Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria/Amendment 2

Previous discussion

Previous discussion, albeit not about this specific amendment, can be found here:

• Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists
• Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_5#Clarification_of_FUC#8

east.718 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Amendments to the amendment

Comment below... ed g2s • talk 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So, who's going to fight out the hundred thousand battles it'll take to enforce this? --Carnildo 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, this is the point of making it policy. ed g2s • talk 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless it can be enforced by speedy deletion, there'll be a great deal of edit warring and arguing involved to convince each person that their pet article doesn't need all those decorative images, and yes, that image is indeed decorative under the Fair Use policy. --Carnildo 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo, i'll be ready to help. However, given the opposition below, I do not think this will be a good idea. I have face some opposition when I began to do exactly what is proposed here (not only with fair use, but non-commercial images), but sooner or later, something has to be addressed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How much of our Wikipedia:Image use policy do we want to base around users who are not committed to making a maximally free and reusable encyclopedia? I think that it is the underlying question in all of these recent conversations and proposals. Jkelly 20:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Everybody here truthfully wants to improve Wikipedia, but we seem to disagree on which is the most important, Visual pleasedness or Freeness. --Abu Badali 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely issues about where to draw the line. At a certain point freeness gets in the way of quality content. But there is also a point where sacrificing the freeness becomes a problem. So really have to come to an agreement about where to draw the line in order to determine the final wording of this point (FUC#8). Jay32183 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I would say that using images only when it's he subject of significant discussion and provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text is a good place to draw this line. --Abu Badali 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I need a cleaner definition of cannot be conveyed by text before I can agree or disagree with that. Saying some one was on a magazine cover once and showing the magazine is definitely not something we should be doing. If we aren't careful with our phrasing some people may think that if you describe what something looks like you can't show an image. The article Bulbasaur uses four fair use claims, which I feel are all validated by the context of the article. But if the cannot be conveyed by text is too strictly applied then the lead image wouldn't qualify because there is a paragraph describing what a Bulbasaur looks like. I don't think it was your intent to remove images like that, but we should watch our words so other people don't. Jay32183 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Abu, there is absolutely nothing stopping from someone using WP content to delete images. I have said this time after time after time: what others do is of no legal concern of us or the wikimedia foundation — we are no their lawyers. If someone copies Honus Wagner then it is their responsibility to ensure the content is used legally. From Wikipedia:Public domain:

For re-users of Wikipedia content, it is the laws of their respective countries.

"Fair use" has no concept outside of the united states; "public domain" is questionable on where it applies. It is up to the reuser to ensure they are using the content as the laws applies to them (lex loci solutionis). If the law of their land forbids fair use then they can delete it. If the law of their land does not consider an image in public domain then they can delete it. If the law of their land forbids copyleft licenses then they can't use any content from WP. If they wish to ignore their laws then it is their issue to deal with. Remember: ignorantia juris non excusat. We can certainly try to avoid obvious legal issues and be as conscious as we want, but at the end of the day it is up to the reuser of the content to make sure they stay legal: not us. Cburnett 23:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We are already building a free encyclopedia, not something to be forked into one. --Abu Badali 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So which do you want to argue: 1) is the image fair use or 2) a fair use image makes WP unfree? I've argued all along that they are fair use. Secondly, using fair use images certainly does not make WP unfree because the law says you have made a legal copy of it. Cburnett 03:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that if the image meets all the criteria on at least one page (including point 8), the image is safe to keep and use on any other page it may be useful without meeting all fair-use within the context of that page.--Will2k 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No. We will point to this policy when removing an image from some article. The image use must follow the policy, not the image itself. And of course, orphan fair use images will be eventually deleted. I can think of lot's of cases we will be using this to remove images from articles. Number one will be passages like "John Smith was once in the cover of So-so Magazine" being added to articles just to justify the presence of a magazine cover. The information that he was on a magazine cover (even if considered "essential") can be "easly conveyed with text".

But maybe we should add something more do discourage editors from changing the article to fit the image. I have seen this more than once, where, after some image use has been disputed, some text is added to the article as to increase the image's importance. Like, after removing some randommly added tv-screenshot used to illustrate a person (and not for critical commentary on the tv program), the image is readded toghether with a line like "Jonh Smith became even more famous after using his red jacket and blue jeans in Davine Lettergirl talk show...". --Abu Badali 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. I think if the image improves the article we should strive to make that connection obvious and abundant. If the image is not clearly discussed in the article, we should first try to see if an improvement to the text of the article is warranted. If so, then improving the text to discuss the image is a much better solution than deleting the image. Here is an example:

Imagine Jo Bob is a baseball player who is ambidextrous and that his article carries a picture of his rookie baseball card, which is not mentioned in the article. One solution is to remove the image. A better option is to improve the article with: "Because Jo Bob is an ambidextrous and a switch hitter, he signed his rookie card (pictured) twice, once with each hand."

We should work to better integrate the content rather than defaulting to trying to remove it. Johntex\^talk 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of edition that I think hurts Wikipedia. I don't consider adding (or sometimes creating) a line of text information just to prettend some given random picture is important is "improving" an article. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Garion96 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I should remind people that the existing policy, not the one up for discussion, requires the fair use justifications to be on the image page, not on the article page. The article page is supposed to have an invisible note saying "see image page for fair use rationale" or something similar. The reason behind this is to avoid bad writing by having to interrupt the flow of an article to justify an image. Also remember that decorative is not the key to the existing policy we are debating. We are not supposed to say "If it is decorative then remove it" but "If it does not contribute significantly to an article, such as indentifying the subject or illustrating a relevant point or section of the text then remove it." It is ok to be decorative if it makes a siginificant contribution. Jay32183 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What this amendment does is exactly clarify ths point. What do you understand for "contribute significantly to an article"? For me, it means that the image "provides essential information that can't be conveyed with text". If we're going to understand "contribute significantly" as simply "indentifying the subject or illustrating a relevant point or section of the text", then we will be allowing any copyrighted image to be used wherever it fits. For instance, almost any image from Reuters or Associated Press would "indentify the subject" of some article or "illustrate a relevant point or section of the text" of some other article. But as long as the image do not provides essential information that can't be conveyed with text, we can't simply use them without violating the copyright owner's rights. This policy text must be changed to clarify this and this amendment does exactly that. --Abu Badali 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But we aren't discussing whether or not this is legal. This is about the Wikipedia policy, which does impose more constraints than the US copyright act does. I'm trying to argue assuming all legal aspects and all the other points in Wikipedia policy are followed. The baseball card image on Honus Wagner would be forbidden under the amendment, yet it is currently given as an example of a valid fair use claim. The page contains no information describing the actual image, and the image does not provide new information. The relevant section of the article only discusses the historical and cultural significance, the image only serves to illustrate the card. Now how could this be the example of fair use if the intention of this guideline in the original text was not to make sure subjects could be visually identified, or relevant points or sections illustrated. If the amendment were only about clarification then all the currently list examples of proper fair use would still be proper fair use. We also could not make the amendment the other way and claim clarification, if we made a current example of an invalid fair use claim valid, such as using a baseball card to identify a player. I do disagree with a fellow objector to this amendment, that saying he signed the card is enough to show the card. The new text is trivial, and we can't illustrate trivia; the text would be frowned upon by FAC reviewers. But I do argue that it is the relevance of the text not the amount of text that matters. Amount of images per word, or words per image is a style issue, not a fair use issue. Jay32183 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The baseball card image on Honus Wagner would not be forbidden under the amendment because it's a public domain image and this amendment only deals with fair use images. --Abu Badali 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is still being used to show what type of text would qualify as fair use should the baseball card still not be public domain. This amendment would not allow the type of text there to do so. Jay32183 22:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be clarified to allow most of these fair use images. Something with an example, like List of Lost episodes is a justified use of fair use images on wikipedia. After the images have been restored to that page, of course. - Peregrinefisher 16:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to add the bit about free alternative to FUC#8, as it is already FUC#1. They appear on the same page and there is no need for the policy to be that redundant. Jay32183 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove "...or a free alternative" as it do not adds much. --Abu Badali 05:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been having some confusion about what the proposed amendment says and what I think it means to say. The use of the word images is paricularly giving me issue. It seems like it would require elaborate discussion of a small part of something for images chosen to illustrate the whole of something. Perhaps we can change images to media. That way an article about a film can use a film screenshot without having to go a an artistic diatribe about the single frame that was chosen. The media specific requirements for screenshots ask for critical commentary and analysis about the program and its contents. A change from images to media would also prevent us from having to have this discussion again when people start "abusing" sound clips. Do people think this is a good idea or have I missed the intent of the amendment. Jay32183 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say change it to "content" as it should apply to text as well. User:Angr 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. We can't be using text purely "decoratively" either. Jay32183 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, the way it is phrased right now it forbids all fair use of text, because we would only allow a text that consists of information that can't be conveyed by text. --Abu Badali 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That could be a problem. I thought can't be conveyed by text could use some cleaning up anyway, because debates will arise about whether an image can ever be conveyed by text, and "you have to see it to believe it". I'm pretty sure the entire point of the amendment is to prevent arguements from going in circles. Jay32183 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be clear that it is the "esssential information" that needs to be impossible to be conveyed with text, and not the image itself. As in the example already used in the discussion, altough we can't convey all the information contained in a magazine cover only with text, when the essential information is simply "John Smith was on the cover of the Dada Magazine in December 2006", it can be conveyed with text. This would also be true for "John Smith played Hamlet in a 2005 adaption of the text for the big screen" or "John Smith hosts a talk show in channell 42". Maybe, it would be more correct to state that instead of "provide essential information", the media/content must be the essential information. The amendment could read instead "Specifically, content must be essential information that can't be conveyed with text, and itself subject of significant discussion". --Abu Badali 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot better. It makes it clear you can't stick magazine covers anywhere you want, but it let's you use the magazine cover when the magazine is the topic of the article or section of the article. I haven't found any good examples for placing a magazine cover in a biography yet, but it this phrasing would allow it for particularly notable instances that would warrant significant discussion. Jay32183 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It should also say original text so that copyrighted text isn't automatically forbidden. Jay32183 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "...can't be conveyed with original text..."? --Abu Badali 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I meant, and I can see how what I said was actually confusing, wrote it too fast. Jay32183 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone disagree, I could make the these changes to the proposed amendment text... (side note: as the discussion seems to be finally get somewhere at least on a few threads, I propose here a pact to completly ignore all trolls, oftopic, and personal critics from now on) --Abu Badali 04:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make the mistake that because people are not giving input means that they acquiesce. This amendment is still way to restrictive for me to agree to. So far the only changes have been to broaded the amendment (all media) and avoid redundancy. The spirit is still there and I still disagree to the spirit so discussing the finer points does not change the whole, ergo I do not comment. So again, do make the mistake that being silent means acquiescence. Cburnett 04:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel "significant discussion" is still a little fuzzy. It's pretty clear that it's ok for the subject of the article and not ok for trivia. But what about sections of articles? To use the Bulbasaur example again, there is an In video games section that contains one screentshot of a video game. There definitely seems to be enough content there to be considered "significant discussion", but not all sections can be that detailed. Within the same article there is the section In Pokemon card game with an image of the Bulbasuar card, and it has only two paragraphs of content. Would that still be considered "significant" since it is that topic of that section? Defining this will probably help solve the "List of TV Series episodes" question. Compare List of Home Movies episodes (nowhere near enough content to be considered "significant discussion") to List of Farscape episodes (which could be argued to have "significant discussion"). Jay32183 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point of the proposed amendment that I was going to ask to be... more significantly discussed :) Jokes apart, we surely can phrase it better. An important point on these examples you gave, taking into account the current amendment wording, is that, instead of asking "how much text should we have dedicated to this image", we should ask "do we need a image to complete our text?". Would you talk about the bulbasaur card in the first place? If so, after writing it down, do you still need an image to complete your information? Or is the text self-contained? Can someone learn everything relevant about Wolverine with text only? Can this same person learn everything relevant about the 12# episode for the 4# season of Farscape with text only?

Draft change suggestion: instead of "... and itself subject of significant discussion" it could read "... and have it's noteworthiness scrutinized in the text..." (please, change this) --Abu Badali 16:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That phrasing is much clearer, and reminds people to write for an encyclopedia. I'm very glad we are going with noteworthiness, instead of length of discussion. All of the examples given on the policy page that have a "no if you do it this way, but yes if you do it this way" talk about the yes' notability, not its length of discussion, so that is probably the spirit of the original wording however unclear it was. Jay32183 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a better word that "noteworthiness"? ed g2s • talk 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "importance"? I think no matter what word we use there will be some subjectiveness, but if it's at the point where it's safe to let an FAC or FLC discuss that subjectiveness case by case, rather than have a fair use debate, we should be safe. Jay32183 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The amendment text should impose that the image's noteworthiness should be properly sourced. This will block argumentations like "The article's text explains why the image is noteworth. If you think it isn't, it is your POV.". If we can't point to outside sources discussing the importance/notability/noteworthiness of the media, then it's original search to state it. --Abu Badali 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that actually. Again for clarity, we should refer to the content's importance(or whatever we end up calling it). We may want to make it so that unsourced isn't immediately removed from the article in case it was just that the person forgot to list the source. Jay32183 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be done the way {{no rationale}} is supposed to work. If you spot an image used under a f.u. claim, but that does not complies with the rules, you dispute it. If within 7 days (negotiable) there's still no sourced material in the article scrutinizing the image noteworthness, then the image should go. --Abu Badali 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you basically just saying only free images can illustrate unsourced statements or that we need an additional source to link the image to the text? The former makes more sense to me. Jay32183 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Only free images can can illustrate. Period. Copyrighted images are not for illustrating sourced nor unsourced text. I know understand that, I'm just being zoverly ealous on the word usage. ;) .

I don't think I fully understood your question, but I'll try to reply anyway (accept my apologizes for that). I think it should work as follows. For a image be used under fair use in some article, #1 the image itself should be essential information (best example ever: Image:Famousphotoche.jpg on Che Guevara (photo). 2nd best example ever: Image:Lenna.png on Lenna). And #2 the article should contain sourced information about the noteworthness of the image (both Che Guevara (photo) and Lenna seem to have good links for outside discussions about the respecitve images notability). The exigence for source would avoid the phenomenon of articles being fine-tuned to justify the presence of some fair use image.

Bad exmples would be: bad 1) Image:Basic_instinct_001.jpg on Basic Instinct, as the image is not "essential information". bad 2) Image:SI cover Feb 1999 Kathy Ireland.jpg (magazine cover) on Kathy Ireland (biography article), because the information "Her modelling career took off as a result of being featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated" can be conveyed only with text (as it's already done in the article). bad 3) Image:Hwang-woo.jpg on Hwang Woo-Suk as the image is not at all mentioned in the article (let alone "subject of significant discussion"). and bad 4) Image:LisaFVogue.jpg (a Vogue magazine cover) on Supermodel as the significant discussion on the image can't be sourced, as it was added (invented) later for giving a false impression of noteworthness of the specific magazine cover (see this thread). --Abu Badali 05:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the key to your not understanding my question was the word illustrate. Illustrate does not only mean decorate, it also mean to clarify or use as an example, both of which have been listed as acceptable reasons for fair use images on wikipedia. Jay32183 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this amendmant is trying to change the meaning of fair use, something that cannot be changed by us because it is defined by US law (it's complicated I know). I think the overuse of unfree images is really what people are trying to prevent like ed_g2s mentioned here. Could someone speak to the difference between not fair use and fair use but not acceptable in wikpedia as it pertains to this amendmant? - Peregrinefisher 06:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The amendmant isn't trying to change the meaning of fair use. It's trying to define when it's acceptable to use unfree images as fair use in Wikipedia. As you correctly put, the abuse of unfree images is what we're trying to prevent (not only prevent, at this point, but also combat).

About the diference, not fair use can actually only be decided by a judge, the Wikimedia strategy being keep away from the grey areas of the law. Blatant infrigiments can be sppoted, though. Like using a magazine cover picture to illustrate John Smith's biography article. The usually seen argument "this does not limit the revenues..." is not enough. The magazine publisher had to spend money to buy/license/take a photo to show it's readers how John Smith looks like and to be a visually appealing publication. We can't freely use their work to show how John Smith looks like and to become a more visually appealing publication. Fair use but not acceptable in wikpedia is everything that is fair use as described above (i.e., mostly not for us to decide) and is essential information that can not be conveyed with text only, and whose noteworthnes can be indepedently confirmed (i.e., sources). --Abu Badali 14:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to the amendment

I am strongly opposed to this ammendment. I think the existing wording is fine and the new wording is too restrictive. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amended wording is terrible. It can be interpreted to apply to almost every article on wikipedia, making almost every image invalid. Wikipedia is a website and an encyclopedia. Therefore, it must accomodate both requirements:

1. It must be visually pleasing (ie. using imagery to represent what the page is about)
2. It must convey accurate information on encyclopediac subjects

The original wording allows the image itself to be part of the discussion of the subject material, the proposed amendment denies the image the right to contribute to the discussion but forces the image to be THE subject of discussion. --Will2k 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

An image may contribute to the discussion if it conveys unique information. If it just illustrates the text information, it's not essential, and we should only use unfree images on an free-encyclopedia when it's really essential.

The fact that "it can be interpreted to apply to almost every article" is only a consequence of the rampant fair use abuse on wikipedia. Being relaxed in allowing unfree images discourage people from finding/producing free images, and I see the production and collection of free content as one of the most important requirements of Wikipedia (even more important than being a visually pleasing website) --Abu Badali 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many cases where free images simply are not available. If every non public domain and non creative commons image is removed from Wikipedia, which seems to be the goal here, this place would barely have any images at all. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

we have over 100,000 free use images. If there is no free use image around try makeing one.Geni 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't make a free image of things in film, television, comics, or video games. Even if i drew a picture of Homer Simpson and said anyone can use it for anything, it is still not free use. Fox owns a trademark on Homer Simpson, so you have to claim fair use even with an original drawing. Jay32183 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well technicaly you could comission one. For live action you can use picuters of the actors for some stuff and very limted fair use for others. Wikipedia is not however short of images. It is certianly not short of images with questionable fair use claims.Geni 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One image of a character from The Simpsons (or any other cartoon or comics character) in the article dealing with the character itself is a good example of Fair Use of an image (imho). The image uniquely describes the character, and we can't expect to someone take a picture of homer in the streets and release it. I don't see how this policy or this amandment would forbid this use. About films in general, it's not always necessary to show how each character looks like. A few exception apart, all characters will look exactly like the ator/actress portraying them, and we can get free images of those people. As a rule of thumb, if the look of a given character is not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, you don't need a image to show how he looks like. (and of course, adding some text to describe his look and justify the image presence will no "improve" the article). --Abu Badali 20:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. Agree with Will2k, except I emphasize that this amendment would make almost every fair use image invalid. This is clearly an ideological goal of certain fringe wikipedians, to remove large numbers of fair use images by hook or by crook. The way in which this amendment was introduced, with no notice on a relevant RFC page, calls the good faith of certain anti-fair use dogmatists into question. - Mcasey666 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It's not goint to "make almost every fair use image invalid". It will make the fair use policy more explicity, which will help to avoid misinterpretations that make Wikipedia depart from it's original goal of being a source and colletion of free (relevant) content. --Abu Badali 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What it would actually do is to make Wikipedia less useful by forcing us to remove useful images that are being used legally. Johntex\^talk 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment unfree images which contains only information that can be conveyed with text are only useful to demotivate editors from creating/finding free content. And to repeat the "de:" argument for the 100th time, the German Wikipedia do not seems "less usefull". --Abu Badali 13:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is one of the ugliest websites I've ever seen. You need images in a visual medium like the Internet. Although I fully expect English Wiki to go this way before too long, at which point I will no longer contribute. It's pointless to have an article on a person and not show what the person looks like, at least. 23skidoo 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose This ammendment is being introduced so the author of it can begin a mass deletion of images. The discussion here is going just fine. We don't need a new rule thrown in just so ed gets his way. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see this as a "new rule". I see this as an more explicit restatement of a frequently-circumventted existing rule. --Abu Badali 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% oppose: Ed is acting in very bad faith by proposing this without mention on the RFC talk page. Ed can't get his way by argument so his alternative is to make his definition of "decorative" the definition in policy. Sorry, ed, this amendment is a very sad move on your part. Cburnett 22:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Decorative is not intended to be the operative word in that statement. People seem to be forgetting that the text is not supposed to discuss the images, the images are supposed to illustrate the text. This is ture of all writing that is not intended to be an in depth analysis of a particular image. This proposal is entirely a move to remove all fair use content from Wikipedia, which is a very bad idea. Providing in depth content is more important than remaining free in all forms, as it is impossible for the primary goal of anything to be free. If remaining free gets in the way of completing content, which includes visually representing an inherently visual medium, then we cannot and must not remain 100% free. Jay32183 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The text is supposed to disscuss the images in the case of fair use. If the article/section is not about some image, we shouldn't add a "fair use" image. Providing in depth content is not more important than remaining free in all forms. We are a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia, not a random cool website. It deeply saddens me to hear that you don't believe it's possible to build a 100% free encyclopedia. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

First of the primary function of anything cannot be to remain free, as freedom is not a function. I understand that this is not a random cool website, it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is the identifier, free is the qualifier. Using fair use to only discuss the image rather than using fair use images to illustrate discussion contradicts the purpose of fair use and of images in general. My point about providing content is actually what it says in the section describing why Wikipedia allows fair use images in the first place. Also this amendment would invalidate the fair use claims of things currently listed as acceptable fair use in the fair use policy, notably the use of baseball cards such as Honus Wagner. With any product, Wikipedia is a product, altering it to meet customer needs is more important than defending the existing product. Jay32183 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as a product with the mission to please its costumers at whatever means. This project has a very clear goal and you seem to miss it. --Abu Badali 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does have a goal. A two point goal, however one is meaningless without the other. This is an encyclopedia the provides free content. Now removing the free you still have an encyclopedia, but remove the content and you're left with a free nothing. If free was the main point we might as well save the time and effort and do nothing at all. By the way, Wikipedia is a product by definition, so your feeling is actually irrelevant. It is also remarkably insulting to call my points sad, do not do that again. Jay32183 16:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell the guys at de.wiki how inferior their project is for only use free content. ed g2s • talk 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if germany had the concept of fair use... Cburnett 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The German wikipedia is hosted on the U.S. by a U.S. company, just like any other Wikipedia. Consider they may have decided on either to allow fair use images only based on the kind of encyclopedia they want to build, and not really felt constrained by German copyrigth laws. --Abu Badali 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To germans, fair use is a foreign concept. So right off the bat you're not comparing apples to apples so comparing de: and en: for fair use is equally not the same. Cburnett 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose as per Johntex. I am also particularly concerned about this part: "images must... provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text." This can be used against almost every image on Wikipedia, which is obviously both unwanted and detrimental. east.718 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Again, if this can invalidade almost every fair use claim on Wikipedia, it's because fair use abuse is already rampant. This amandment is inline with the original goals of Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have no problem with curbing abuse of fair use, but we need to find some sort of middle ground, and this surely isn't it. Take for example, the lead image in Vietnam War#Opposition to the war. This image does not contribute much to the article, and it certainly can be described using text. Does that mean we supercede the historical significance of this image for the sake of adhering to a higher standard of fair use than what the law calls for? east.718 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I may be wrong, but I believe that this image is famous enough to deserve an article of it's own. If the image is discussed (really discussed, not just barely mentioned) in the Vietnam War article, I believe it's fair use to use a low resolution version of it. But if it's being used just to illustrate what napalm is, what terrible things wars can bring upon, etc... then it's not unique, and shouldn't be used. --Abu Badali 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That image, by nature of its award status, does warrant an article on its own. However, its use in napalm is tangential at best (you won't catch me using it on that page unless the subject of the image can be intermixed in with napalm — but this is not what you're saying). Using Image:SouthPark101.gif in List of South Park episodes is not tangential since the episode is directly discussed and described. I would go so far to say that Image:TrangBang.jpg on napalm is no where near Image:SouthPark101.gif on list of South Park episodes. Cburnett 01:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment My apologies, I did mean to talk about its usage in napalm, but had the wrong link in my clipboard. east.718 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The images this amendmant is designed to illegalize are important in an internet encyclopedia, even a free one. - Peregrinefisher 05:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Ammendment is silly (PS: A concensous has definitley been reached here; which is the ammendment is opposed and should be disqualified). Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Avoid declaring the disscussion over. You're not the only one here that wants to be heard. --Abu Badali 15:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Sir, but that was an opinion. I never made a declaration. If i did i ould of used a pretty font ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that this is not at all a drive for a consensus, given that there's no generic "support" section at present. Anything that would restrict (or eliminate) fair use on Wikipedia is fine by me. --Improv 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the amendment causes the policy to contradict itself? The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Specifically, images must be the subject of significant discussion and provide essential information that can't be conveyed with text or a free alternative. Any other use is considered decorative. Thats how it will read if the amendment passes. For those who don't know "e.g." means for example. So identifying the subject or illustrating the text are examples of contributing significantly, yet if in image is being used in either of those manners it won't meet the second half of the criterion. If the image is identifying the subject of the article then it isnt the subject of the significant discussion. If the image is illustrating the text then it isn't providing information the text couldn't. By definition, illustrations clarify text, they do not add new information. Therefore the amendment cannot be passed without significant rewording. Jay32183 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The policy is for fair use in general, not just images. The second part clarifies the rules for images. ed g2s • talk 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So... it still contradicts itself.. the first part is about text, images, sounds, etc, and the second part is about images only, right? -- Ned Scott 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose -- Ned Scott 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think the motivation is good, to try to come up with clearer boundaries, but I don't think this quite captures our intuition. (Sorry, I don't have a better alternative.) Stan 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It really is to soon for people to be "voting". The idea is to dicuss and fine tune the text of the amendment first. Of course if you object to the principle, by all means say so, but this is not a final version. ed g2s • talk 13:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely time for voting. You can't win the discussion elsewhere so you want to start another discussion here? Most of the opposition votes here read is opposition on principle in both the tune of the amendment (i.e., "fair use" == Bad Thing) and your sidestepping an existing discussion. Cburnett 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is often useful to start out with a poll to see what the starting point is. Johntex\^talk 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I concur with what's been said above; the proposed amendment is *far* too restrictive. —Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Clearer standards are important, but this is not the right direction. Doc ♬ talk 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Clearer standards are extremely important, but this amendment does not provide them. Disclaimer: Yes, currently actively following/participating in the currently ongoing RFC and MedCabalCase. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There is no credible, legal reason for us to restrict ourselves in this way, and doing so will harm the project by preventing the use of material which could, by law, be included in a project such as this. This amounts to severe self-censorship. — JEREMY 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I agree with many of the other opposing comments here and wish that the discussion about this issue could be centralized to make it easier to follow. I think we would have more chance of reaching a consensus if the forum didn't keep shifting.--Opark 77 08:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'd like to see any actual credible instance where the lack of such an amendment has actually hurt Wikipedia. Or is this just a case of copyright paranoia getting out of hand? In any event, it is a violation of WP:NPOV for a judgement call to be made on what is decorative and what is not, and I fail to see how this amendment gets around that. For the record, I do support the rule that Wikipedia is not an image gallery, and I frequently delete extraneous images (there shouldn't be more images than there is text). However just as the overall Fair Use rule has many interpretations (my particular favorite is no one can find consensus on that "contents" means with regards to film screenshots), I feel this amendment would just attract more POV battling and edit wars. I'd sooner support a motion to ban images (fair use and public domain) from Wikipedia altogether. People seem to hold the German Wiki up to some higher standard, but IMO it's a very uninteresting site without images; if I were German I probably wouldn't be bothering with it at all. 23skidoo 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Support for the ammendment

I would support this. Unless we can keep strict control over "fair use", we may have to eliminate it altogether. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC) moved from project page to discussion Garion96 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yea. --Improv 00:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. //osp 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to hear your rationale for supporting this amendment when I don't recall (I most certainly could be wrong on this point) any of you giving input at the discussion. Every oppose vote has an explanation and has at least some rebuttal by the support side. I would just like to hear some input on it. Cburnett 06:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That vote was indeed cast prematurely, though the policy in its current form does allow for a bit of interpretation and I think it would behoove us to clarify the terms of use for fair use imagery. I'm perfectly aware that part of this discussion originates from image use in lists, or information presented in list form rather. If I've read the {{tv-screenshot}} tag correctly (or any other fair use tag for that matter), it states that the individual screenshot may be used for identification and critical commentary (as in not one without the other, to put it bluntly) while item #8 of the criteria currently suggests that it may be used solely to identify the subject (as in no commentary or particular context required). Again, please, correct me if I'm mistaken. Combination 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (formerly "OSP")

So now the this issue depends on the definition of "and"? :) If a friend said to me: "you may use my gun for self-defense, hunting, and target practice." My friend could alternatively have said: "you may use my gun for self-defense and you may use my gun for hunting and you may use my gun for target practice." That doesn't mean I can only use the gun when target shooting game animals that are charinging me in a life threatening way? Naw. The list of three actions is additive not multiplicative. Meaning, my friend has granted me three permissions: self-defense, hunting, and target practice.

Conversely if I said, "to make cookies you need to mix suger, flour, and eggs", then it means you need all three to call the result a cookie (bear with me on that one!). Less than that is not a cookie.

If I was a linguist or an english buff then I could probably whip out a word that describes the difference of usage, but I'm not so I can't.

The words "identification" and "critical commentary" do not appear in the US code regarding fair use. They are made up by wikipedians for wikipedians. "Critical commentary" is just as vague as "decoration" and "and" (apparently :) and, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder — as the various discussions clearly demonstrate. Cburnett 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Tentative support. It doesn't really go far enough in restricting copyvio images, but it could work as a compromise. User:Angr 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• support The current abuse of the fair use doctrine destroys Wikipedia as a free encyklopedia. I also agree with Mr. Angr, it does not go far enough. Kjetil_r 11:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support (especially after changes 1,2,3) Make the change here, so it's clear, then make the change to all the fair-use templates to make it clear there too. Megapixie 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support free culture. Mediawiki wouldn't be possible without vast amounts of freely-licensed contributions, and it's important to continue in that tradition, so that the work we do here can be redistributed with minimal restrictions. --Interiot 03:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gathering consensus

To be done once all amendments have been made.

Village pump

To invite more people to discuss this topic I posted a message in the Village pump about this proposal. Garion96 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This amendment is out of process

Discussion was already ongoing at:

• Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists
• Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive 6#Clarification_of_FUC#8

Posing this ammendment to the policy while active discussion is going on elsewhere is disruptive and confusing. Johntex\^talk 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge that further comment on this topic be made at Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Johntex\^talk 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The RfC was going round in circles, as with all other discussions. The second discussion you mention had completely stopped, and was in the archive until I copied it onto the active page in order to link here... It also shows that this proposal has been on the table since before the RfC. ed g2s • talk 11:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you did this shows you are sneaky and desperate to get your proposal passed, and if all discussions go around in circles. why create a new one? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why create a new one? He wasn't winning the discussion so his alternative was to subvert the discussion and propose an amendment that would nullify the discussion. Sneaky is word to describe what he did. Very bad faith on his part and he has yet to defend his action of doing so even once. Cburnett 20:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment ed g2s, please don't take this as a personal attack—as it's not—but I noticed that you've been doing a lot of work on removing improperly used fair-use images, and some of your past removals have been disputed. This, combined with "subverting the discussion," as Cburnett put it, leads me to believe that you're acting with a bias, or in the worst case, in bad faith. east.718 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: We should concentrate more on the arguments and on the Amendment itself. I have seen the ad hominem argument too many times on this discussion. --Abu Badali 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you are new to this discussion, but the argument was and is being conducting elsewhere (to which you have never been apart of so please join in since you are intested in discussing). If you read the validity section on the ad hominem article you will find an example about perjury. This is a close parallel. I reject an amendment put forth by Ed on the grounds that his intentions were not honest and in good faith. Put into analogy: it doesn't matter if the witness said anything of truth if they also lied because their credibility is shot. Ed wasn't winning the discussion and his choice was to subvert it, which means to me that he was willing to forego any "truth" he may have said by "lying". Call it ad hominems if you want (though they are not fallacious) but that doesn't change the facts about Ed's actions. Ed has yet to once defend his actions so are you willing to do so for him? I would hope not...

I am not making personal attack but I am definitely calling his intentions and actions directly into question. I would give him more respect if he explained his actions than if he continues to ignore my questions. The only thing we have across the internet is credibility backed by actions and words. Without credibility how can you have trust and respect? If Ed's actions and words give way to acting in bad faith then how can I trust that this amendment has the best of wikipedia in mind? Ed has repeatedly stated that his belief against fair use is on behalf of WP. I believed him in good faith but his actions since have shot his credibility with me. This means creating this amendment almost solely rests on his motivations which seem to me quite so in Bad Faith and why I wholly oppose such an amendment. Cburnett 06:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment we should not be considering any ammendment that is made seperate to ongoing discussion. To propose such an ammendment is misguided at best and bad faith at worst. Johntex\^talk 02:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This proposal started weeks before the RfC, and is wider in it's coverage. It is also entirely your POV that you are "winning" the argument about lists. I don't see anything wrong with having both debates open simultaneously. It is hardly beyond Wikipedians to have two discussions at the same time just because they overlap. If you are accusing me of have "Bad Faith" motivations, what exactly are you saying my motivations are? ed g2s • talk 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment You dont see anything wrong do you? How about clarity? Also to quote you partly: some people may not see anything wrong with fair use images. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that. The proposal page and this talk page were created on July 21, 2006. There was discussion in the RfC well before that, you even made a comment on July 20, 2006. Maybe I'm missing a key piece of information, but it does appear that the RfC was going before this amendment was officially proposed. Although I disagree with the spirit of your proposal and I cannot allow factually incorrect information to sway the outcome, I do think the discussion here should not be about your actions. The proposal is on the table, we all have to deal with it. If anyone wishes to seek diciplinary actions against some one for "bad faith" it should be done through the proper channels and not interfer with other discussions. Jay32183 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you're looking in the wrong place. On Wikipedia talk:Fair use there is a discussion of amending FUC#8 which predates the RfC. ed g2s • talk 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see the discussion, and that the discussion started prior to the RfC. This proposal, even is a direct result of that discussion, was started after the RfC, and it would have been polite to invite contributers from all other relevant discussions. I will assume you merely forgot to mention it. I still maintain that our time would be better spent discussing the actual proposed amendment, than who did what or who said what. I have suggested an amendment to the amendment, which hasn't been discussed at all. It's at least worth a look, and does not have any effect on the spirit of the original proposal. Jay32183 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment If anyone else wishes to as well as me i would be willing to seek diciplinary actions. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I see. On Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists#What a joke ([1]):

Stop analysisng the letter of the law, and appreciate the spirit of our policy instead. ed g2s • talk 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 created on ([2]):

...that it should be clarified by appending: ... ed g2s • talk 13:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So you went from "stop analyzing the letter of the law" to "changing the letter of the law" in 19 minutes. And furthermore you didn't given even a mention on Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists that you proposed it when you recognize in that same posting at 13:05 that the definition of decoration is key to this discussion because YOU DEFINED "DECORATIVE". I haven't seen you give a cohesive argument (it's always "I say so" arguments), you don't acknowledge any points by the opposing side, and you create an amendment that is the key pin to the lists discussion. So, yeah, you tell me how that's not questionable and/or bad faith editting (honestly, I've called you out several times on it). Cburnett 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not created an amendment. I have proposed an amendment and opened a discussion on it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with starting a discussion on such a matter. ed g2s • talk 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Whatever word you want to call your action (I will continue to use "create"), you created Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. You created it in mid-discussion in full knowledge that this conversation is hinging upon the definition of "decorative". How can I believe you did it in good faith when you didn't notify this discussion? Your actions speak louder and more truthful than your words. Cburnett 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think I'm stupid enough to think that its creation would go unnoticed by anyone in that discussion? Some of the people seem to be watching my every contribution. Such an accusation is bad faith in itself. I provided a link on WP:FU which is where I was branching the discussion from. ed g2s • talk 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone would enjoy it if the discussion about blaming people for things would stop so we can focus on the actual issue, clarifying FUC#8. Sure Ed didn't say anything about this at the RfC, but it may have just slipped his mind. There's no way to prove that he intentionally tried to leave everyone else out of the discussion. Even if it were intentional, which I am not claiming it was, then getting Ed blocked would not stop this proposal, he just wouldn't be able to discuss it. That would be really unfair since he was key to getting it tabled, we should let him speak, and not just to defend himself. I'm also pretty sure that CBurnett would not have gotten so aggressive if the responces he got were oops, it slipped my mind. I'm sorry to have excluded you guys. Now I hope we can put this personal spat aside and get back onto the real discussion. Jay32183 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I would also like to point out that after creating this page (~14:00 21/7) I went out (see contribs) until ~19:00 by which time a link had already been posted on the RfC, followed by accusations of acting in bad faith. Also talk of blocking me is quite frankly absurd, seeing as I have done absolutely nothing wrong, "out of process" (whichever process is being referred to?) or contrary to any policy. ed g2s • talk 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot twice? You should of notified users when you got back both times. Simply bad faith you didnt. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, you're not helping, you're just making yourself look like an ass. Ed, I don't think you should be blocked, I don't think you're a bad editor, I'm just pissed that you tried to undermined others you disagreed with. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about blocking or arbitration or any action. I've been waiting for an explanation and the best I've got is "I was branching it from elsewhere not here." Since he went from the lists discussion to the amendment I'm not sure I buy it because, like I've said, his actions speak louder than words. Yes, Jay, if Ed had said something then I would have given him the benefit of the doubt but he's since dodged the issue and given vague, generic answers. If it was truly an innocent action then there wouldn't be much reason to avoid saying it.

Anyway, I still wholly reject this amendment as I'm sure I've explained a dozen or two times on the lists discussion. Cburnett 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wikimedia.png

As brought up above: see Image:Wikimedia.png (and Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg, Image:Wikibooks-logo-en.svg, etc.). It is copyrighted by the wikimedia foundation and retains all rights to it and is not under the GFDL. Since it is unfree content and used outside discussion of the logo or wikimedia then it should summarily be deleted by this amendment or removed from all "offending" uses since it (even in my opinion) is used as decoration. So who's on board? Cburnett 04:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I find that very funny that they are indeed copyrighted and not free-images (which should exclude them from Commons). Tis a bit of POINT, but I do understand where you are going with this, in that a double standard is being shown here. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be making a WP:POINT if I put it up for deletion or something, but I'm discussing instead for precisely the point that it is a double standard. :) At least that's for the english wikipedia. I think it should be put up for deletion fromt he commons since it is not free. Wikimedia must abide by their own standards. I'm going to put the image up for deletion from the commons because such a discussion is outside the scope of this page. What applies here is the logo usage on the english wikipedia. Cburnett 04:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The images were listed for deletion (several times), but it was decided to keep them as there is currently no technical solution to providing cross project images without listing them on Commons. An exception has been made in the policy and the images are clearly marked as such. ed g2s • talk 12:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I said the conversation regarding their status on commons is to be addressed there as it is beyond the scope of this thread. What is to be discussed here is the application of your concept of "decoration" to an unfree image. As an unfree image it is clearly not being used correctly on every page (mostly user pages) except Wikimedia Foundation. Cburnett 12:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well seeing as we aren't using them under fair use, this is not the place for that discussion either. ed g2s • talk 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So then what, praytel, are you saying they are used as? Wikipedia:Logos says:

Therefore, their use must also conform to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines.

Either way, the image pages are not marked and I do not find permission anywhere for using them. Since I can't find permission I cannot determine if they are under a free license. If we cannot determine if it is a free license then fair use is the only recourse. Cburnett 00:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Permission from whom? Wikimedia Foundation doesn't need anyone's permission to use its own images on its own pages. You can't violate your own copyright. User:Angr 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So then what exactly does this mean?

Both are copyrighted by the TV show's production company. Again, an attractive presentation of pages is important, but it is less important than sticking to Wikipedia's mission of being a free content encyclopedia. Having even one "fair use" image in this encyclopedia is contrary to that mission... User:Angr 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If wikimedia foundation reserves all rights to their images then wikipedia cannot be distributed as a free encyclopedia (something Ed has explicitly stated is the purpose of wikipedia). If by free encyclopedia you mean only on wikimedia's servers then the entire conversation above reuse of content is 100% absolutely moot, which makes your position of arguing against fair use rather pointless. It makes licensing your contributions as GFDL absurd as well since free distribution no longer matters.

(Before you reply I will point out that your position that wikimedia foundation owns the copyright to your user page is absolutely, 100%, totally, without a doubt, verifiably completely wrong. This is why people can license their submissions in both GFDL & CC. I'm completely shocked that you do not understand this extremely basic and extremely important tenant to the entire concept of wikipedia. This supercedes any policies, guidelines, and missions because without it the rest is folly.)

Since the wikimedia images are unfree then wikipedia is not freely distributable (by your admittance) ergo it is not free content. If wikipedia is to be freely distributable then where's the permission to distribute Image:Wikimedia.png and friends? I don't find anywhere. In fact, I find the exact opposite: "© & ™ All rights reserved, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.." That means it is copyrighted and no one has any rights to it except fair use and that makes your entire position contradictory. So where's the permission? Cburnett 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore from commons:

Indeed, we most definitely respect copyright on logos. ed g2s • talk 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Which means reuse of wikipedia requires the excercising of fair use since I find nothing granting wikimedia's logos under a free license. Not just as fair use but fair use in a purely decorative way. I really am curious to hear how Template:Userpage is critical commentary and different from an episode list. Cburnett 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This really is a pointless discussion. Wikimedia's logos are excempt from our fair use policy. There is nothing more to say on the matter. ed g2s • talk 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are beyond reason and willing to say anything to win. You have clearly stated that reuse (that means to locations where any of wikipedia's policies do not apply) is of upmost concern:

Seeing as providing free reusable content is one of our primary goals, 3rd party use is very much our concern. ed g2s • talk 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If one unfreely licensed image is used on an episode list (by your own argument) then wikipedia is no longer reusable because it is "decorative." HOWEVER, if that image happens to be owned by the wikimedia foundation then this no longer applies even if blatantly decorative.

Nevermind that I disagree that you're definition of "decorative" is completely wrong. Nevermind that wikimedia hasn't granted a free license. How can you possibly believe that two unfreely licensed images are different when copied to another location (this is called "reuse") where wikipedia's policies don't mean anything? Your position is completely hypocritical and contradictive and it shows that you are willing to say anything to win. Cburnett 01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is about fair use in the in main space. As far as I know, there is not a big problem of people using the Wikimedia logos in the main namespace, so this isn't a issue, let alone one that needs to be discussed here. ed g2s • talk 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an idiot and I am full aware of what this discussion is about. What you are not understanding is that the wikimedia logos are copyrighted therefore any copying of wikipedia for 3rd party use REQUIRES using said logos under fair use which you have explicitly said that this makes wikipedia unfree.

Or do you no longer care about 3rd party use? If you don't then using fair use images on wikipedia no longer matters. If you do then the wikipedia logos are no different than episode images. Cburnett 14:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, any copy of Wikipeida will not include the logos because they are not used in the main namespace. ed g2s • talk 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think the use of Wikipedia logos is an issue.. they ARE used on the article namespace... Wikipedia, for example.. -- Ned Scott 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously they are used when they are relevant (similar to fair use), but I don't think anyone's complaining about that... although I'm not sure which usages Cburnett is complaining about. ed g2s • talk 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't looked very hard. Albanian language to name one. After all, no one really cares about the albanian language, do they? I find your argument that only the article name space is of concern, well, a step beyond absurd.

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating the removal of these logos because I'm quite obviously not the one advocating the removal of images. The continued contradiction in your argument (you have yet to explain Carlson Twins or provide any evidence this is even an issue), hypocrisy, and near-constant change in the terms of your argument is why I'm pointing this out. Cburnett 02:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolve

So how are going to resolve this? - User:Peregrinefisher UTC 09:12, July 29, 2006

I dont think we ever will, this just seems to be dragging on and on. and the supporters continue contradicting them selves. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My question is am I the only one that see's the hypocrisy in Ed's argument? He cares about 3rd party reuse and has said fair use is contrary to this goal. But somehow if the images are owned by the wikimedia foundation then their copyright somehow doesn't matter when doing 3rd party reuse. (Their logos aren't under a free license so the only claim is fair use when copying.) It's a glaring hypocrisy to me and if Ed can't even acknowledge that then how do you resolve an argument with that kind of person? I don't think you can. Cburnett 14:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The logos are not (or at least "should not be") used inside articles. The example you give uses the logo as an interwiki link. This is part of the frontend which, like the logo in the top left of every page, is not necessarily free. ed g2s • talk 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:InterWiki is no more the "front-end" than Template:User wikipedia/Administrator or any other template. Pure decoration plain and simple. And it's still another story change: we've now added on "unless it is a 'front-end' template"... Cburnett 04:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Cb. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a mediation request on this topic (not specifically this Admendment, but the usage of free images): Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-01 Fair Use Images on Sports Page - College Football Specific Perhaps some formal mediation (instead of the informal version I requested) should be attempted to resolve all issues, to cite clear and definitive examples of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Significant discussion is not necessary

I fully support this clarification/modification of FUC #8, except for the clause about significant discussion. Any image that contains "essential information that can't be conveyed with text" should pass the criterion. The initial image in Bulbasaur, for instance, is the subject of no discussion whatsoever, but it's clearly very important to the article. (Discussion of the article's subject is of course quite distinct from discussion of the actual work; there's no discussion of the latter, which is what the amendment requires.)

Additionally, I don't think appending is the way to go. It just makes the criterion unnecessarily wordy. I would suggest simply "The material must convey essential information that can't be conveyed with text." —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I like what this guy says. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying "significant discussion" also may cause some confusion between lengthy discussion and meaningful discussion. We don't want to set up a rule that will encourage bad writing. Jay32183 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bulbasaur image would be allowed under the current wording of this proposed Amendment because it is "essential information that can't be conveyed with text, and itself subject of significant discussion". The "essential information" being the look of a Bulbasaur and the "significant disscussion" being the second paragraph of the article ("...Bulbasaur are vaguely reptilian-looking creatures...") , that discusses the look of such fictional creature. I agree though, that the word "significant" may be change to something that more cleary emphasizes "depth" and "relevance" than "length" --Abu Badali 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Abu Badali on that. The only way requiring discussion on the image is bad is if it disallows using a part to represent the whole, which the wording does not. You can't use a magazine cover because you're discussing the person on the cover, but you can use a magazine cover in a discussion about that issue of the magazine, even if the entire discussion is not about the cover. Of course the discussion must still be relevant and varifiably encyclopdic. Jay32183 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article does not discuss the image. It discusses the subject of the image, which is a completely separate concept. If you consider discussion of an image's subject the same as discussion of the image, then the entire clause is pointless, because it goes without saying that the subject of almost any image will be discussed somewhere in the article. What's a counterexample? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me try explain more carefully how do I interpret the matter. The look of a Bulbasaur is "essential information" in an article about a Bulbasaur. This "essential information" can't be conveyed only with text. The "essential information" (i.e., the look) is indeed discussed with text (in the second paragraph), but it's not enough, so we need an image to complement the information. At this point, we use #1 from Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy: "No free equivalent is available or could be created...". That is, there's no chance someone will take a picture of a Bulbasaur in the wild and release under Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike, so, we should claim fair use on a copyrighted image depicting a Bulbasaur to be used in the article.

I believe this reasoning would be the same for any cartoon/comics fictional character. But notice that, for Celebrities, we would fail on FU #1, as there's a chance someone takes a picture of them and release, (as is not unusual here). --Abu Badali 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But the point you raised show us that we need to further clarify the text so that these interpretations could follow easly from anyone reading the policy. Maybe we can't achieve this only with this amendment. I like the Counterexamples for this kind of message. --Abu Badali 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The amendment requires two things:

1. content must be essential information that can't be conveyed with text
2. [content] itself subject of significant discussion

Image:1bulbasaur.png satisfies #1 but not #2. The image itself is not subject to discussion. The subject in the image is subject to discussion. Rarely are images subject to discussion.

Not even the famous Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg is discussed (hardly "significant") on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 although the subject (i.e., the protest) is discussed.

Again to demonstrate the lack of significant discussion, take another famous photo Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg on Dorothea Lange. This image is PD but that's not my point. Rarely are images themselves of significant discussion. Florence Owens Thompson shows the exception to this by discussing the aforementioned image. Whether or not that is significant is Yet Another Gray Area (TM).

Mona Lisa. That is significant discussion. Cburnett 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You still didn't quite get it. "itself" refers to the "essential information" (of which the image is part of). "...itself subject of significant discussion..." is suposed to be taken as "...this essential information should be subject of significant discussion...". The purpose of this is to avoid one using the image of a Bulbasaur in the article about Elián González. --Abu Badali 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Abu Badali, your understanding is not what the text currently appears to say. Itself appears to refer to the image, not the essential information. If you think the essential information must be discussed, then it needs to be reworded to be more clear, but I disagree regardless. If the image adequately conveys the essential information by itself, it's not always necessary for the text to attempt to convey the same information. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the text does not say that, it's my fault. That's what I tried to say when I suggested that wording. As of your disagreement (with the intended meaning), can you give examples of where an image conveys the information so perfectly that we need no further text description (of the information)? I'm not doubting the existence of such cases, I just can't think of one myself (and that was what made me word that phrase the way I did). --Abu Badali 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but what is "essential"? Is an episode image in a list "essential"? It's essential information to me and a picture of a klingon or USS voyager or Stan Marsh is effectively beyond words and, by extension, so is an episode.

Cloud Gate anytime and the Eiffel Tower at night are beyond words yet both are copyrighted but to whom is to say that either Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg or Image:Tour Eiffel nuit Concorde.jpg conveys "essential" information? Why is "a silver reflective bean-shape sculpture 33 feet high, 66 feet long, and 42 feet wide, weighing 110 tons with a concave underside" not enough to warrant the image conveying "essential" information? Why is "imagine Image:Eiffel tower.jpg with orange-yellow lights" not enough to warrant the image conveying "essential" information?

Basically my point is that "essential" is no more non-gray than "fair use". So even if your suggestion is used to amend, we'll be back here in a week after Ed continues to remove images but citing "non-essential information" instead. Neither the current amendment nor your suggestion move anything anywhere because you all are still using gray words to define a gray concept. I think the very fact that we can't come to anything resembling an agreement is because it's like trying to argue which political party is best, or vim vs. emacs, or Lutheran vs. Methodist. Cburnett 05:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you in this point. As I have already stated (somewhere above), I'm not happy with the word "essential". As you say, it's as gray as "fair use" itself. This is surely one point of this proposed amendment with should work on, if we want it to be of any effectiveness when approved. --Abu Badali 12:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

With all of this talk about a Bulbasaur and that the look of this is essential, it is equally the look of a high fashion or a supermodel that is also essential and unless you get a top professional photographer to donate his works you will not get this look in any other way than fair use. A snapshot by a fan is just not going to cut it and in many cases may even compromise the article. Many high fashion models look like slobs on the street, it is only after the make-up artist, the hairdresser, the stylist has finished pinning that you will see the look that the bone structure and the style of the pose will bring out. Words cannot alone describe this adequately either. Doc ♬ talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, I haven't read this entire thing, but I'd like to point out that the use of "that can't be conveyed with text" is a rather ambiguous ammendment, and could be abused quite easily. Pretty much anything could be conveyed with enough text. One might as well suggest we not use images at all, as that's what it would ultimately boil down to. Ryu Kaze 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A "supermodel" is a human being, and it's look can be determined by a photography. I believe it's prejudice to believe that only a "top professional photographer" can capture the look of one of them. Also, asking for someone to release a picture under a free license is not to wait for a miracle. I, for one, have uploaded some few images of supermodels to Commons after asking the photographers to release them (See Michelle Alves or Gisele Bundchen for instances). And finally, as a encyclopedia, we're more interested in the real look of persons than in their "promotional" look. If a supermodel "looks like slobs on the street", we should show it, not just the artificial look. --Abu Badali 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, a supermodel is known for a "created look" not a "real" look at least not the models that brought the entire term supermodel into being. Think more along the line of Marlene Dietrich who controlled the images that were taken of her. The supermodel is a person whose entire claim to fame and hence inclusion here is a created "illusion" that took many people to create. It took the bone structure and poise of a real person, but the "look" is not well represented by a happenstance capture. I've never said it was impossible to get permission, but unless that permission can be gained for an image that represents the persons claim to fame, then I still uphold that no image would be better than poor ones. Doc ♬ talk 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If the free equivilant is reasonably available you can't use the fair use one, even if the free one is a lower quality image. I don't think no image versus free image should really impact this discussion. We should stay focused on appropriate fair use in terms of Wikipedia's two main goals of providing quality content and remaining as free as possible. Jay32183 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No amount of text can convey the same information as an image unless you have an extremely graphic imagination. If I carefully described a Bulbasaur to you, using as many words as I wanted, you would have much more difficulty picking one out of a lineup a week later than if I showed you a picture. That doesn't apply if you have the text as reference, but we don't have to consider that case; Wikipedia is meant to teach people things, which means they remember the information. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No, maybe we can't get images that are quite as good, but first of all, we can always still get some kind of image; and second of all, if we were persistent and aggressive, we could undoubtedly get an official photo licensed freely. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The word essential would cut out a fair bit of argument, actually, although you're right it's not totally cut-and-dried by any measure. It would be better if we said "essential to (something)", however. Perhaps

The material must convey information that can't be conveyed with text and that's essential to fully understanding an important aspect of the article's subject(s). Note that in general, describing something's appearance with words can never equate to showing it with a picture.

? That clarifies that Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg conveys essential information. As for the episode lists, it poses the question of whether a screenshot of the episode constitutes "an important aspect" of the episode. Is a lone frame out of 32,000 or whatever important to the episode? I would say no, in general: the only important things are what happened in the episode. An example or two could be included in the criterion to further clarify what's "important".

You're right that this would still require subjective judgment, but after some refinement, still much less than "contribute significantly to the article". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The intent of that wording is acceptable, but I'm not sure how well the intent would be recognized, so the wording is a little poor. I still think the wording "can't be conveyed with text" could potentially be used restrictively, even with the explanation that "in general, describing something's appearance with words can never equate to showing it with a picture". People can and do abuse some guidelines or policies by emphasising one sentence while ignoring another. Each sentence should be cohesive with every other so that there's no question of intent, and so that it's apparent that each stipulation was considered concurrently and that one wasn't added in later by an opposing party. As it stands, knowing that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it's not unreasonable to conclude that those two sentences were added by different people with opposing views. Ryu Kaze 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So if we can't agree on exmaples of fair use then finding wording is folly. I still absolutely believe images in lists are fine. I'd also go so far that you could never make unquestionable objective wording for all this. Cburnett 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, probably. Wording without an example of how that wording applies may not matter much. Personally, I'm also of the opinion that images in lists are fine but there's never agreement on these subjects. Really, some list pages do need images to constructively serve a purpose, so there can't really ever be a strict guideline of what fair use entails. Even in judicial proceedings there's no such guidelines, sadly. It's a case-by-case thing as it is here. Ryu Kaze 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there are editors like Ed g2s who aren't willing to come to agreement before removing the next fair use image they come across. If WP doesn't have a cut-and-dry policy then this whole ordeal won't ever end. It's one thing to have loose rules regarding grammar. It's another to have loose rules regarding grounds for removing content from articles. Cburnett 02:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfree images in list, as in any other article, are ok under fair use whenever they are necessary for the transmission of the information the list is supposed to carry, but not when they are an artifact for making the information more attractive. That is, when the image makes the article go from "incomplete information" to "usable information", we can claim fair use. But when the image makes the article go from "ugly" to "visually pleasing", we can't. That's the point of "essential information", or at least the point we will someday reach with a better wording for that. --Abu Badali 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to "decorative", eh? Rehashing an entire conversation: I don't think they are decorative but you do. If we can't agree to that then how can we agree to wording? Cburnett 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Wikipedia is generally supposed to police itself. We should have more active regulation of such concepts from the people in charge. While I think we can all agree with the idea of "incomplete"—>"usable", not everyone will agree on what qualifies as serving to make this transition. Furthermore, biased individuals on either side of the fence could block themselves from even acknowledging images as serving either the usable or decorative function. Ryu Kaze 10:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Result is No Consensus

We're going back and forth. Can we agree the result is No Consensus? This issue is being argued in several places and the result is probably the same everywhere. Now what do we do? - Peregrinefisher 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We are still discussing what the amendment text should be. There's no point in voting yet, let alone in drawing conclusions. --Abu Badali 14:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, since this is technically supposed to be an amendment for clarification's sake, not drawing a conclusion in the end would be a bad thing. Jay32183 14:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not trying to change the policy here. Just to make it clearer. --Abu Badali 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The proposed wording is still way too limiting. Johntex\^talk 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, we should improve it. Give some examples of cases that this wording would wrongly forbid. --Abu Badali 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now, that's a loaded question and you know it. Cburnett 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Johntex said the wording is too limiting, so asking for examples of how it is too limiting is a legitimate question. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he asked for examples that would be wrongly forbid. That's a loaded word because it is absolutely subjective. I guarantee the scope of what's "wrong" to me, what's "wrong" to Johntex, and what's "wrong" to Abu are not the same. Cburnett 15:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Even with the new wording I think the images in a List of Television Episodes list would still be acceptable. But if someone thought the new wording would allow them to delete those images then those are images that are wrongly forbid. It will just lead to be the same discussion again, with different interpretatiosns about what "essential" and "significant" mean. - Peregrinefisher 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Peregrinefisher is correct in this. Changing the wording is unlikely to end the arguments; it will just result in people saying that "DVD covers/screenshots/logos are not decorative essential to understanding a table-formatted list of series/episodes/sports results." I suspect that the best course of action would be to edit WP:FUC to begin "If there is not exceptionally broad consensus that republishing content not under a free license is necessary and doesn't make the article significantly less freely reusable, don't republish it." or "When in doubt, delete." Jkelly 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A "when in doubt delete" rule could be dangerous. The fair use review and fair use disputed tags were created for a reason, and they should be used when the policy causing doubt is a subjective one. Several of the policies and guidelines were left intentioanlly open ended to allow for friendly discussion towards consensus. "When in doubt, don't add" would definitely be acceptable because not changing anything cannot cause an edit war. The best reason to clarify the policy is to avoid edit wars. Jay32183 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If I see an unfree image in an article that does not have adequate fair use justification, I will remove it. I think the onus for providing a convincing fair use justification that meets the requirements of the law and Wikipedia policy should be on the editor adding the image or wanting to keep the image. I'm opposed to any procedure or guidance that makes it easy to add an unfree image and difficult to remove it. And remember, consensus among an article's editors cannot override legal and policy restrictions. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not saying leave unfree images up when absolutely certain that it violates law or policy. I was saying that if you're unsure you shouldn't make the decision by yourself, as this is a consensus driven project. If you know you'd only cause an edit war by acting without discussing first, then discuss first. Don't forget to distinguish between objective and subjective when talking about consensus. Consensus is meaningless when talking about something objective, but is necessary for something subjective. Even though it shouldn't be easy to get away with violating policy, it should also not be easy to manipulate policy for a personal agenda when there isn't necessarily a policy violation. Jay32183 00:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How long do we go on publishing a copyright infringement while someone argues that it could be covered by a fair use defense? How long do we argue with somone who says "I don't think Wikipedia should care about being freely reusable"? Jkelly 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What is with the loaded questions as of late? Your presupposing that someone arguing against fair use is correct in their assessment (nevermind that whole fact that fair use is a grey concept). How long do we argue with someone who has no intention of actually considering arguments? How long do we argue with someone has to constantly change his argument so that he can avoid being wrong? How long do we argue with someone who has positively demonstrated contradiction in his argument? (To be clear, I am referring to Ed g2s.) To sum up, the same questions you pose can be said about the zealous anti-fair use folk. Cburnett 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare the worst case outcome of the two positions. Jkelly 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm done playing hypothetical games. Instead, how about you compare the worst case outcomes since it was you that posed the loaded questions and you that wants the comparison? And when you do so, please include the probabilities of each ever happening. Since you're so gungho on going down this path then why don't you include the most likely outcomes. But if you really care about worst case outcomes then don't forget to include the butterfly effect... Cburnett 06:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Worst case if a doubtful image is removed immediately: the image doesn't appear on the page while its status is being clarified. Worst case if a doubtful image is left up: Wikipedia gets sued. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The worst case for immediate removal would actually be an edit war, we've already seen this happen. Not following FUC#8 is not likely to get Wikipedia sued. This is one of the rules to keep Wikipedia maximally free, not one of the ones to prevent lawsuits. Wikipedia's policy doesn't matter at all if the image breaks the law, so we should only discuss the policy for the cases where it does not. Jay32183 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a worst case scenario is that a person doesn't see the image and his life path changes to one of murder and rape instead of a world-renowed neurosurgeon and discovering what causes migraines. If you're going to play the "worst case" card or join in the game then don't, please excuse my language for I find no other phrase to convey my point, half-ass it simply because not doing so suits your argument. My point is that you don't know the worst case scenario and you obviously do not know the probabilities that they will happen. How many times has the wikimedia foundation been sued? And is being sued really the worst case scenario? How about the owner seeks out Jimbo and murders him because Jimbo's project has made his image of a daisy available without his permission? I would consider that much worse than a simple law suit.

If you want to play this game then at least make an attempt at it. I didn't go first because I knew exactly what the response would be and I was correct. Are my examples absurd? Maybe. Are they far-fetched? Who knows. I have no proof that either are likely occur to any degree, do you have any proof for yours? If not then now you are joining in the hypothetical arguments based on hypothetical evidence presupposed on hypothetical actions by others. How do you expect any sound and reasonable argument based on that? Cburnett 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus determines policy; consensus can override consensus any day: it just may take several days to do so. Don't confuse inability to change policy with doing it out of order. Cburnett 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states,

How are policies started?

Much of Wikipedia policy dates from before the year 2002. Policy change now comes from three sources:

• A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy)
• A slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually codified as a policy.
• Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.

Consensus cannot override Jimmy Wales or the Board (who are the interested parties in copyright issues). In any cae, the point is that consensus on an article's talk page can never override policy or guidelines. The only place a new consensus can be developed on a policy is on the policy's talk page, and then only if it affects points that are not mandated by Jimmy Wales or the Board. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is on a policy page and discussing policy in general. Until Jimbo or the board intervene, the editing community of Wikipedia gets to debate policy until the general consensus is reached. We actually want policy written in such a way that all debates are case by case as we don't want to debate policy forever. Now can we get back to trying to clean up the wording of this amendment so the intent of the policy is more obvious to readers, especially new members of the community? Jay32183 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Donald, I would appreciate it if you could point out which part of WP:FU was determined by point #3. Perhaps it's my fault for not clarifying the scope of my statment on a talk page about amending policy applies to said talk page about said amendment on said policy. WP:FU looks very much like a policy borne from #1 and possibly #2 but I don't see anything for #3. Cburnett 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to business

It seems no one has been saying anything for a while, so I'll try to get the conversation going again. I believe last time I was here people were asking for clearer wording on "essential information", "significant discussion" and "can't be conveyed by text". Does anyone have a way of saying any of these that will lead to less argument without losing the spirit of the policy? Jay32183 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these changes are going to clarify the requirements. "Essential information", "significant discussion" and "can't be conveyed by text" are just three more gray areas. Part of the original intention of this amendment was to outlaw screenshots in list of television episodes pages, and I don't think it even effects that issue. I can hear it now.

Pro image argument - The screenshots are essential, the accompanying information is significant, and of course they can't be conveyed by text.

Anti image argument - The screenshots aren't essential, the accompanying information is not significant, and of course they can be conveyed by text.

I think the original text said it best with "contribute significantly" and "must not serve a purely decorative purpose." It's like pornography where its hard to define but "I know it when I see it" and the original wording captures that. - Peregrinefisher 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye matey, that be the case! Cburnett 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok what if the subject in question is a person who is now deceased and all images in the public domain of that person are copywrited but have no text. The ammendment would render these images unusable.--Lucy-marie 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What? The amendment deals with fair use. We don't claim fair use for public domains images. --Abu Badali 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to images that are copywrited by media outlets such as reuters or the prees association. sorry if i miss used the phrase public domain.--Lucy-marie 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The use you described for copyrighted images is one of the uses the original wording and the proposed wording specifically allow, as it identifies the subject of the article and epresses essential information that cannot be coveyed by text. Jay32183 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)