information and often trust, inevitably leads to a huge trust issue, something Misplaced Pages is increasingly suffering from already. This is especially a problem when they're intended to represent living people (!). I'll leave it to you to dig up the bazillion controversies that have arisen and continue to arise since companies worldwide have discovered that they can now replace human artists with 'AI art' produced by "prompt engineers" but you can't possibly expect us to ignore that reality when discussing these matters. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Those trust issues are born from the publication of hallucinated information. I have only said that it should be OK to use an image on Misplaced Pages when it contains only verifiable information, which is the same standard we apply to text. That standard is and ought to be applied independently of the way the initial version of an image was created. lethargilistic (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
To my eye, the distinction between AI images and paintings here is less a question of medium and more of verifiability: the paintings we use (or at least the ones I can remember) are significant paintings that have been acknowledged in sources as being reasonable representations of a given person. By contrast, a purpose-generated AI image would be more akin to me painting a portrait of somebody here and now and trying to stick that on their article. The image could be a faithful representation (unlikely, given my lack of painting skills, but let's not get lost in the metaphor), but if my painting hasn't been discussed anywhere besides Misplaced Pages, then it's potentially OR or UNDUE to enshrine it in mainspace as an encyclopedic image. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
An image contains a collection of facts, and those facts need to be verifiable just like any other information posted on Misplaced Pages. An image that verifiably resembles a subject as it is depicted in reliable sources is categorically not OR. Discussion in other sources is not universally relevant; we don't restrict ourselves to only previously-published images. If we did that, Misplaced Pages would have very few images. lethargilistic (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Verifiable how? Only by the editor themselves comparing to a real photo (which was probably used by the LLM to create the image…).
Verifiable by comparing them to a reliable source. Exactly the same as what we do with text. There is no coherent reason to treat user-generated images differently than user-generated text, and the universalist tenor of this discussion has damaging implications for all user-generated images regardless of whether they were created with AI. Honestly, I rarely make arguments like this one, but I think it could show some intuition from another perspective: Imagine it's 2002 and Misplaced Pages is just starting. Most users want to contribute text to the encyclopedia, but there is a cadre of artists who want to contribute pictures. The text editors say the artists cannot contribute ANYTHING to Misplaced Pages because their images that have not been previously published are not verifiable. That is a double-standard that privileges the contributions of text-editors simply because most users are text-editors and they are used to verifying text; that is not a principled reason to treat text and images differently. Moreover, that is simply not what happened—The opposite happend, and images are treated as verifiable based on their contents just like text because that's a common sense reading of the rule. It would have been madness if images had been treated differently. And yet that is essentially the fundamentalist position of people who are extending their opposition to AI with arguments that apply to all images. If they are arguing verifiability seriously at all, they are pretending that the sort of degenerate situation I just described already exists when the opposite consensus has been reached consistently for years. In the related NOR thread, they even tried to say Wikipedians had "turned a blind eye" to these image issues as if negatively characterizing those decisions would invalidate the fact that those decisions were consensus. The motivated reasoning of these discussions has been as blatant as that. At the bottom of this dispute, I take issue with trying to alter the rules in a way that creates a new double-standard within verifiability that applies to all images but not text. That's especially upsetting when (despite my and others' best efforts) so many of us are still focusing SOLELY on their hatred for AI rather than considering the obvious second-order consequences for user-generated images as a whole. Frankly, in no other context has any Wikipedian ever allowed me to say text they wrote was "fake" or challenge an image based on whether it was "fake." The issue has always been verifiability, not provenance or falsity. Sometimes, IMO, that has lead to disaster and Misplaced Pages saying things I know to be factually untrue despite the contents of reliable sources. But that is the policy. We compare the contents of Misplaced Pages to reliable sources, and the contents of Misplaced Pages are considered verifiable if they cohere. I ask again: If Misplaced Pages's response to the creation of AI imaging tools is to crack down on all artistic contributions to Misplaced Pages (which seems to be the inevitable direction of these discussions), what does that say? If our negative response to AI tools is to limit what humans can do on Misplaced Pages, what does that say? Are we taking a stand for human achievements, or is this a very heated discussion of cutting off our nose to save our face? lethargilistic (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
"Verifiable by comparing them to a reliable source" - comparing two images and saying that one looks like the other is not "verifying" anything. The text equivalent is presenting something as a quotation that is actually a user-generated paraphrasing.
"Frankly, in no other context has any Wikipedian ever allowed me to say text they wrote was "fake" or challenge an image based on whether it was "fake."" - Try presenting a paraphrasing as a quotation and see what happens.
"Imagine it's 2002 and Misplaced Pages is just starting. Most users want to contribute text to the encyclopedia, but there is a cadre of artists who want to contribute pictures..." - This basically happened, and is the origin of WP:NOTGALLERY. Misplaced Pages is not a host for original works. FOARP (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Comparing two images and saying that one looks like the other is not "verifying" anything. Comparing text to text in a reliable source is literally the same thing.
The text equivalent is presenting something as a quotation that is actually a user-generated paraphrasing. No it isn't. The text equivalent is writing a sentence in an article and putting a ref tag on it. Perhaps there is room for improving the referencing of images in the sense that they should offer example comparisons to make. But an image created by a person is not unverifiable simply because it is user-generated. It is not somehow more unverifiable simply because it is created in a lifelike style.
Try presenting a paraphrasing as a quotation and see what happens. Besides what I just said, nobody is even presenting these images as equatable to quotations. People in this thread have simply been calling them "fake" of their own initiative; the uploaders have not asserted that these are literal photographs to my knowledge. The uploaders of illustrations obviously did not make that claim either. (And, if the contents of the image is a copyvio, that is a separate issue entirely.)
This basically happened, and is the origin of WP:NOTGALLERY. That is not the same thing. User-generated images that illustrate the subject are not prohibited by WP:NOTGALLERY. Misplaced Pages is a host of encyclopedic content, and user-generated images can have encyclopedic content. lethargilistic (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Images are way more complex than text. Trying to compare them in the same way is a very dangerous simplification. Cremastra (u — c) 02:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Assume only non-free images exist of a person. An illustrator refers to those non-free images and produces a painting. From that painting, you see a person who looks like the person in the non-free photographs. The image is verified as resembling the person. That is a simplification, but to call it "dangerous" is disingenuous at best. The process for challenging the image is clear. Someone who wants to challenge the veracity of the image would just need to point to details that do not align. For instance, "he does not typically have blue hair" or "he does not have a scar." That is what we already do, and it does not come up much because it would be weird to deliberately draw an image that looks nothing like the person. Additionally, someone who does not like the image for aesthetic reasons rather than encyclopedic ones always has the option of sourcing a photograph some other way like permission, fair use, or taking a new one themself. This is not an intractable problem. lethargilistic (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
So a photorealistic AI-generated image would be considered acceptable until someone identifies a "big enough" difference? How is that anything close to ethical? An portrait that's got an extra mole or slightly wider nose bridge or lacks a scar is still not an image of the person regardless of whether random Misplaced Pages editors notice. And while I don't think user-generated non-photorealistic images should ever be used on biographies either, at least those can be traced back to a human who is ultimately responsible for the depiction, who can point to the particular non-free images they used as references, and isn't liable to average out details across all time periods of the subject. And that's not even taking into account the copyright issues. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 to what JoelleJay said. The problem is that AI-generated images are simulations trying to match existing images, sometimes, yes, with an impressive degree of accuracy. But they will always be inferior to a human-drawn painting that's trying to depict the person. We're a human encyclopedia, and we're built by humans doing human things and sometimes with human errors. Cremastra (u — c) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
You can't just raise this to an "ethical" issue by saying the word "ethical." You also can't just invoke copyright without articulating an actual copyright issue; we are not discussing copyvio. Everyone agrees that a photo with an actual copyvio in it is subject to that policy.
But to address your actual point: Any image—any photo—beneath the resolution necessary to depict the mole would be missing the mole. Even with photography, we are never talking about science-fiction images that perfectly depict every facet of a person in an objective sense. We are talking about equipment that creates an approximation of reality. The same is true of illustrations and AI imagery.
Finally, a human being is responsible for the contents of the image because a human is selecting it and is responsible for correcting any errors. The result is an image that someone is choosing to use because they believe it is an appropriate likeness. We should acknowledge that human decision and evaluate it naturally—Is it an appropriate likeness?lethargilistic (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
(Second comment because I'm on my phone.) I realize I should also respond to this in terms of additive information. What people look like is not static in the way your comment implies. Is it inappropriate to use a photo because they had a zit on the day it was taken? Not necessarily. Is an image inappropriate because it is taken at a bad angle that makes them look fat? Judging by the prolific ComicCon photographs (where people seem to make a game of choosing the worst-looking options; seriously, it's really bad), not necessarily. Scars and bruises exist and then often heal over time. The standard for whether an image with "extra" details is acceptable would still be based on whether it comports acceptably with other images; we literally do what you have capriciously described as "unethical" and supplement it with our compassionate desire to not deliberately embarrass BLPs. (The ComicCon images aside, I guess.) So, no, I would not be a fan of using images that add prominent scars where the subject is not generally known to have one, but that is just an unverifiable fact that does not belong in a Misplaced Pages image. Simple as. lethargilistic (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
We don't evaluate the reliability of a source solely by comparing it to other sources. For example, there is an ongoing discussion at the baseball WikiProject talk page about the reliability of a certain web site. It lists no authors nor any information on its editorial control policy, so we're not able to evaluate its reliability. The reliability of all content being used as a source, including images, needs to be considered in terms of its provenance. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Still no, I thought I was clear on that but we should not be using AI-generated images in articles for anything besides representing the concept of AI-generated images, or if an AI-generated image is notable or irreplaceable in its own right -- e.g, a musician uses AI to make an album cover.
(this isn't even a good example, it looks more like Steve Bannon)
I still think no. My opposition isn't just to the fact that AI images are misinformation, but also that they essentially serve as a loophole for getting around Enwiki's image use policy. To know what somebody looks like, an AI generator needs to have images of that person in its dataset, and it draws on those images to generate a derivative work. If we have no free images of somebody and we use AI to make one, that's just using a fair use copyrighted image but removed by one step. The image use policy prohibits us from using fair use images for BLPs so I don't think we should entertain this loophole. If we do end up allowing AI images in BLPs, that just disqualifies the rationale of not allowing fair use in the first place. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No those are not okay, as this will just cause arguments from people saying a picture is obviously AI-generated, and that it is therefore appropriate. As I mentionned above, there are some exceptions to this, which Gnomingstuff perfectly describes. Fake sketches/cartoons are not appropriate and provide little encyclopedic value. win8x (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No to this as well, with the same carveout for individual images that have received notable discussion. Non-photorealistic AI images are going to be no more verifiable than photorealistic ones, and on top of that will often be lower-quality as images. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No, and that image should be deleted before anyone places it into a mainspace article. Changing the RfC intro long after its inception seems a second bite at an apple that's not aged well. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The RfC question has not been changed; another editor was complaining that the RfC question did not make a distinction between photorealistic/non-photorealistic AI-generated images, so I had to add a note to the intro and ping the editors who'd voted !No to clarify things. It has only been 3 days; there's still 27 more days to go. Some1 (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Also answering No to this one per all the arguments above. "It has only been 3 days" is not a good reason to change the RfC question, especially since many people have already !voted and the "30 days" is mostly indicative rather than an actual deadline for a RfC. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No. We're the human encyclopedia. We should have images drawn or taken by real humans who are trying to depict the subject, not by machines trying to simulate an image. Besides, the given example is horribly drawn. Cremastra (u — c) 15:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I like these even less than the photorealistic ones... This falls into the same basket for me: if we wouldn't let a random editor who drew this at home using conventional tools add it to the article why would we let a random editor who drew this at home using AI tools at it to the article? (and just to be clear the AI generated image of Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco is not recognizable as such) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No Having such images as said above means the AI had to use copyrighted pictures to create it and we shouldn't use it. --SuperJew (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Still no. If for no other reason than that it's a bad precedent. As others have said, if we make one exception, it will just lead to arguments in the future about whether something is "realistic" or not. I also don't see why we would need cartoon/illustrated-looking AI pictures of people in BLPs. Tepkunset (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely not. These images are based on whatever the AI could find on the internet, with little to no regard for copyright. Misplaced Pages is better than this. Retswerb (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment The RfC question should not have been fiddled with, esp. for such a minor argument that the complai9nmant could have simply included in their own vote. I have no need to re-confirm my own entry. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The RfC question hasn't been modified; I've only added a 03:58, January 3, 2025: Note clarifying that these images can either be photorealistic in style or non-photorealistic in style. I pinged all the !No voters to make them aware. I could remove the Note if people prefer that I do (but the original RfC question is the exact same as it is now, so I don't think the addition of the Note makes a whole ton of difference). Some1 (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No At this point it feels redundant, but I'll just add to the horde of responses in the negative. I don't think we can fully appreciate the issues that this would cause. The potential problems and headaches far outweigh whatever little benefit might come from AI images for BLPs. pillowcrow21:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Support temporary blanket ban with a posted expiration/requred rediscussion date of no more than two years from closing. AI as the term is currently used is very, very new. Right now these images would do more harm than good, but it seems likely that the culture will adjust to them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No. Misplaced Pages is made by and for humans. I don't want to become Google. Adding an AI-generated image to a page whose topic isn't about generative AI makes me feel insulted. SWinxy (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
No. Generative AI may have its place, and it may even have a place on Misplaced Pages in some form, but that place isn't in BLPs. There's no reason to use images of someone that do not exist over a real picture, or even something like a sketch, drawing, or painting. Even in the absence of pictures or human-drawn/painted images, I don't support using AI-generated images; they're not really pictures of the person, after all, so I can't support using them on articles of people. Using nothing would genuinely be a better choice than generated images. SmittenGalaxy | talk!01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
No. Even if you are willing to ignore the inherently fraught nature of using AI-generated anything in relation to BLP subjects, there is simply little to no benefit that could possibly come from trying something like this. There's no guarantee the images will actually look like the person in question, and therefore there's no actual context or information that the image is providing the reader. What a baffling proposal. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
There's no guarantee the images will actually look like the person in question there is no guarantee any image will look like the person in question. When an image is not a good likeness, regardless of why, we don't use it. When am image is a good likeness we consider using it. Whether an image is AI-generated or not it is completely independent of whether it is a good likeness. There are also reason other then identification why images are used on BLP-articles. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Foreseeably there may come a time when people's official portraits are AI-enhanced. That time might not be very far in the future. Do we want an exception for official portraits?—S MarshallT/C01:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, depending on specific case. One can use drawings by artists, even such as caricature. The latter is an intentional distortion, one could say an intentional misinformation. Still, such images are legitimate on many pages. Or consider numerous images of Jesus. How realiable are they? I am not saying we must deliberatly use AI images on all pages, but they may be fine in some cases. Now, speaking on "medical articles"... One might actually use the AI generated images of certain biological objects like proteins or organelles. Of course a qualified editorial judgement is always needed to decide if they would improve a specific page (frequently they would not), but making a blanket ban would be unacceptable, in my opinion. For example, the images of protein models generatated by AlphaFold would be fine. The AI-generated images of biological membranes I saw? I would say no. It depends. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This is complicated of course. For example, there are tools that make an image of a person that (mis)represents him as someone much better and clever than he really is in life. That should be forbidden as an advertisement. This is a whole new world, but I do not think that a blanket rejection would be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No Too risky for BLP's. Besides if people want AI generated content over editor made content, we should make it clear they are in the wrong place, and readers should be given no doubt as to our integrity, sincerity and effort to give them our best, not a program's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No, as AI's grasp on the Internet takes hold stronger and stronger, it's important Misplaced Pages, as the online encyclopedia it sets out to be, remains factual and real. Using AI images on Wiki would likely do more harm than good, further thinning the boundaries between what's real and what's not. – zmbro(talk) (cont)16:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No, not at the moment. I think it will hard to avoid portraits that been enhanced by AI, as it already been on-going for a number of years and there is no way to avoid it, but I don't want arbitary generated AI portraits of any type. scope_creep20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No for natural images (e.g. photos of people). Generative AI by itself is not a reliable source for facts. In principle, generating images of people and directly sticking them in articles is no different than generating text and directly sticking it in articles. In practice, however, generating images is worse: Text can at least be discussed, edited, and improved afterwards. In contrast, we have significantly less policy and fewer rigorous methods of discussing how AI-generated images of natural objects should be improved (e.g. "make his face slightly more oblong, it's not close enough yet"). Discussion will devolve into hunches and gut feelings about the fidelity of images, all of which essentially fall under WP:OR. spintheer (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No I'm appalled that even a small minority of editors would support such an idea. We have enough credibility issues already; using AI-generated images to represent real people is not something that a real encyclopedia should even consider. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No I understand the comparison to using illustrations in BLP articles, but I've always viewed that as less preferable to no picture in all honestly. Images of a person are typically presented in context, such as a performer on stage, or a politician's official portrait, and I feel like there would be too many edge cases to consider in terms of making it clear that the photo is AI generated and isn't representative of anything that the person specifically did, but is rather an approximation. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No - Too often the images resemble caricatures. Real caricatures may be included in articles if the caricature (e.g., political cartoon) had significant coverage and is attributed to the artist. Otherwise, representations of living persons should be real representations taken with photographic equipment. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No - Not only is this effectively guesswork that usually includes unnatural artefacts, but worse, it is also based on unattributed work of photographers who didn't release their work into public domain. I don't care if it is an open legal loophole somewhere, IMO even doing away with the fair use restriction on BLPs would be morally less wrong. I suspect people on whose work LLMs in question were trained would also take less offense to that option. DaßWölf23:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
No – WP:NFC says that Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people. While AI images may not be considered copyrightable, it could still be a copyright violation if the output resembles other, copyrighted images, pushing the image towards NFC. At the very least, I feel the use of non-free content to generate AI images violates the spirit of the NFC policy. (I'm assuming copyrighted images of a person are used to generate an AI portrait of them; if free images of that person were used, we should just use those images, and if no images of the person were used, how on Earth would we trust the output?) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Expiration date?
"AI," as the term is currently used, is very new. It feels like large language models and the type of image generators under discussion just got here in 2024. (Yes, I know it was a little earlier.) The culture hasn't completed its initial response to them yet. Right now, these images do more harm than good, but that may change. Either we'll come up with a better way of spotting hallucinations or the machines will hallucinate less. Their copyright status also seems unstable. I suggest that any ban decided upon here have some expiration date or required rediscussion date. Two years feels about right to me, but the important thing would be that the ban has a number on it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No need for any end-date. If there comes a point where consensus on this changes, then we can change any ban then. FOARP (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
An end date is a positive suggestion. Consensus systems like Misplaced Pages's are vulnerable to half-baked precedential decisions being treated as inviolate. With respect, this conversation does not inspire confidence that this policy proposal's consequences are well-understood at this time. If Misplaced Pages goes in this direction, it should be labeled as primarily reactionary and open to review at a later date. lethargilistic (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with FOARP, no need for an end date. If something significantly changes (e.g. reliable sources/news outlets such as the New York Times, BBC, AP, etc. start using text-to-image models to generate images of living people for their own articles) then this topic can be revisited later. Editors will have to go through the usual process of starting a new discussion/proposal when that time comes. Some1 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion has not touched at all on what other organizations may or may not do, it would not be accurate to describe any consensus derived from this conversation in terms of what other organizations may or may not be doing. That is, there has been no consensus that we ought to be looking to the New York Times as an example. Doing so would be inadvisable for several reasons. For one, they have sued an AI company over semi-related issues and they have teams explicitly working on what the future of AI in news ought to look like, so they have some investment in what the future of AI looks like and they are explicitly trying to shape its norms. For another, if they did start to use AI in a way that may be controversial, they would have no positive reason to disclose that and many disincentives. They are not a neutral signal on this issue. Misplaced Pages should decide for itself, preferably doing so while not disrupting the ability of people to continue creating user-generated images. lethargilistic (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No need per others. Additionally, if practices change, it doesn't mean editors will decide to follow new practices. As for the technology, it seems the situation has been fairly stable for the past two years: we can detect some fakes and hallucinations immediately, many more in the past, but certainly not all retouched elements and all generated photos available right now, even if there was a readily accessible tool or app that enabled ordinary people to reliably do so.
Through the history, art forgeries have been fairly reliably detected, but rarely quickly. Relatedly, I don't see why the situation with AI images would change in the next 24 months or any similar time period. DaßWölf22:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Using AI to write your comments in a discussion makes it difficult for others to assume that you are discussing in good faith, rather than trying to use AI to argue someone into exhaustion (see example of someone using AI in their replies "Because I don't have time to argue with, in my humble opinion, stupid PHOQUING people"). More fundamentally, WP:AGF can't apply to the AI itself as AI lacks intentionality, and it is difficult for editors to assess how much of an AI-generated comment reflects the training of the AI vs. the actual thoughts of the editor.
No. As with all the other concurrent discussions (how many times do we actually need to discuss the exact same FUD and scaremongering?) the problem is not AI, but rather inappropriate use of AI. What we need to do is to (better) explain what we actually want to see in discussions, not vaguely defined bans of swathes of technology that, used properly, can aid communication. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that this topic is discussing using AI to generate replies, as opposed to using it as an aid (e.g. asking it to edit for grammar, or conciseness). As the above concurrent discussion demonstrates, users are already using AI to generate their replies in AfD, so it isn't scaremongering but an actual issue.
WP:DGF also does not ban anything ("Showing good faith is not required"), but offers general advice on demonstrating good faith. So it seems like the most relevant place to include mention of the community's concerns regarding AI-generated comments, without outright banning anything. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
And as pointed out, multiple times in those discussions, different people understand different things from the phrase "AI-generated". The community's concern is not AI-generated comments, but comments that do not clearly and constructively contribute to a discussion - some such comments are AI-generated, some are not. This proposal would, just as all the other related ones, cause actual harm when editors falsely accuse others of using AI (and this will happen). Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Nobody signed up to argue with bots here. If you're pasting someone else's comment into a prompt and asking the chatbot to argue against that comment and just posting it in here, that's a real problema and absolutely should not be acceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the assumption of bad faith and demonstrating one of my points about the harm caused. Nobody is forcing you to engage with bad-faith comments, but whether something is or is not bad faith needs to be determined by its content not by its method of generation. Simply using an AI demonstrates neither good faith nor bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why we have any particular to reason to suspect a respected and trustworthy editor of using AI. Cremastra (u — c) 14:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm one of those people who clarified the difference between AI-generated vs. edited, and such a difference could be made explicit with a note. Editors are already accusing others of using AI. Could you clarify how you think addressing AI in WP:DGF would cause actual harm? Photos of Japan (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
By encouraging editors to accuse others of using AI, by encouraging editors to dismiss or ignore comments because they suspect that they are AI-generated rather than engaging with them. @Bloodofox has already encouraged others to ignore my arguments in this discussion because they suspect I might be using an LLM and/or be a bot (for the record I'm neither). Thryduulf (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Given your relentlessly pro-AI comments here, it seems that you'd be A-OK with just chatting with a group of chatbots here — or leaving the discussion to them. However, most of us clearly are not. In fact, I would immediately tell someone to get lost were it confirmed that indeed that is what is happening. I'm a human being and find the notion of wasting my time with chatbots on Misplaced Pages to be incredibly insulting and offensive. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
My comments are neither pro-AI nor anti-AI, indeed it seems that you have not understood pretty much anything I'm saying. Thryduulf (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Funny, you've done nothing here but argue for more generative AI on the site and now you seem to be arguing to let chatbots run rampant on it while mocking anyone who doesn't want to interface with chatbots on Misplaced Pages. Hey, why not just sell the site to Meta, am I right? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I haven't been arguing for more generative AI on the site. I've been arguing against banning it on the grounds that such a ban would be unclear, unenforceable, wouldn't solve any problems (largely because whether something is AI or not is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand) but would instead cause harm. Some of the issues identified are actual problems, but AI is not the cause of them and banning AI won't fix them.
I'm not mocking anybody, nor am I advocating to let chatbots run rampant. I'm utterly confused why you think I might advocate for selling Misplaced Pages to Meta (or anyone else for that matter)? Are you actually reading anything I'm writing? You clearly are not understanding it. Thryduulf (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So we're now in 'everyone else is the problem, not me!' territory now? Perhaps try communicating in a different way because your responses here are looking very much like the typical AI apologetics one can encounter on just about any contemporary LinkedIn thread from your typical FAANG employee. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
No, this is not a everyone else is the problem, not me issue because most other people appear to be able to understand my arguments and respond to them appropriately. Not everybody agrees with them, but that's not an issue.
I'm not familiar with Linkedin threads (I don't use that platform) nor what a "FAANG employee" is (I've literally never heard the term before now) so I have no idea whether your characterisation is a compliment or a personal attack, but given your comments towards me and others you disagree with elsewhere I suspect it's closer to the latter.
AI is a tool. Just like any other tool it can be used in good faith or in bad faith, it can be used well and it can be used badly, it can be used in appropriate situations and it can be used in inappropriate situations, the results of using the tool can be good and the results of using the tool can be bad. Banning the tool inevitably bans the good results as well as the bad results but doesn't address the reasons why the results were good or bad and so does not resolve the actual issue that led to the bad outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
In the context of generating comments to other users though, AI is much easier to use for bad faith than for good faith. LLMs don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and norms, and so are hard to utilize to generate posts that productively address them. By contrast, bad actors can easily use LLMs to make low quality posts to waste people's time or wear them down.
In the context of generating images, or text for articles, it's easy to see how the vast majority of users using AI for those purposes is acting in good faith as these are generally constructive tasks, and most people making bad faith changes to articles are either obvious vandals who won't bother to use AI because they'll be reverted soon anyways, or trying to be subtle (povpushers) in which case they tend to want to carefully write their own text into the article.
It's true that AI "is just a tool", but when that tool is much easier to use for bad faith purposes (in the context of discussions) then it raises suspicions about why people are using it. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
LLMs don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and norms They're not designed to "understand" them since the policies and norms were designed for human cognition. The fact that AI is used rampantly by people acting in bad faith on Misplaced Pages does not inherently condemn the AI. To me, it shows that it's too easy for vandals to access and do damage on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the type of vetting required to prevent that at the source would also potentially require eliminating IP-editing, which won't happen. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper -(talk)14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
You mentioned "FUD". That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts: pro-AI propagadizing and persuading people who hold memecoin crypto to continue holding it. Since this discussion is not about memecoin crypto that would suggest you are using it in a pro-AI context. I will note, fear, uncertainty and doubt is not my problem with AI. Rather it's anger, aesthetic disgust and feeling disrespected when somebody makes me talk to their chatbot. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts is simply
FUD both predates AI by many decades (my father introduced me to the term in the context of the phrase "nobody got fired for buying IBM", and the context of that was mainframe computer systems in the 1980s if not earlier. FUD is also used in many, many more contexts that just those two you list, including examples by those opposing the use of AI on Misplaced Pages in these very discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That acronym, "fear, uncertainty and doubt," is used in precisely two contexts is factually incorrect.
FUD both predates AI by many decades (indeed if you'd bothered to read the fear, uncertainty and doubt article you'd learn that the concept was first recorded in 1693, the exact formulation dates from at least the 1920s and the use of it in technology concepts originated in 1975 in the context of mainframe computer systems. That its use, eve in just AI contexts, is limited to pro-AI advocacy is ludicrous (even ignoring things like Roko's basilisk), examples can be found in these sprawling discussions from those opposing AI use on Misplaced Pages. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Not really – I agree with Thryduulf's arguments on this one. Using AI to help tweak or summarize or "enhance" replies is of course not bad faith – the person is trying hard. Maybe English is their second language. Even for replies 100% AI-generated the user may be an ESL speaker struggling to remember the right words (I always forget 90% of my French vocabulary when writing anything in French, for example). In this case, I don't think we should make a blanket assumption that using AI to generate comments is not showing good faith. Cremastra (u — c) 02:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes because generating walls of text is not good faith. People "touching up" their comments is also bad (for starters, if you lack the English competency to write your statements in the first place, you probably lack the competency to tell if your meaning has been preserved or not). Exactly what AGF should say needs work, but something needs to be said, and AGFDGF is a good place to do it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Not all walls of text are generated by AI, not all AI generated comments are walls of text. Not everybody who uses AI to touch up their comments lacks the competencies you describe, not everybody who does lack those competencies uses AI. It is not always possible to tell which comments have been generated by AI and which have not. This proposal is not particularly relevant to the problems you describe. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone has to ask: Are you generating all of these pro-AI arguments using ChatGPT? It'd explain a lot. If so, I'll happily ignore any and all of your contributions, and I'd advise anyone else to do the same. We're not here to be flooded with LLM-derived responses. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That you can't tell whether my comments are AI-generated or not is one of the fundamental problems with these proposals. For the record they aren't, nor are they pro-AI - they're simply anti throwing out babies with bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say it also illustrates the serious danger: We can no longer be sure that we're even talking to other people here, which is probably the most notable shift in the history of Misplaced Pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
How is that a "serious danger"? If a comment makes a good point, why does it matter whether ti was AI generated or not? If it doesn't make a good point, why does it matter if it was AI generated or not? How will these proposals resolve that "danger"? How will they be enforceable? Thryduulf (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is made for people, by people, and I like most people will be incredibly offended to find that we're just playing some kind of LLM pong with a chatbot of your choice. You can't be serious. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"why does it matter if it was AI generated or not?"
Because it takes little effort to post a lengthy, low quality AI-generated post, and a lot of effort for human editors to write up replies debunking them.
"How will they be enforceable? "
WP:DGF isn't meant to be enforced. It's meant to explain to people how they can demonstrate good faith. Posting replies to people (who took the time to write them) that are obviously AI-generated harms the ability of those people to assume good faith. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The linked "example of someone using AI in their replies" appears – to me – to be a non-AI-generated comment. I think I preferred the allegedly AI-generated comments from that user (example). The AI was at least superficially polite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Obviously the person screaming in all caps that they use AI because they don't want to waste their time arguing is not using AI for that comment. Their first post calls for the article to be deleted for not "offering new insights or advancing scholarly understanding" and "merely" reiterating what other sources have written.
Yes, after a human had wasted their time explaining all the things wrong with its first post, then the bot was able to write a second post which looks ok. Except it only superficially looks ok, it doesn't actually accurately describe the articles. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Multiple humans have demonstrated in these discussions that humans are equally capable of writing posts which superficially look OK but don't actually accurately relate to anything they are responding to. Thryduulf (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
But I can assume that everyone here is acting in good faith. I can't assume good faith in the globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions with low effort posts, whose bot is just saying whatever it can to argue for the deletion of political pages the editor doesn't like. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
True, but I think that has more to do with the "globally-locked sock puppet spamming AfD discussions" part than with the "some of it might be " part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
All of which was discovered because of my suspicions from their inhuman, and meaningless replies. "Reiteration isn't the problem; redundancy is," maybe sounds pithy in a vacuum, but this was written in reply to me stating that we aren't supposed to be doing OR but reiterating what the sources say.
"Your criticism feels overly prescriptive, as though you're evaluating this as an academic essay" also sounds good, until you realize that the bot is actually criticizing its own original post.
The fact that my suspicions about their good faith were ultimately validated only makes it even harder for me to assume good faith in users who sound like ChatGPT. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I wonder if we need some other language here. I can understand feeling like this is a bad interaction. There's no sense that the person cares; there's no feeling like this is a true interaction. A contract lawyer would say that there's no meeting of the minds, and there can't be, because there's no mind in the AI, and the human copying from the AI doesn't seem to be interested in engaging their brain.
The user's talk page has a header at the top asking people not to template them because it is "impersonal and disrespectful", instead requesting "please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words"
Does this look like acting in good faith to you? Requesting other people write personalized responses to them while they respond with an LLM? Because it looks to me like they are trying to waste other people's time. Photos of Japan (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"Being hypocritical" in the abstract isn't the problem, it's the fact that asking people to put effort into their comments, while putting in minimal effort into your own comments appears bad faith, especially when said person says they don't want to waste time writing comments to stupid people. The fact you are arguing AGF for this person is both astounding and disappointing. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
It feels like there is a lack of reciprocity in the interaction, even leaving aside the concern that the account is a block-evading sock.
But I wonder if you have read AGF recently. The first sentence is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Misplaced Pages, even when their actions are harmful."
So we've got some of this (e.g., harmful actions). But do you really believe this person woke up in the morning and decided "My main goal for today is to deliberately hurt Misplaced Pages. I might not be successful, but I sure am going to try hard to reach my goal"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Trying to hurt Misplaced Pages doesn't mean they have to literally think "I am trying to hurt Misplaced Pages", it can mean a range of things, such as "I am trying to troll Wikipedians". A person who thinks a cabal of editors is guarding an article page, and that they need to harass them off the site, may think they are improving Misplaced Pages, but at the least I wouldn't say that they are acting in good faith. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The issues with AI in discussions is not related to good faith, which is narrowly defined to intent. CMD (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
In my mind, they are related inasmuch as it is much more difficult for me to ascertain good faith if the words are eminently not written by the person I am speaking to in large part, but instead generated based on an unknown prompt in what is likely a small fraction of the expected time. To be frank, in many situations it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the disparity in effort is being leveraged in something less than good faith. Remsense ‥ 论05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Assume good faith, don't ascertain! Llm use can be deeply unhelpful for discussions and the potential for mis-use is large, but the most recent discussion I've been involved with where I observed an llm post was responded to by an llm post, I believe both the users were doing this in good faith. CMD (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
All I mean to say is it should be licit that unhelpful LLM use should be something that can be mentioned like any other unhelpful rhetorical pattern. Remsense ‥ 论05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact that everyone (myself included) defending "LLM use" says "use" rather than "generated", is a pretty clear sign that no one really wants to communicate with someone using "LLM generated" comments. We can argue about bans (not being proposed here), how to know if someone is using LLM, the nuances of "LLM use", etc., but at the very least we should be able to agree that there are concerns with LLM generated replies, and if we can agree that there are concerns then we should be able to agree that somewhere in policy we should be able to find a place to express those concerns. Photos of Japan (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
For instance, I am OK with someone using a LLM to post a productive comment on a talk page. I am also OK with someone generating a reply with a LLM that is a productive comment to post to a talk page. I am not OK with someone generating text with an LLM to include in an article, and also not OK with someone using a LLM to contribute to an article.
Most people already assume good faith in those making productive contributions. In situations where good faith is more difficult to assume, would you trust someone who uses an LLM to generate all of their comments as much as someone who doesn't? Photos of Japan (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Given that LLM-use is completely irrelevant to the faith in which a user contributes, yes. Of course what amount that actually is may be anywhere between completely and none. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
LLM-use is relevant as it allows bad faith users to disrupt the encyclopedia with minimal effort. Such a user posted in this thread earlier, as well as started a disruptive thread here and posted here, all using AI. I had previously been involved in a debate with another sock puppet of theirs, but at that time they didn't use AI. Now it seems they are switching to using an LLM just to troll with minimal effort. Photos of Japan (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
LLMs are a tool that can be used by good and bad faith users alike. Using an LLM tells you nothing about whether a user is contributing in good or bad faith. If somebody is trolling they can be, and should be, blocked for trolling regardless of the specifics of how they are trolling. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
A can of spray paint, a kitchen knife, etc., are tools that can be used for good or bad, but if you bring them some place where they have few good uses and many bad uses then people will be suspicious about why you brought them. You can't just assume that a tool in any context is equally harmless. Using AI to generate replies to other editors is more suspicious than using it to generate a picture exemplifying a fashion style, or a description of a physics concept. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not a death pact though. At times you should be suspicious. Do you think that if a user, who you already have suspicions of, is also using an LLM to generate their comments, that that doesn't have any effect on those suspicions? Photos of Japan (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So… If you suspect that someone is not arguing in good faith… just stop engaging them. If they are creating walls of text but not making policy based arguments, they can be ignored. Resist the urge to respond to every comment… it isn’t necessary to “have the last word”. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That they've been banned for disruption indicates we can do everything we need to do to deal with bad faith users of LLMs without assuming that everyone using an LLM is doing so in bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe we should assume everyone using an LLM is doing so in bad faith, so I'm glad you think my comment indicates what I believe. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No -- whatever you think of LLMs, the reason they are so popular is that the people who use them earnestly believe they are useful. Claiming otherwise is divorced from reality. Even people who add hallucinated bullshit to articles are usually well-intentioned (if wrong). Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes I find it incredibly rude for someone to procedurally generate text and then expect others to engage with it as if they were actually saying something themselves. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, mention that use of an LLM should be disclosed and that failure to do so is like not telling someone you are taping the call. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I could support general advice that if you're using machine translation or an LLM to help you write your comments, it can be helpful to mention this in the message. The tone to take, though, should be "so people won't be mad at you if it screwed up the comment" instead of "because you're an immoral and possibly criminal person if you do this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No. When someone publishes something under their own name, they are incorporating it as their own statement. Plagiarism from an AI or elsewhere is irrelevant to whether they are engaging in good faith. lethargilistic (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment LLMs know a few tricks about logical fallacies and some general ways of arguing (rhetoric), but they are incredibly dumb at understanding the rules of Misplaced Pages. You can usually tell this because it looks like incredibly slick and professional prose, but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I would indef such users for lacking WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That guideline states "Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed." Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I blocked that user as NOTHERE a few minutes ago after seeing them (using ChatGPT) make suggestions for text to live pagespace while their previous bad behaviors were under discussion. AGF is not a suicide pact. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
... but somehow it cannot get even the simplest points about the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages: That problem existed with some humans even prior to LLMs. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes Using a 3rd party service to contribute to the Misplaced Pages on your behalf is clearly bad-faith, analogous to paying someone to write your article. Zaathras (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Its a stretch to say that a newbie writing a comment using AI is automatically acting in bad faith and not here to build an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment Large language model AI like Chat GPT are in their infancy. The culture hasn't finished its initial reaction to them yet. I suggest that any proposal made here have an automatic expiration/required rediscussion date two years after closing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
No – It is a matter of how you use AI. I use Google translate to add trans-title parameters to citations, but I am careful to check for Google's output making for good English as well as reflecting the foreign title when it is a language I somewhat understand. I like to think that I am careful, and I do not pretend to be fluent in a language I am not familiar with, although I usually don't announce the source of such a translation. If an editor uses AI profligately and without understanding the material generated, then that is the sin; not AI itself. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There's a legal phrase, "when the exception swallows the rule", and I think we might be headed there with the recent LLM/AI discussions.
We start off by saying "Let's completely ban it!" Then in discussion we add "Oh, except for this very reasonable thing... and that reasonable thing... and nobody actually meant this other reasonable thing..."
Do you want us to reply to you, because you are a human? Or are you just posting the output of an LLM without bothering to read anything yourself? DS (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Most likely you would reply because someone posted a valid comment and you are assuming they are acting in good faith and taking responsibility for what they post. To assume otherwise is kind of weird and not inline with general Misplaced Pages values. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
No The OP seems to misunderstand WP:DGF which is not aimed at weak editors but instead exhorts stronger editors to lead by example. That section already seems to overload the primary point of WP:AGF and adding mention of AI would be quite inappropriate per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. AI use is not a demonstration of bad faith (in any case not every new good-faith editor is familiar with our AI policies), but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith", which is what the WP:DGF section is about.
It seems some editors are missing the point and !voting as if every edit is either a demonstration of good faith or bad faith. Most interactions are neutral and so is most AI use, but I find it hard to imagine a situation where AI use would point away from unfamiliarity and incompetence (in the CIR sense), and it often (unintentionally) leads to a presumption of laziness and open disinterest. It makes perfect sense to recommend against it. DaßWölf22:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed most kinds of actions don't inherently demonstrate good or bad. The circumspect and neutral observation that AI use is not a demonstration of bad faith... but it is equally not a "demonstration of good faith", does not justify a proposal to one-sidedly say just half. And among all the actions that don't necessarily demonstrate good faith (and don't necessarily demonstrate bad faith either), it is not the purpose of "demonstrate good faith" and the broader guideline, to single out one kind of action to especially mention negatively. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Per Dass Wolf, though I would say passing off a completely AI-generated comment as your own anywhere is inherently bad-faith and one doesn't need to know Wiki policies to understand that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Sure, LLMs may have utility somewhere, and it might be a crutch for people unfamiliar with English, but as I've said above in the other AI RfC, that's a competence issue. This is about comments eating up editor time, energy, about LLMs easily being used to ram through changes and poke at editors in good standing. I don't see a case wherein a prospective editor's command of policy and language is good enough to discuss with other editors while being bad enough to require LLM use. Iseulttalk to me01:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Good faith is separate from competence. Trying to do good is separate from having skills and knowledge to achieve good results. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
No - anyone using a washing machine to wash their clothes must be evil and inherently lazy. They cannot be trusted. ... Oh, sorry, wrong century. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
No - As long as a person understands (and knows) what they are talking about, we shouldn't discriminate against folks using generative AI tech for grammar fixes or minor flow improvements. Yes, AI can create walls of text, and make arguments not grounded in policy, but we could do that even without resorting to generative AI. Sohom (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
To expand on my point above. Completely AI generated comments (or articles) are obviously bad, but using AI should be thrown into the same cross-hairs as completely AI generated comments. Sohom (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
No. Don't make any changes. It's not a good faith/bad faith issue. The 'yes' arguments are most unconvincing with very bizarre analogies to make their point. Here, I can make one too: "Don't edit with AI; you wouldn't shoot your neighbor's dog with a BB-gun, would you?" Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper -(talk)14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended content
I appreciate your concern about the use of AI in discussions. It is important to be mindful of how AI is used, and to ensure that it is used in a way that is respectful of others.
I don't think that WP:DGF should be amended to specifically mention AI. However, I do think that it is important to be aware of the potential for AI to be used in a way that is not in good faith.
When using AI, it is important to be transparent about it. Let others know that you are using AI, and explain how you are using it. This will help to build trust and ensure that others understand that you are not trying to deceive them.
It is also important to be mindful of the limitations of AI. AI is not a perfect tool, and it can sometimes generate biased or inaccurate results. Be sure to review and edit any AI-generated content before you post it.
Finally, it is important to remember that AI is just a tool. It is up to you to use it in a way that is respectful and ethical. |} It's easy to detect for most, can be pointed out as needed. No need to add an extra policy JayCubby
While I have no issue with the direction the linked discussion has taken, I agree with almost every contributor there: As a practice I have zero interest in generally allowing random editors closing outside their permissions. It might make DRV a more chatty board, granted. BusterD (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin makes a reasonable case in their comment below. When we have already chosen to trust certain editors with advanced permissions, we might allow those folks to utilize them as fully as accepted practice allows. Those humans already have skin in the game. They are unlikely to act rashly. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
To me, non-admin delete closes at any XfD have always seemed inconsistent with what we say about how adminship and discussion closing work. I would be in violation of admin policy if I deleted based on someone else's close without conducting a full review myself, in which case, what was the point of their close? It's entirely redundant to my own work. That said, I can't really articulate a reason that this should be allowed at some XfDs but not others, and it seems to have gone fine at CfD and TfD. I guess call me neutral. What I'd be more open to is allowing page movers to do this. Page movers do have the tools to turn a bluelink red, so it doesn't create the same admin accountability issue if I'm just cleaning up the stray page left over from a page mover's use of a tool that they were duly granted and subject to their own accountability rules for. We could let them move a redirect to some other plausible title (this would violate WP:MOVEREDIRECT as currently written but I think I'd be okay with making this a canonical exception), and/or allow moving to some draftspace or userspace page and tagging for G6, as we do with {{db-moved}}. I'll note that when I was a non-admin pagemover, I did close a few things as delete where some edge case applied that let me effect the deletion using only suppressredirect, and no one ever objected. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that I was sort of vague, which is consistent with the statement that I hinted at allowing non-admin delete closures. My main concern is that I would like to see our guidelines and our practice made consistent, either by changing the guidelines or changing the practice. It appears that there is a rough consensus emerging that non-admin delete closures should continue to be disallowed in RFD, but that CFD may be a special case. So what I am saying is that if, in practice, we allow non-admin Delete closures at CFD, the guideline should say something vague to that effect.
I also see that there is a consensus that DRV can endorse irregular non-admin closures, including irregular non-admin Delete closures. Specifically, it isn't necessary for DRV to vacate the closure for an uninvolved admin to close. A consensus at DRV, some of whose editors will be uninvolved admins, is at least as good a close as a normal close by an uninvolved admin.
Also, maybe we need clearer guidance about non-admin Keep closures of AFDs. I think that if an editor is not sure whether they have sufficient experience to be closing AFDs as Keep, they don't have enough experience. I think that the guidance is clear enough in saying that administrator accountability applies to non-admin closes, but maybe it needs to be further strengthened, because at DRV we sometimes deal with non-admin closes where the closer doesn't respond to inquiries, or is rude in response to them.
Also, maybe we need clearer guidance about non-admin No Consensus closures of AFDs. In particular, a close of No Consensus is a contentious closure, and should either be left to an admin, or should be Relisted.
As for I can't really articulate a reason that this should be allowed at some XfDs, the argument is that more work is needed to enact closures at TfD and CfD (namely orphaning templates and emptying/moving/merging categories). Those extra steps aren't present at RfD. At most, there are times when it's appropriate to unlink the redirect or add WP:RCATs but those are automated steps that WP:XFDC handles. From my limited experience at TfD and CfD though, it does seem that the extra work needed at closure does not compensate for the extra work from needing two people reviewing the closure (especially at CfD because a bot that handles the clean-up). Consistency has come up and I would much rather consistently disallow non-admin delete closures at all XfD venues. I know it's tempting for non-admins to think they're helping by enacting these closures but it's not fair for them to be spinning their wheels. As for moving redirects, that's even messier than deleting them. There's a reason that WP:MOVEREDIRECT advises not to move redirects except for limited cases when preserving history is important. --Tavix20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I do have one objection to this point of redundancy, which you are quite familiar with. Here, an AfD was closed as "transwiki and delete", however, the admin who did the closure does not have the technical ability to transwiki pages to the English Wikibooks, meaning that I, who does, had to determine that the outcome was actually to transwiki rather than blindly accepting a request at b:WB:RFI. Then, I had to mark the pages for G6 deletion, that way an admin, in this case you, could determine that the page was ready to be deleted. Does this mean that that admin who closed the discussion shouldn't have closed it, since they only have the technical ability to delete, not transwiki? Could I have closed it, having the technical ability to transwiki, but not delete? Either way, someone else would have had to review it. Or, should only people who have importing rights on the target wiki and admin rights on the English Misplaced Pages be allowed to close discussions as "transwiki and delete"? JJPMaster (she/they) 12:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I do support being explicit when a non-administrator can close a discussion as "delete" and I think that explicitly extending to RfD and CfD is appropriate. First, there can be a backlog in both of these areas and there are often few comments in each discussion (and there is usually not the same passion as in an AfD). Second, the delete close of a non-administrator is reviewed by an administrator before action is taken to delete the link, or category (a delete close is a two-step process, the writeup and the delete action, so in theory the administrators workload is reduced). Third, non-admins do face administrator accountability for their actions, and can be subject to sanction. Fourth, the community has a role in reviewing closing decisions at DRV, so there is already a process in place to check a unexperienced editor or poor close. Finally, with many, if not most discussions for deletion the outcome is largely straight forward. --Enos733 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently no rule against non-admin delete closures as far as I know; the issue is the practical one that you don't have the ability to delete. However, I have made non-admin delete closures at AfD. This occurred when an admin deleted the article under consideration (usually for COPYVIO) without closing the related AfD. The closures were not controversial and there was no DRV. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The situation you're referring to is an exception allowed per WP:NACD: If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone with a registered account may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale. --Tavix20:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad idea to allow, this sort of closure is just busy work, that imposes more work on the admin that then has to review the arguments, close and then delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(1) As I've also noted in the other discussion, the deletion process guidelines at WP:NACD do say non-admins shouldn't do "delete" closures and do recognize exceptions for CfD and TfD. There isn't a current inconsistency there between guidelines and practice. (2) In circumstances where we do allow for non-admin "delete" closures, I would hope that the implementing admin isn't fully reviewing the discussion de novo before implementing, but rather giving deference to any reasonable closure. That's how it goes with requested move closers asking for technical help implementing a "moved" closure at WP:RM/TR (as noted at WP:RMNAC, the closure will "generally be respected by the administrator (or page mover)" but can be reverted by an admin if "clearly improper"). SilverLocust💬08:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment - A couple things to note about the CFD process: It very much requires work by admins. The non-admin notes info about the close at WT:CFD/Working, and then an admin enters the info on the CFD/Working page (which is protected) so that the bot can perform the various actions. Remember that altering a category is potentially more labour intensive than merely editing or deleting a single page - every page in that category must be edited, and then the category deleted. (There are other technical things involved, like the mess that template transclusion can cause, but let's keep it simple.) So I wouldn't suggest that that process is very useful as a precedent for anything here. It was done at a time when there was a bit of a backlog at CfD, and this was a solution some found to address that. Also - since then, I think at least one of the regular non-admin closers there is now an admin. So there is that as well. - jc3709:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If the expectation is that an admin needs to review the deletion discussion to ensure they agree with that outcome before deleting via G6, as multiple people here are suggesting, then I'm not sure this is worthwhile. However, I have had many admins delete pages I've tagged with G6, and I have been assuming that they only check that the discussion was indeed closed as delete, and trust the closer to be responsible for the correctness of it. This approach makes sense to me, because if a non-admin is competent to close and be responsible for any other outcome of a discussion, I don't see any compelling reason they can't be responsible for a delete outcome and close accordingly. —Compassionate72719:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Some closers, and you're among them, have closing accuracy similar to many sysops. But the sysop can't/shouldn't "trust" that your close is accurate. Trustworthy though you are, the sysop must, at very minimum, check firstly that the close with your signature on it was actually made by you (signatures are easily copied), secondly that the close wasn't manifestly unreasonable, and thirdly that the CSD is correct. WP:DRV holds the deleting sysop responsible for checking that the CSD were correctly applied. G6 is for uncontroversial deletions, and if there's been an XFD, then it's only "uncontroversial" if the XFD was unanimous or nearly so. We do have sysops who'll G6 without checking carefully, but they shouldn't. Basically, non-admin closing XFDs doesn't save very much sysop time. I think that if your motive as a non-admin is to relieve sysops of labour, the place you're of most use is at RfC.—S MarshallT/C11:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
if your motive as a non-admin is to relieve sysops of labour, the place you're of most use is at RfC alternatively you should consider becoming an administrator yourself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
In all the cases I have dealt with, the admin's reason for deletion (usually copyvio) was completely different to the issues being debated in the AfD (usually notability). The closing statement was therefore something like "Discussion is now moot due to article being deleted for <reason> by <admin>". Hawkeye7(discuss)20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I think most all the time, experienced closers will do a great job and that will save admin time because they will not have to construct and explain the close from scratch, but there will be some that are bad and that will be costly in time not just for the admin but for the project's goal of completing these issues and avoiding disruption. I think that lost time is still too costly, so I would oppose non-admin delete closes. (Now if there were a proposal for a process to make a "delete-only admin permission" that would be good -- such motivated specialists would likely be more efficient.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
As I said at the "Non-Admin XFD Close as Delete" section, I support non-admins closing RfDs as Delete. If TfDs have been made an exception, RfDs can be too, especially considering RfD backlogs. Closing a heavily discussed nomination at RfD is more about the reading, analysis and thought process at arriving at the outcome, and less about the technicality of the subsequent page actions. I don't see a significant difference between non-admins closing discussions as Delete vs non-Delete. It will help making non-admins mentally prepared to advance to admin roles. Jay 💬14:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The backlog at RFD is mostly lack of participation, not lack of admins not making closures. This would only be exacerbated if non-admins are given a reason not to !vote on discussions trending toward deletion so they can get the opportunity to close. RFD isn't as technical as CFD and TFD. In any case, any admin doing the deletion would still have to review the RFD. Except in the most obviously trivial cases, this will lead to duplicate work, and even where it doesn't (e.g. multiple !votes all in one direction), the value-add is minimal.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm broadly in favor of this proposal—I looked over the essay and most of it is aligned with what seems standard in album articles—but there are a few aspects that feel less aligned with current practice, which I'd want to reexamine before we move forward with promoting this:
The section Recording, production suggests What other works of art is this producer known for? as one of the categories of information to include in a recording/production section. This can be appropriate in some cases (e.g., the Nevermind article discusses how Butch Vig's work with Killdozer inspired Nirvana to try and work with him), but recommending it outright seems like it'd risk encouraging people to WP:COATRACK. My preference would be to cut the sentence I quoted and the one immediately following it.
The section Track listing suggests that the numbered-list be the preferred format for track listings, with other formats like {{Track listing}} being alternative choices for "more complicated" cases. However, in my experience, using {{Track listing}} rather than a numbered list tends to be the standard. All of the formatting options currently listed in the essay should continue to be mentioned, but I think portraying {{Track listing}} as the primary style would be more reflective of current practice.
The advice in the External links section seems partially outdated. In my experience, review aggregators like Metacritic are conventionally discussed in the "Critical reception" section instead these days, and I'm uncertain to what extent we still link to databases like Discogs even in ELs.
(As a disclaimer, my familiarity with album articles comes mostly from popular-music genres, rock and hip-hop in particular. I don't know if typical practice is different in areas like classical or jazz.) Overall, while I dedicated most of my comment volume to critiques, these are a fairly minor set of issues in what seems like otherwise quite sound guidance. If they're addressed, it's my opinion that this essay would be ready for prime time. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Me too, though sometime last year, I unexpectedly had some (inexplicably strong) pushback on the tracklist part with an editor or two. In my experience, using the track list template is the standard, and I can't recall anyone giving me any pushback for it, but some editors apparently prefer just using numbers. I guess we can wait and see if there's any current pushback on it. 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Sergecross73msg me17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
They came to WT:ALBUMS upset that another editor was changing track lists from "numbered" to "template" formats. My main response was surprised, because in my 15+ years of article creations and rewrites, I almost exclusively used the tracklist template, and had never once received any pushback.
So basically, I personally agree with you and MDT above, I'm merely saying I've heard someone disagree. I'll try to dig up the discussion. Sergecross73msg me17:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I can see the numbered-list format being used for very special cases like Guitar Songs, which was released with only two songs, and had the same co-writers and producer. But I imagine we have extremely few articles that are like that, so I believe the template should be the standard. Elias 🦗🐜 12:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
ModernDayTrilobite, regarding linking to Discogs, some recent discussions I was in at the end of last year indicate that it is common to still link to Discogs as an EL, because it gives more exhaustive track, release history, and personnel listings that Misplaced Pages - generally - should not.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
There were several discussions about Discogs and an RfC here. As a user of {{Discogs master}}, I agree with what other editors said there. We can't mention every version of an album in an article, so an external link to Discogs is invaluable IMO. AstonishingTunesAdmirer連絡22:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
We badly need this to become part of the MOS. As it stands, some editors have rejected the guidelines as they're just guidelines, not policies, which defeats the object of having them in the first place. Popcornfud (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I recently wrote my first album article and this essay was crucial during the process, to the extent that me seeing this post is like someone saying "I thought you were already an admin" in RFA; I figured this was already a guideline. I would support it becoming one. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have always wondered why all this time these pointers were categorized as an essay. It's about time we formalize them; as said earlier, there are some outdated things that need to be discussed (like in WP:PERSONNEL which advises not to use stores for credits, even though in the streaming era we have more and more albums/EPs that never get physical releases). Also, song articles should also have their own guidelines, IMV. Elias 🦗🐜 12:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I get the sense it'd have to be a separate section from this one, given the inherent complexity of album articles as opposed to that of songs. Elias 🦗🐜 14:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it needs work--I recall that a former longtime album editor, Richard3120 (not pinging them, as I think they are on another break to deal with personal matters), floated a rewrite a couple of years ago. Just briefly: genres are a perennial problem, editors love unsourced exact release dates and chronology built on OR (many discography pages are sourced only to random Billboard, AllMusic, and Discogs links, rather than sources that provide a comprehensive discography), and, like others, I think all the permutations of reissue and special edition track listings has gotten out of control, as well as these long lists of not notable personnel credits (eight second engineers, 30 backing vocalists, etc.). Also agree that the track listing template issue needs consensus; if three are acceptable, then three are acceptable--again, why change it to accommodate the names of six not notable songwriters? There's still a divide on the issue of commercial links in the body of the article--I have yet to see a compelling reason for their inclusion (WP is, uh, not for sale, remember?), when a better source can always be found (and editors have noted, not that I've made a study of it, that itunes often uses incorrect release dates for older albums). But I also acknowledge that since this "floated" rewrite never happened, then the community at large may be satisfied with the guidelines. Caro7200 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the personnel and reissue/special edition track listing, I don't know if I can dig up the discussions, but there seems to be a consensus against being exhaustive and instead to put an external link to Discogs. I fail to see how linking to Billboard or AllMusic links for a release date on discographies is OR, unless you're talking about in the lead. At least in the case of Billboard, that's an established RS (AllMusic isn't the most accurate with dates).-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I meant that editors often use discography pages to justify chronology, even though Billboard citations are simply supporting chart positions, Discogs only states that an album exists, and AllMusic entries most often do not give a sequential number in their reviews, etc. There is often not a source (or sources) that states that the discography is complete, categorized properly, and in order. Caro7200 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Myself, I've noticed that some of the sourcing recommendations are contrary to WP:RS guidance (more strict, actually!) or otherwise outside consensus. For instance, MOS:ALBUMS currently says to not use vendors for track list or personnel credits, linking to WP:AFFILIATE in WP:RS, but AFFILIATE actually says that such use is acceptable but not preferred. Likewise, MOS:ALBUMS says not to use scans of liner notes, which is 1. absurd, and 2. not actual consensus, which in the discussions I've had is that actual scans are fine (which makes sense as it's a digital archived copy of the source).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The tendency to be overreliant on liner notes is also a detriment. I've encountered some liner notes on physical releases that have missing credits (e.g. only the producers are credited and not the writers), or there are outright no notes at all. Tangentially, some physical releases of albums like Still Over It and Pink Friday 2 actually direct consumers to official websites to see the credits, which has the added problem of link rot (the credits website for Still Over Itno longer works and is a permanent dead link). Elias 🦗🐜 15:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
That turns editors to using stores like Spotify or Apple Music as the next-best choice, but a new problem arises -- the credits for a specific song can vary depending on the site you use. One important thing we should likely discuss is what sources should take priority wrt credits. For an example of what I mean, take "No Love". Go to Spotify to check its credits and you'd find the name Sean Garrett -- head to Apple Music, however, and that name is missing. I assume these digital credits have a chance to deviate from the albums' physical liner notes as well, if there is one available. Elias 🦗🐜 15:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Moreover, the credits in stores are not necessarily correct either. An example I encountered was on Tidal, an amazing service and the only place where I could find detailed credits for one album (not even liner notes had them, since back then artists tried to avoid sample clearance). However, as I was double checking everything, one song made no sense: in its writing credits I found "Curtis Jackson", with a link to 50 Cent's artist page. It seemed extremely unlikely that they would collaborate, nor any of his work was sampled here. Well, it turns out this song sampled a song written by Charles Jackson of The Independents. AstonishingTunesAdmirer連絡16:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
PSA and AstonishingTunesAdmirer, I agree that it's difficult. I usually use both the physical liner notes and online streaming and retail sources to check for completeness and errors. I've also had the experience of Tidal being a great resource, and, luckily, so far I've yet to encounter an error. Perhaps advice for how to check multiple primary sources here for errors should be added to the proposed guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
At this point, I am convinced as well that finding the right sources for credits should be on a case-by-case basis, with the right amount of discretion from the editor. While I was creating List of songs recorded by SZA, which included several SoundCloud songs where it was extremely hard to find songwriting credits, I found the Songview database useful for filling those missing gaps. More or less the credits there align with what's on the liner notes/digital credits. However, four issues, most of which you can see by looking at the list I started: 1) they don't necessarily align with physical liner notes either, 2) sometimes names are written differently depending on the entry, 3) there are entries where a writer (or co-writer) is unknown, and 4) some of the entries here were never officially released and confirmed as outtakes/leaks (why is "BET Awards 19 Nomination Special" here, whatever that means?). Elias 🦗🐜 22:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I've found it particularly tricky when working on technical personnel (production, engineering, mixing, etc.) and songwriting credits for individuals. I usually use the liner notes (if there are any), check AllMusic and Bandcamp, and also check Tidal if necessary. But I'll also look at Spotify, too. I know they're user-generated, so I don't cite them, but I usually look at Discogs and Genius to get an idea if I'm missing something. Thank you for pointing me to Songview, that will probably also be really helpful. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
(@3family6, please see WP:PROPOSAL for advice on advertising discussions about promoting pages to a guideline. No, you don't have to start over. But maybe add an RFC tag or otherwise make sure that it is very widely publicized.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Before posting the RfC as suggested by WhatamIdoing, I'm proposing the following changes to the text of MOS:ALBUM as discussed above:
Eliminate What other works of art is this producer known for? Keep the list of other works short, as the producer will likely have their own article with a more complete list. from the "Recording, production" sub-section.
Rework the text of the "Style and form" for tracklistings to:
The track listing should be under a primary heading named "Track listing".
A track listing should generally be formatted with the {{Track listing}} template. Note, however, that the track listing template forces a numbering system, so tracks originally listed as "A", "B", etc., or with other or no designations, will not appear as such when using the template. Additionally, in the case of multi-disc/multi-sided releases, a new template may be used for each individual disc or side, if applicable.
Alternate forms, such as a table or a numbered list, are acceptable but usually not preferred. If a table is used, it should be formatted using class="wikitable", with column headings "No.", "Title" and "Length" for the track number, the track title and the track length, respectively (see Help:Table). In special cases, such as Guitar Songs, a numbered list may be the most appropriate format.
Move Critical reception overviews like AcclaimedMusic (using {{Acclaimed Music}}), AnyDecentMusic?, or Metacritic may be appropriate as well. from "External links" to "Album ratings templates" of "Critical reception", right before the sentence about using {{Metacritic album prose}}.
Re-write this text from "Sourcing" under "Track listing" from However, if there is disagreement, there are other viable sources. Only provide a source for a track listing if there are exceptional circumstances, such as a dispute about the writers of a certain track. Per WP:AFFILIATE, avoid commercial sources such as online stores and streaming platforms. In the rare instances where outside citations are required, explanatory text is useful to help other editors know why the album's liner notes are insufficient. to Per WP:AFFILIATE, commercial sources such as online stores and streaming platforms are acceptable to cite for track list information, but secondary coverage in independent reliable sources is preferred if available. Similarly, in the "Personnel" section, re-write Similar to the track listing requirements, it is generally assumed that a personnel section is sourced from the liner notes. In some cases, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers who are not credited in the liner notes. If you need to cite these, use {{Cite AV media}} for the liner notes and do not use third party sources such as stores (per WP:AFFILIATE) or scans uploaded to image hosting sites or Discogs.com (per WP:RS). to Similar to the track listing requirements, it is generally assumed that a personnel section is sourced from the liner notes. If you need to cite the liner notes, use {{Cite AV media}}. Scans of the physical media that have been uploaded in digital form to repositories or sites such as Discogs are acceptable for verification, but cite the physical notes themselves, not the user-generated transcriptions. Frequently, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers who are not credited in the liner notes. Per WP:AFFILIATE, inline citations to e-commerce or streaming platforms to verify personnel credits are allowed. However, reliable secondary sources are preferred, if available.
Additional guidance has been suggested for researching and verifying personnel and songwriting credits. I suggest adding It is recommended to utilize a combination of the physical liner notes (if they exist) with e-commerce sites such as Apple Music and Amazon, streaming platforms such as Spotify and Tidal, and databases such as AllMusic credits listings and Songview. Finding the correct credits requires careful, case-by-case consideration and editor discretion. If you would like assistance, you can reach out to the albums or discographies WikiProjects. The best section for this is probably in "Personnel", in the paragraph discussing that liner notes can be inaccurate.
The excessive listing of personnel has been mentioned. I suggest adding the following to the paragraph in the "Personnel" section beginning with "The credits to an album can be extensive or sparse.": If the listing of personnel is extensive, avoid excessive, exhaustive lists, in the spirit of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In such cases, provide an external link to Discogs and list only the major personnel to the list.
If you have any additional suggestions, or suggestions regarding the wording of any of the above (I personally think that four needs to be tightened up or expressed better), please give them. I'm pinging the editors who raised issues with the essay as currently written, or were involved in discussing those issues, for their input regarding the above proposed changes. ModernDayTrilobite, PSA, Sergecross73, AstonishingTunesAdmirer, Caro7200, what do you think? Also, I realize that I never pinged Fezmar9, the author of the essay, for their thoughts on upgrading this essay to a guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The proposed edits all look good to me. I agree there's probably some room for improvement in the phrasing of #4, but in my opinion it's still clear enough as to be workable, and I haven't managed to strike upon any other phrasings I liked better for expressing its idea. If nobody else has suggestions, I'd be content to move forward with the language as currently proposed. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
reverts all edits
Hello everyone. I have an idea for the Misplaced Pages coders. Would it be possible for you to design an option that, with the click of a button, automatically reverts all edits of a disruptive user? This idea came to my mind because some people create disposable accounts to cause disruption in all their edits... In this case, a lot of time and energy is consumed by administrators and reverting users to undo all the vandalism. If there were a template that could revert all the edits of a disruptive user with one click, it would be very helpful. If you think regular users might misuse this option, you could limit it to Misplaced Pages administrators only so they can quickly and easily undo the disruption. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this tool active in all the different languages of Misplaced Pages? I couldn't perform such an action with the tool you mentioned. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
That script requires the Misplaced Pages:Rollback permission, which is available only for admins and other trusted users. Admins and other users with the tool have gotten in trouble for using it inappropriately. I never use it myself, as I find the rollback in Twinkle quite sufficient for my needs. Donald Albury17:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Schazjmd Sorry. Does your option can reverse all edits of a user in different page's with clicking on button ? i think you mean that massrollback can reverse all edits in a special wiki page... not all edits of edits of disruptive user in multiple pages ? or i'm wrong ??? Hulu2024 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I don’t know who is in charge for coding the Translate page on Misplaced Pages. But I wanted to send my message to the Misplaced Pages coders, and that is that in the Misplaced Pages translation system, the information boxes for individual persons (i.e personal biography box- see: Template:Infobox person) are not automatically translated, and it is time-consuming for Misplaced Pages users to manually translate and change the links one by one from English to another language. Please, could the coders come up with a solution for translating the information template boxes? Thank you. Hulu2024 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Hulu2024, this also applies to the section above. If your proposal only applies to the English Misplaced Pages then it is probably best to post it at WP:VPT in the first instance. If it is only about the Persian Misplaced Pages then you may wish to try there. If it is more general then you could try Meta:, or, for more formal proposals, phabricator. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
i quit this will go no where im extremely embarassed and feel horrible i dont think ill try again
I would like to start this proposal by saying that this concept was a proposal in 2009 which failed for obvious reasons. But in this year, 2025, we need it as its happened a bunch. its already under personal attacks but this I feel and a couple other Wikipedians that it should be codified as their is precedent for blocking users who discriminate. Here’s a list of the things I want to include in this policy. edit: This policy is intended to target blatant and admitted instances of discrimination. If the intent behind an action is ambiguous, users should continue to assume good until the intent is.
Just as being a member of a group does not give one special requirements to edit, it also does not endow any special privileges. One is not absolved of discrimination against a group just because one claims to be a member of that group.
Im aware that this never really happens but its good to go over
A user may not claim without evidence that a user is affected by/are any of the above (idk how to term this).
A user may not claim that users with these disabilities/beliefs/races/genders shouldn’t edit Misplaced Pages.
A user may not imply a user is below them based on the person.
calling people woke simply cause they are queer is discrimination.
Also I would like to propose a condition.
Over reaction to what you think is discrimination (accidental misgendering and wrong pronouns) and the user apologizes for it is not grounds for an entry at ani.
This should be used as a guideline.
discrimination is defined as acts, practices, or policies that wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in a salient social group. This is a comparative definition. An individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. He or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. If someone decides to donate to help orphan children, but decides to donate less, say, to children of a particular race out of a racist attitude, he or she will be acting in a discriminatory way even if he or she actually benefits the people he discriminates against by donating some money to them.
Misplaced Pages article on discrimination
I would also like to say this would give us negative press coverage by right wing media and I’ll receive shit. But I don’t care i can deal with it •Cyberwolf•talk?16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This largely seems like behavior that already is sanctionable per WP:NPA and WP:UCOC (and the adoption of the latter drew complaints at the time that it in itself was already unnecessarily redundant with existing civility policy on en.wiki). What shortcomings do you see with those existing bodies of policy en force? signed, Rosguill16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact that punishments should be a little more severe for users who go after a whole group of editors. As its not an npa its an attack on a group •Cyberwolf•talk?16:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NPA violations are already routinely met with blocks and sitebans, often on sight without prior warning for the level of disparagement you're describing. Do you have any recent examples on hand of cases where the community's response was insufficiently severe? signed, Rosguill17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ill grab some my issue is admins can unblock without community input it should be unblock from admin then= they have to appeal to the community •Cyberwolf•talk?17:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I've now taken the time to read through the three cases listed at the top--two of them ended in NOTHERE blocks pretty quickly--I could see someone taking issue with the community's handling of RowanElder and Jwa05002, although it does seem that the discussion ultimately resulted in an indef block for one and an apparently sincere apology from the other. signed, Rosguill17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the real problem is that in order to block for any reason you have to take them to a place where random editors discuss whether they are a "net positive" or "net negative" to the wiki, which in principle would be a fair way to decide, but in reality is like the work of opening an RFC just in order to get someone to stop saying random racist stuff, and it's not worth it. Besides, remember the RSP discussion where the Daily Mail couldn't be agreed to be declared unreliable on transgender topics because "being 'gender critical' is a valid opinion" according to about half the people there? I've seen comments that were blatant bigoted insults beneath a thin veneer, that people did not take to ANI because it's just not worth the huge amount of effort. There really needs to be an easy way for administrators to warn (on first violation) and then block people who harass people in discriminatory ways without a huge and exhausting-for-the-complainer "discussion" about it -- and a very clear policy that says discrimination is not OK and is always "net negative" for the encyclopedia would reduce the complexity of that discussion, and I think is an important statement to make.
By allowing it to be exhaustively debated whether thinly-veiled homophobic insults towards gay people warrant banning is Misplaced Pages deliberately choosing not to take a stance on the topic. A stance needs to be taken, and it needs to be clear enough to allow rapid and decisive action that makes people actually afraid to discriminate against other editors, because they know that it isn't tolerated, rather than being reasonably confident their targets won't undergo another exhausting ANI discussion. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that a blind eye shouldn't be turned against discrimination against groups of Misplaced Pages editors in general, but I don't see why we need a list that doesn't include social class but includes hobbies. The determining factor for deciding whether something is discrimination should be how much choice the individual has in the matter, which seems, in practice, to be the way WP:NPA is used. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree hobbies doesn't need to be included. Haven't seen a lot of discrimination based on social class? I think this needs to be taken to the Idea Lab. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@cyberwolf Strong support in general (see above) but I strongly suggest you take this to the idea lab, because it's not written as a clear and exact proposal and it would probably benefit a lot from being developed into an RFC before taking it here. In the current format it probably can't pass because it doesn't make specific changes to policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Wait...does this mean I won't be able to discriminate against people whose hobby is editing Misplaced Pages? Where's the fun in that? Anonymous17:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
In general, I fail to see the problem this is solving. The UCoC and other policies/guidelines/essays (such as WP:NPA, WP:FOC, and others) already prohibit discriminatory behavior. And normal conduct processes already have the ability to lay down the strictest punishment theoretically possible - an indefinite ban - for anyone who engages in such behavior.
I do not like the idea of what amounts to bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. That is the best way I can put it. At worst, this is virtue signaling - it’s waving a flag saying “hey, public and editors, Misplaced Pages cares about discrimination so much we made a specific policy about it” - without even saying the next part “but our existing policies already get people who discriminate against other editors banned, so this was not necessary and a waste of time”. I’ll happily admit I’m proven wrong if someone can show evidence of a case where actual discrimination was not acted upon because people were “concerned” it wasn’t violating one of those other policies. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, all the comments about "why is this included" or "why is this not included" are part of the reason I'm against a specific policy like this. Any disruption can be handled by normal processes, and a specific policy will lead to wikilawyering over what is or is not discrimination. There is no need to try to define/specifically treat discrimination when all discriminatory behaviors are adequately covered by other policies already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
We should be relating to other editors in a kind way. But this proposal appears to make the editing environment more hostile with more blocking on the opinion of one person. We do discrimonate against those that use Misplaced Pages for wrong purposes, such as vandalism, or advertising. Pushing a particular point of view is more grey area. The proposal by cyberwolf is partly point of view that many others would disagree with. So we should concentrate policies on how a user relates to other editors, rather than their motivations or opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this is valuable by setting a redline for a certain sort of personal attack and saying, "this is a line nobody is permitted to cross while participating in this project." Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not possible for the content of a discussion to be "discriminatory". Discrimination is action, not speech. This proposal looks like an attempt to limit discourse to a certain point of view. That's not a good idea. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Cambridge says that discrimination is : "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their race, gender, sexuality, etc".
OK, look, I'll concede part of the point here. Yes, if I'm a dick to (name of group) but not to (name of other group), I suppose that is discrimination, but I don't think a discrimination policy is a particularly useful tool for this, because what I should do is not be a dick to anybody.
What I'm concerned about is that the policy would be used to assert that certain content is discriminatory. Say someone says, here's a reliable source that says biological sex is real and has important social consequences, and someone else says, you can't bring that up, it's discriminatory. Well, no, that's a category error. That sort of thing can't be discriminatory. --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The examples you use show that we've been dealing effectively without this additional set of guidelines; it would be more convincing that something was needed if you had examples where the lack of this policy caused bad outcomes. And I can see it being used as a hammer; while we're probably picturing "as a White man, I'm sure that I understand chemistry better than any of you lesser types" as what we're going after, I can see some folks trying to wield it against "as a Comanche raised on the Comanche nation, I think I have some insights on the Comanche language that others here are overlooking." As such, I'm cautious. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Not needed. Everything the proposal is talking about would constitute disruptive behavior, and we can block or ban someone for being disruptive already. No need to break disruption down into its component parts, and write rules for each. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Repeated false retirement
There is a user (who shall remain unnamed) who has "retired" twice and had the template removed from their page by other users because they were clearly still editing. They are now on their third "retirement", yet they last edited a few days ago. I don't see any policy formally prohibiting such behavior, but it seems extremely unhelpful for obvious reasons. Anonymous17:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Unless the material is harmful to Misplaced Pages or other users, users have considerable leeway in what they may post on their user page. Personally, I always take "retirement" notices with a grain of salt. If a user wants to claim they are retired even though they are still actively editing, I don't see the harm to anything but their credibility. If I want to know if an editor is currently active, I look at their contributions, not at notices on their user or talk page. Donald Albury22:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't imagine that this calls for a policy. You're allowed to be annoyed if you want. No one can take that away from you. But I'm missing an explanation of why the rest of us should care. --Trovatore (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
This seems a little prickly, my friend. Clearly, the other two users who removed older retirement notices cared. At the end of the day, it's definitely not the most major thing, but it is helpful to have a reliable and simple indication as to whether or not a user can be expected to respond to any kind of communication or feedback. I'm not going to die on this hill. Cheers. Anonymous22:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
A "retirement notice" from a Misplaced Pages editor is approximately as credible as a "retirement notice" from a famous rock and roll band. Ignore it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, those two other editors were in the wrong to edit another person's user page for this kind of thing. And the retired banner does indicate: don't expect a quick response, even if I made an edit a few days or even minutes ago, as I may not be around much. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it's kind of rude to edit someone else's user page unless there is an extreme reason, like reversing vandalism or something. On Misplaced Pages:User pages I don't see anything about retirement templates, but i do see it say "In general, one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask." If someone wants to identify as retired but sometimes drop by and edit, that doesn't seem to hurt anything. GeogSage03:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so even a "non-retired" editor might never edit again. And if someone is "retired" but still constructively edits, just consider that a bonus. What's more problematic is a petulant editor who "retires", but returns and edits disruptively; in such case, it's their disruptive behavior that would be the issue, not a trivial retirement notice. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as Misplaced Pages is concerned it's just another userbox you can put on your userpage. We only remove userboxes and userspace material if they're claiming to have a right that they don't (ie. a user with an Administrator toolbox who isn't an admin). Retirement is not an official term defined in policy anywhere, and being retired confers no special status. Pinguinn🐧11:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
If you see a retirement template that seems to be false you could post a message on the user talk page to ask if they are really retired. I suppose it could be just a tiny bit disruptive if we cannot believe such templates, but nowhere near enough to warrant sanctions or a change in policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
What is the purpose of banning?
In thinking about a recent banned user's request to be unblocked, I've been reading WP:Blocking policy and WP:Banning policy trying to better understand the differences. In particular, I'm trying to better understand what criteria should be applied when deciding whether to end a sanction.
One thing that stuck me is that for blocks, we explicitly say Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users. The implication being that a user should be unblocked if we're convinced they no longer present a threat of damage or disruption. No such statement exists for bans, which implies that bans are be a form of punishment. If that's the case, then the criteria should not just be "we think they'll behave themselves now", but "we think they've endured sufficiently onerous punishment to atone for their misbehavior", which is a fundamentally different thing.
My understanding (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that blocks are made by individual admins, and may be lifted by an admin (noting that CU blocks should only be lifted after clearance by a CU), while bans are imposed by ARBCOM or the community and require ARBCOM or community discussion to lift. Whether block or ban, a restriction on editing should only be imposed when it is the opinion of the admin, or ARBCOM, or the community, that such restriction is necessary to protect the encyclopedia from further harm or disruption. I thinks bans carry the implication that there is less chance that the banned editor will be able to successfully return to editing than is the case for blocked editors, but that is not a punishment, it is a determination of what is needed to protect WP in the future. Donald Albury16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Good question. I'm interested in what ban evasion sources think about current policies, people who have created multiple accounts, been processed at SPI multiple times, made substantial numbers of edits, the majority of which are usually preserved by the community in practice for complicated reasons (a form of reward in my view - the community sends ban evading actors very mixed messages). What's their perspective on blocks and bans and how to reduce evasion? It is not easy to get this kind of information unfortunately as people who evade bans and blocks are not very chatty it seems. But I have a little bit of data from one source for interest, Irtapil. Here are a couple of views from the other side.
On socking - "automatic second chance after first offense with a 2 week ban / block, needs to be easier than making a third one so people don't get stuck in the loop"
On encouraging better conduct - "they need to gently restrict people, not shun and obliterate"
No comment on the merits of these views, or whether punishment is what is actually happening, or is required, or effective, but it seems clear that it is likely to be perceived as punishment and counterproductive (perhaps unsurprisingly) by some affected parties. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Blocks are a sanction authorized by the community to be placed by administrators on their own initiative, for specific violations as described by a policy, guideline, or arbitration remedy (in which case the community authorization is via the delegated authority to the arbitration committee). Blocks can also be placed to enforce an editing restriction. A ban is an editing restriction. As described on the banning policy page, it is a formal prohibition from editing some or all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Misplaced Pages pages. Bans can be imposed for a specified or an indefinite duration. Aside from cases where the community has delegated authority to admins to enact bans on their own initiative, either through community authorization of discretionary sanctions, or arbitration committee designated contentious topics, editing restrictions are authorized through community discussion. They cover cases where there isn't a single specific violation for which blocking is authorized by guidance/arbitration remedy, and so a pattern of behaviour and the specific circumstances of the situation have to be discussed and a community consensus established.
Historically, removing blocks and bans require a consensus from the authorizing party that removing it will be beneficial to the project. Generally, the community doesn't like to impose editing restrictions when there is promise for improved behaviour, so they're enacted for more severe cases of poor behaviour. Thus it's not unusual that the community is somewhat skeptical about lifting recently enacted restrictions (where "recent" can vary based on the degree of poor behaviour and the views of each community member). Personally I don't think this means an atonement period should be mandated. isaacl (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that a block is a preventive measure, whereas a ban is where the community's reached a consensus to uninvite a particular person from the site. Misplaced Pages is the site that anyone can edit, except for a few people we've decided we can't or won't work with. A ban is imposed by a sysop on behalf of the community whereas a block is imposed on their own authority.—S MarshallT/C19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
A ban does not always stop you from editing Misplaced Pages. It may prohibit you from editing in a certain topic area (BLP for example or policies) but you can still edit other areas. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva00:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Seems to be addressed in WP:BMB, which explains that the criteria is not dependent upon an editor merely behaving with what appears to be "good or good-faith edits". A ban is based on a persistent or long-term pattern of editing behavior that demonstrates a significant risk of "disruption, issues, or harm" to the area in which they are banned from, despite any number of positive contributions said editor has made or is willing to make moving forward. As such, it naturally requires a higher degree of review (i.e. a form of community consensus) to be imposed or removed (though many simply expire upon a pre-determined expiration date without review). While some may interpret bans as a form of punishment, they are still a preventative measure at their core. At least that's my understanding. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Contacting/discussing organizations that fund Misplaced Pages editing
I have seen it asserted that contacting another editor's employer is always harassment and therefore grounds for an indefinite block without warning. I absolutely get why we take it seriously and 99% of the time this norm makes sense. (I'm using the term "norm" because I haven't seen it explicitly written in policy.)
In some cases there is a conflict between this norm and the ways in which we handle disruptive editing that is funded by organizations. There are many types of organizations that fund disruptive editing - paid editing consultants, corporations promoting themselves, and state propaganda departments, to name a few. Sometimes the disruption is borderline or unintentional. There have been, for instance, WMF-affiliated outreach projects that resulted in copyright violations or other crap being added to articles.
We regularly talk on-wiki and off-wiki about organizations that fund Misplaced Pages editing. Sometimes there is consensus that the organization should either stop funding Misplaced Pages editing or should significantly change the way they're going about it. Sometimes the WMF legal team sends cease-and-desist letters.
Now here's the rub: Some of these organizations employ Misplaced Pages editors. If a view is expressed that the organizations should stop the disruptive editing, it is foreseeable that an editor will lose a source of income. Is it harassment for an editor to say "Organization X should stop/modify what it's doing to Misplaced Pages?" at AN/I? Of course not. Is it harassment for an editor to express the same view in a social media post? I doubt we would see it that way unless it names a specific editor.
Yet we've got this norm that we absolutely must not contact any organization that pays a Misplaced Pages editor, because this is a violation of the harassment policy. Where this leads is a bizarre situation in which we are allowed to discuss our beef with a particular organization on AN/I but nobody is allowed to email the organization even to say, "Hey, we're having a public discussion about you."
I propose that if an organization is reasonably suspected to be funding Misplaced Pages editing, contacting the organization should not in and of itself be considered harassment. I ask that in this discussion, we not refer to real cases of alleged harassment, both to avoid bias-inducing emotional baggage and to prevent distress to those involved. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
If it's needful to contact an organisation about one of their employees' edits, Trust and Safety should do that. Not volunteers.—S MarshallT/C09:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Let's say Acme Corporation has been spamming Misplaced Pages. If you post on Twitter "Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages" is that harassment? How about if you write "@Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages?" Should only Trust and Safety be allowed to add the @ sign? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
What you post on Twitter isn't something Misplaced Pages can control. But contacting another editor's employer about that editor's edits has a dark history on Misplaced Pages.—S MarshallT/C15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The history is dark indeed. What I'm pointing out is that writing "@Acme has been spamming Misplaced Pages" on Twitter is contacting another editor's employer. Should you be indef blocked without warning for doing that? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
You want an "in principle" discussion without talking about specific cases, so the only way I can answer that is to say: Not always, but depending on the surrounding circumstances, possibly.—S MarshallT/C16:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Another issue is that it sometimes doing that can place another link or two in a wp:outing chain, and IMO avoiding that is of immense importance. The way that you posed the question with the very high bar of "always" is probably not the most useful for the discussion. Also, a case like this is almost always involves a concern about a particular editor or center around edits made by a particular editor, which I think is a non-typical omission from your hypothetical example. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by placing a link in an outing chain. Can you explain this further? I used the very high bar of "always" because I have seen admins refer to it as an "always" or a "bright line" and this shuts down the conversation. Changing the norm from "is always harassment" to "is usually harassment" is exactly what I'm trying to do.
Organizations that fund disruptive editing often hire just one person to do it but I've also seen plenty of initiatives that involve money being distributed widely, sometimes in the form of giving perks to volunteers. If the organization is represented by only one editor then there is obviously a stronger argument that contacting the organization constitutes harassment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
General reliability discussions have failed at reducing discussion, have become locus of conflict with external parties, and should be curtailed
The original WP:DAILYMAIL discussion, which set off these general reliability discussions in 2017, was supposed to reduce discussion about it, something which it obviously failed to do since we have had more than 20 different discussions about its reliability since then. Generally speaking, a review of WP:RSNP does not support the idea that general reliability discussions have reduced discussion about the reliability of sources either. Instead, we see that we have repeated discussions about the reliability of sources, even where their reliability was never seriously questioned. We have had a grand total of 22 separate discussions about the reliability of the BBC, for example, 10 of which have been held since 2018. We have repeated discussions about sources that are cited in relatively few articles (e.g., Jacobin).
Moreover these discussions spark unnecessary conflict with parties off wiki that harm the reputation of the project. Most recently we have had an unnecessary conflict with the Anti-Defamation League sparked by a general reliability discussion with them, but the original Daily Mail discussion did this also. In neither case was usage of the source a problem generally on Misplaced Pages in any way that has been lessened by their deprecation - they were neither widely-used, nor permitted to be used in a way that was problematic by existing policy on using reliable sources.
There is also some evidence, particularly from WP:PIA5, that some editors have sought to "claim scalps" by getting sources they are opposed to on ideological grounds 'banned' from Misplaced Pages. Comments in such discussions are often heavily influenced by people's impression of the bias of the source.
I think a the very least we need a WP:BEFORE-like requirement for these discussions, where the editors bringing the discussion have to show that the source is one for which the reliability of which has serious consequences for content on Misplaced Pages, and that they have tried to resolve the matter in other ways. The recent discussion about Jacobin, triggered simply by a comment by a Jacobin writer on Reddit, would be an example of a discussion that would be stopped by such a requirement. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of this proposal is to reduce discussion of sources. I feel that evaluating the reliability of sources is the single most important thing that we as a community can do, and I don't want to reduce the amount of discussion about sources. So I would object to this.—S MarshallT/C16:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't thinks meant to reduce but instead start more discussions at a more appropriate level than at VPP or RSP. Starting the discussion at the VPP/RSP level means you are trying to get all editors involved, which for most cases isn't really appropriate ( eg one editor has a beef about a source and brings it to wide discussion before getting other input first). Foarp us right that when these discussion are first opened at VPP or RSP without prior attempts to resolve elsewhere is a wear on the process. — Masem (t) 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I would support anything to reduce the constant attempts to kill sources at RSN. It has become one of the busiest pages on all of Misplaced Pages, maybe even surpassing ANI. -- GreenC19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Some confusion about pages here, with some mentions of RSP actually referring to RSN. RSN is a type of "before" for RSP, and RSP is intended as a summary of repeated RSN discussions. One purpose of RSP is to put a lid on discussion of sources that have appeared at RSN too many times. This isn't always successful, but I don't see a proposal here to alleviate that. Few discussions are started at RSP; they are started at RSN and may or may not result in a listing or a change at RSP. Also, many of the sources listed at RSP got there due to a formal RfC at RSN, so they were already subject to RFCBEFORE (not always obeyed). I'm wondering how many listings at RSN are created due to an unresolved discussion on an article talk page—I predict it is quite a lot. Zero04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above has spiralled out of control, and needs clarification. The discussion revolves around how to count episodes for TV series when a traditionally shorter episode (e.g., 30 minutes) is broadcast as a longer special (e.g., 60 minutes). The main point of contention is whether such episodes should count as one episode (since they aired as a single entity) or two episodes (reflecting production codes and industry norms).
The simple question is: when primary sources and secondary sources conflict, which we do use on Misplaced Pages?
The contentious article behind this discussion is at List of Good Luck Charlie episodes, in which Deadline, TVLine and The Futon Critic all state that the series has 100 episodes; this article from TFC, which is a direct copy of the press release from Disney Channel, also states that the series has "100 half-hour episodes".
The article has 97 episodes listed; the discrepancy is from three particular episodes that are all an hour long (in a traditionally half-hour long slot). These episode receive two production codes, indicating two episodes, but each aired as one singular, continuous release. An editor argues that the definition of an episode means that these count as a singular episode, and stand by these episode being the important primary sources.
The discussion above discusses what an episode is. Should these be considered one episode (per the primary source of the episode), or two episodes (per the secondary sources provided)? This is where the primary conflict is.
Multiple editors have stated that the secondary sources refer to the production of the episodes, despite the secondary sources not using this word in any format, and that the primary sources therefore override the "incorrect" information of the secondary sources. Some editors have argued that there are 97 episodes, because that's what's listed in the article.
WP:CALC has been cited; Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. An editor argues that there is not the required consensus. WP:VPT was also cited.
The same editor arguing for the importance of the primary source stated that he would have listed this as one episode, despite a reliable source stating that there is 14 episodes in the season.
Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Other quotes from the editors arguing for the importance of primary over secondary includes:
When a secondary source conflicts with a primary source we have an issue to be explained but when the primary source is something like the episodes themselves and what is in them and there is a conflict, we should go with the primary source.
We shouldn't be doing "is considered to be"s, we should be documenting what actually happened as shown by sources, the primary authoritative sources overriding conflicting secondary sources.
Yep, secondary sources are not perfect and when they conflict with authoritative primary sources such as released films and TV episodes we should go with what is in that primary source.
Having summarized this discussion, the question remains: when primary sources and secondary sources conflict, which we do use on Misplaced Pages?
Primary, as the episodes are authoritative for factual information, such as runtime and presentation?
Or secondary, which guide Misplaced Pages's content over primary interpretations?
Request for research input to inform policy proposals about banners & logos
I am leading an initiative to review and make recommendations on updates to policies and procedures governing decisions to run project banners or make temporary logo changes. The initiative is focused on ensuring that project decisions to run a banner or temporarily change their logo in response to an “external” event (such as a development in the news or proposed legislation) are made based on criteria and values that are shared by the global Wikimedia community. The first phase of the initiative is research into past examples of relevant community discussions and decisions. If you have examples to contribute, please do so on the Meta-Wiki page. Thanks! --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Done 
Pope Francis and Brigette Lundy-Paine
.jpg)
FYI
Moved to 
