Talk:Sousveillance

AfD

 * Note: Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 22 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion was:

This is page appears to have been submitted by an author trying to legitimize his own lexicon. Observe links to "EyeTap" and "glaw", and a smartmobs link talking about Steve Mann. I don't think that this term (although it sounds like it could be legit) has meaning to anyone other than the submission author. BIAS WARNING: I have worked with Steve Mann. Maneesh 08:53, 22 April 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is becoming a cited primary source. It is unfortunate that mcuh content can be generated by page feeds that feed off page feeds. Inverse surveillance is a valid field of study, and it should not be coopted by Steve Mann. His semi-autistic ability to scower the web spreading lies and exagerated versions of his research leads to legitimization of it, i've even seen a clueless reporter write stories based on false statements steve made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.5.198 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2005


 * Hi, Maneesh. What is it about Steve Mann that rubs you the wrong way?  "sousveillance" is a new term, but one coined by Mann and not by the authors of the WP article about it.  Is in circulation in some relevant communities; not sure what counts as 'legit' around here. +sj+ 09:04, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)
 * Oh, and keep if you ask me. Term has appeared in numerous essays and published articles by Mann, and its etymology and use are interesting to those who care about certain niche areas of privacy. +sj+ 09:04, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd never heard of this neologism either, but it traces back to at least 2001 and has over 6000 google hits from a variety of sources. Rossami 21:32, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I generally dislike neologisms, but this one seems to have gained enuf currency that I have to vote keep, if my vote must be based on the reason given above for appearing on VfD. However, if I can vote based on it being basically just an unusally wordy dic def w/etymology, I'd vote delete (some form of that third 'unexplored issues' paragraph could probably be tacked onto many of the previously deleted dic defs) (I also question it's accuracy about secret phone call recording--it's illegal in my state). Niteowlneils 00:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this neologism becomes accepted into the general lexicon, it will find its way back in later. If the term remains ideosyncratic, then we have a useless self-indulgence in the encyclopedia. Jeeves 01:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: term in wide enough use. tipped the scales for me. Although Steve Mann is certainly a very dedicated self promoter, other people seem to have picked up on his neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That said, the article needs work to make it more specific -- while the article speaks in grandiose generalities, the only sense of "sousveillance" that people have picked up on is the act of looking back at security cameras. "Rheingold notes..." -- pff, who cares what Howard Rheingold says. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's thousands of articles, in a variety of languages, that use the term. Although only in use since 1995, there was recently an  International Workshop on Inverse Surveillance, and a even many large companies (including Microsoft, no less!) is using the term.  Next year there's an International Symposium on Inverse Surveillance, and there is a huge industry growing around an activity that falls directly in line with this word. -- Glogger 12:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * For the record, this vote is User:Glogger's 1st edit on the wiki and as of now, this user has less than 20 edits. --Hemanshu 20:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a common enough term now, and whether Steve coins a lot of terms is not particularly relevant. The term describes a particular power relationship for which there is no other available term. Even inverse surveillance doesn't cover all of the ramifications. I think Maneesh has personal issues here. And yes, some of us happen to like Howard Rheingold -- Jasonnolan
 * For the record, this vote is User:Jasonnolan's 4th edit on the wiki. --Hemanshu 20:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've been on much longer than Hemanshu. I tend to use wikipedia in my teaching, and send students here to use it and many no doubt add to it, but I don't add much to it aIl. Why? Because I don't feel the need. Every time I look at/for things on wikipedia, they tend to be pretty solid. Why bother posting just for the sake of it. You will note as well that I made up my account more recently than 4 posts would suggest. What point are you trying to make? Something like the fact that the validity of content is predicated on opinions of people who make lots of changes? That is an interesting notion to unpack. Ok. I'll go and make some more.. .at some point to make you happy. User:Jasonnolan
 * Keep. Cribcage 01:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a relevant cultural phenomenon, although this article could use a little NPOV tweaking... Alcarillo 20:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Propaganda
One thing I'm sure, is that sousveillance is not mainstream French. It must be some kind of word that some political/philosophical group is trying to push, using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. David.Monniaux 16:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Advocacy
to me an act of propaganda is merely a voice of advocacy. the truth is that to communicate, one needs to participate in a media enviroment littered with the remnants of prior advertising. With this, memory has become the subconscious battleground of personhood. (Ok, this is sounding flowery, but it is the way I think and unfortunate to the reader, overinfluenced by that nutty writter named tolstoy). With the introduction of surveillence cameras, the inherent need to watch and control is becoming pervasive and ubiquitous. Storage in digital data will necesitate improved odds on data searching, with the tendency to use all anthropometric data towards commerce. Such trends have to reconsile man's need for order outside the eternal trend towards conflict. How order is achieved is the searching to verify the prior social contracts. That which is natural needs to be described: to have systems overlooking our daily activities is becoming part of an external memory. we are a barcoded constallation of events and actions, monitored and counted by machine. How we function inside the mechanizations of our new recorded parralled selves is the language of this overheated and evaporating social contract. the higher order evolution of ethical conduct, which is formed in adolescence and contributes to the natural stimulation of the pre frontal and frontal cortex of the brain, is being replaced by these mechnizations, and as we become subject to a secure and reasoned surveillence for our own protection, we stop stimulating our frontal cortex and fundamentally change how we function neurologically. so by not countersurveillencing, and maintaining freedom of thought by control of our sensory input, we erode ethically and give up precious responsibity towards a dependent and hopeless acceptence of a digital fate that takes out the moral perogative of being. As Piaget demonstrated the crucial steps of achieving neurologic steps towards an reasoned adulthood, so now steve mann is documenting for future generations how one is to maintain ones architecture of one, that is separate, and can form independent judgements and insights, outside the surveillenced world. when we stop singing together, laughing together, experiencing family and friendship, a loniness exit from frontal lobe functioning is replaced with the eyecandy of the tv trance of surveillence. Societies that are like the extended family, or the small village are natural to being human, and as the class of 1786 at the ecole polytechnique would agree, it is with natural man that we should form future bodies of free persons. not the anonymous of city ants in a hill, but the natural flesh and soul of persons embodied in protective humanistic intelligence empowing devices. Sousavaillence is not self promotion, it is a treatise of human freedom that confronts Humanity's recurrent nightmare of escape from freedom. It is easy to realize Steve Mann's mathematical invention of the comparametric equations, which is also an invention that describes how cameras work: but how humans percieve in an increasingly surveillenced world is more difficult to describe touching upon social sciences, developmental psychology, neurology, economics, political science, and philosophy. The basis of Sousavaillence has been greatly influenced by Paul Virilio and Sartre: but more importantly, the life long cyborglog is the key to empiric data defining many phenomena described by Foucault. The use of the cyborglog has medical uses: in our research with the elderly, we are developing a system to document activity of daily living in the setting of neurodegenerative illness. All stages of life and state of brain function at each stage needs to be anticipated to complete a life long cyborglog. user:cyborgopoulos...aka stef pantagis 11:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Legality
"Audio sousveillance is allowed in most states, and by Federal law, but audio surveillance is illegal in most states."

Is there any way this sentence, and others scattered throughout the article, might be sort of internationalized in order to adopt a more neutral perspective? Wally 23:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Preservation of histories of articles potentially to be merged
I didn't merge (text and history) these two articles, although i believe that is called for. Reversing the history merge would require great effort, and i am unwilling to assert that the issue is that clear. However, this method of preserving the separate histories is necessary for the recovery, after merging, of the changes made in a given edit, since the edits get interleaved in the history merge, and since the only method WP provides for determining the effect of an edit is comparison with the previous version. The following preserves the information of which version was the previous version. (The following will probably need supplementation with history edits done to each page between this writing and the merge, once the issue is clear enough to take the effectively irreversible step.) --Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)


 * History of Inverse surveillance to 04 Oct 6
 * 13:44, 2004 Sep 19 ZeroOne m (Category:Surveillance)
 * 01:55, 2004 Sep 19 Morven m (Remove reference to "sniggle" (invented word only used on one website))
 * 20:38, 2004 Sep 17 Shoujun
 * 15:21, 2004 Sep 17 Robartin (fixed a wiki link)
 * 15:19, 2004 Sep 17 Robartin (wikified)
 * 05:53, 2004 Sep 11 Poccil
 * 05:52, 2004 Sep 11 Poccil
 * 05:40, 2004 Sep 11 Glogger
 * 02:39, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82 (added link to NYC sousveillance crew)
 * 20:03, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger (correct spell of casino)
 * 19:30, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger
 * 19:29, 2004 Aug 11 Glogger m (added image depicting inverse surveillance)
 * 05:20, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
 * 05:19, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
 * 05:18, 2004 Jul 5 Glogger
 * 12:04, 2004 Jun 25 Glogger
 * 03:24, 2004 Jun 23 24.33.73.209
 * 03:07, 2004 Jun 15 Fredrik m (rm cleanup msg)
 * 22:43, 2004 Jun 3 Template namespace initialisation script
 * 01:03, 2004 May 18 65.49.77.82
 * 23:29, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
 * 10:38, 2004 May 17 Jasonnolan m (removed 'mock-French' since it is obviously intended to be an English word)
 * 05:42, 2004 May 16 67.121.95.164
 * 15:55, 2004 May 15 The Anome (Steve Mann, who coined the term, describes it as "watchful vigilance from underneath".)
 * 15:49, 2004 May 15 The Anome (particularly those who are generally the subject of surveillance.)
 * 15:48, 2004 May 15 The Anome (rewrote first sentence)
 * 15:40, 2004 May 15 The Anome (fixing that link)
 * 15:38, 2004 May 15 The Anome (moving the links to the end)
 * 15:31, 2004 May 15 The Anome (mock-French)
 * 15:28, 2004 May 15 The Anome
 * 21:47, 2004 Apr 29 Francs2000 (rm vfd boilerplate)
 * 16:22, 2004 Apr 28 David.Monniaux (neologism)
 * 16:21, 2004 Apr 28 65.49.77.82
 * 16:19, 2004 Apr 28 65.49.77.82
 * 07:13, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 07:08, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 06:49, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 06:42, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 06:26, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 06:15, 2004 Apr 25 Glogger
 * 08:16, 2004 Apr 22 Maneesh
 * 19:06, 2004 Apr 21 Wmahan m (alot->much, priviledge->privilege)
 * 00:29, 2004 Mar 30 Stevertigo m
 * 08:18, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
 * 08:16, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
 * 08:01, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
 * 07:59, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
 * 07:52, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82
 * 07:47, 2004 Mar 15 Dysprosia m (fmt)
 * 07:45, 2004 Mar 15 65.49.77.82


 * History of Sousveillance to 04 Oct 6
 * 05:40, 2004 Oct 5 Leif
 * 21:23, 2004 Oct 4 Poccil (Removed unnecessary picture)
 * 19:29, 2004 Oct 4 Poccil
 * 13:43, 2004 Sep 19 ZeroOne m (Category:Surveillance)
 * 02:16, 2004 Sep 18 130.58.225.205 (NYC sousveillance - spelling errors)
 * 02:46, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82
 * 02:45, 2004 Sep 7 65.49.77.82 (added link to NYC sousveillance crew)
 * 05:05, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82
 * 05:05, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82
 * 05:03, 2004 Sep 5 65.49.77.82 (added link to Britt Blasser's "Over Sousveillance" article.)
 * 01:53, 2004 Sep 5 DimaDorfman m (hide wiki artifacts)
 * 11:47, 2004 Aug 24 195.157.146.246 (typo correction)
 * 12:33, 2004 Jun 8 Paranoid m (a link added)
 * 12:31, 2004 Jun 8 Paranoid m (Moved the image to the left side.)
 * 23:32, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
 * 23:31, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
 * 23:31, 2004 May 17 65.49.77.82
 * 04:25, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 04:22, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 04:01, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:59, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:58, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:55, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:53, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:50, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:49, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 03:41, 2004 May 17 Glogger
 * 15:50, 2004 May 15 The Anome (moved to "Inverse_surveillance")

The Light of Other Days
The Light of Other Days involves a world with a complete lack of privacy. The cameras are a little different, but it's basically the same idea. I can't figure out how to tie it into this (or a better related) article, though. - Omegatron 02:03, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality in Question?
I fail to see why this article is flags with a NPOV warning. Given the rapid changes in video camera technology and public surveillance, the term "sousveillance" certainly seems like a useful distinction.

If the problem is that this term has not entered the mainstream lexicon then edit the article to say so. Funkyj 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2c
I don't think a neologism like "sousveillance" should be allowed to be used as an article title on a technological / sociological / social scientific subject.

I think the reference to the Situationists in the graphic is kind of spurious, although I can see the clear relevance of the material here to modern post Situationist theory.

Most of the content is interesting but it does violate NPOV to some extent in that it isn't sufficiently impartially grounded in it's relationship to the existing theories and practice of surveillance.

I wouldn't like to see it deleted, but a clearer distinction being made between what's subjective theory and what's objective social scientific fact. Wikipedia can't just be a place to post random theses!

My 2cents too
I think this article needs heavy, heavy cleanup. (Embarassingly, I added a vote to "keep" earlier, before realizing that the vote was over above, now reverted.) The article is too biased and really needs help.

71.110.157.153 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It also comes across as very difficult to read, The language used seems...odd, somehow. The article is written in a way that seemed rather confusing and overwhelming to me, as a reader with no prior knowledge in the area. I'm adding a "confusing" template to the page for the time being, though it has other problems, such as the length of the introduction (which probably contributes to the confusion by rambling instead of simply giving a short, succinct definition of the term), and context issues. Reveilled 23:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pick a term and stick with it
This article seems to vacillate randomly between "inverse surveillance" and "sousveillance" very confusingly. *Are* they the same thing? If so, then just put one in brackets at the start, then use the other one consistently. If not, then make the distinctions clearer. Stevage 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Clinical Sousveillance
Clinical sousveillance content has been forked from clinical surveillance and is up for deletion (WP: PROD) under WP:NOR (were WP:FRINGE an actual policy this would be the reason). If you have anything to say about this, please say it there by June 1. Editing help with the clinical surveillance article is also welcome. Museumfreak 05:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnocentric Bias
I agree with wally in that the article needs a more international perspective. At the moment it's very centred on an american POV epspecially with relation to legal issues.

most obviously with this sentence, which also is irrelevent to the section it's in.

"In America, audio sousveillance is allowed in most states, and by U.S. Federal law."

___

In my opinion there is also a clear distinction between 'inverse surveillance' and 'sousveillance'. At least in the way it is used in my local area. Inverse surveillance refers to the act of recording authority figures and people involved in surveillance as an activist tool or legal protection. Sousveillance is an act of community based recording from a first person POV with no specific agenda - well that's local usage anyway, may not be that correct from a wider perspective - my 2 groats anyway.

-

"or passengers to photograph taxicab drivers." The driver being a worker hired by the passenger, how is this sousveillance?

Canadian ≠ American
Interesting that previous commentators keep denouncing an "American" POV, when Steve Mann is a Canadian teaching/researching at the University of Toronto, a Canadian university. Bellagio99 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada is part of America. As is Venezuela, Chile and Cuba. So these are all American points of view. If you mean a US point of view you would state something different. Just as a Scottish point of view is British, but not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.93.91 (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Camera phone or videocam + YouTube/Flicker = Sousveillance
I've added some sentences to the article making this point. Bellagio99 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Necessary improvements
As a random person who stumbled across this page I've done what I can to tidy it, but there are some glaring faults which I don't dare fix myself.

"Even today's personal sousveillance technologies like camera phones and weblogs tend to build a sense of community"
 * What's this a contrast with? The future's personal sousveillance technologies?

"Classy's Kitchen"
 * Who is Classy? What is his/her kitchen? This appears to be missing a cross-reference.

"Beyond the political or breaching of hierarchical structure explored in academia, the more rapidly emerging discourse on sousveillance within industry is "personal sousveillance", namely the recording of an activity by a participant in the activity. In this sense, the Rodney King video was captured serendipitously by a citizen participating in a civil society. There was no political motive (i.e. the officers who were beating King were not targeted), and the material was captured more serendipitously."
 * This is within a section entitled "Personal sousveillance" which has already given a different definition. What's going on here? "In this sense" - in what sense? Is "civil society" an "activity"? The straightforward reading of this is that the Rodney King video was captured by someone participating in the beating: i.e. King or one of the policemen. "More serendipitously" than what? And is it necessary to use "serendipitously" twice in two consecutive sentences? I would redact but the only obvious redaction which leaves something that makes sense is to delete the entire paragraph.

"As the technologies get smaller and easier to use, the capture, recording, and playback of everyday life gets that much easier. For example..."
 * The stuff which follows is, as written, more obviously an example of people not liking being recorded than of recording becoming easier.

"The "Sensecam" works this way, as does Gordon Bell's project at Microsoft"
 * What is this "Sensecam"? Who is Gordon Bell?

"Microsoft is also exploring cyborglogs"
 * "Also" in addition to whom? There is no obvious anaphor, because two paragraphs have passed since the mention of "cyborglogging", but if you ignore those paragraphs then the most obvious anaphor is Gordon Bell's project at Microsoft.

"to subvert the Panoptic gaze"
 * Undefined proper noun. At least, I presume from the capitalisation that it's a proper noun.

"Sousveillance activism as a form of inverse surveillance"
 * Does any of the contents of this section actually correspond to the section's title? I certainly can't find an answer in it to the implicit question "Is sousveillance activism a form of inverse surveillance?" It seems to be an assortment of examples of unspecified sousveillance, inverse surveillance and inadequately referenced summary of related but tangential academic work.

"However, this designated day focuses only on hierarchical sousveillance, whereas there are a number of groups around the world working on combining the two forms of sousveillance."
 * What are these "two forms"? Up to this point at least four subsets of sousveillance have been discussed, but there's been no suggestion that any group of them form a complete classification.

"There is a certain irony in the blind exploring the all seeing eye of the Panopticon."
 * Another undefined proper noun. It's also referred to non-existent anaphor, because all we've been told is that these blind poets are "making a cyborglog". In what sense is that "exploring the all seeing eye"?

"the Panoptic God"
 * By now the end of this article is starting to look rather NPOV, as though written by someone trying to create acceptance of their neologisms.

Judging by the history most of this page is the work of two authors, so I hope you can take these comments on board as feedback from someone with an external perspective who can't read between the lines as you can. 81.39.195.238 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Inverse redirect
Surely inverse surveillance should redirect to Surveillance and not to here? Sousveillance, as noted in the article's paragraph six, is a type of inverse surveillance, and it not inverse surveillance itself (think as if tiger redirected to bengal tiger). Anyone mind if I change the current target away from this article? Sousveillance is linked in the main Surveillance article anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

POV
The section "Personal sousveillance" feel very POV to me, to the point of Advocacy. The second paragraph in particular reads like a direct quote. Who is the "we" be referred to? And while "we" are at it, it looks to me like the person that wrote that section was trying to quote a scholarly, or semi-scholarly article. Cite Please? Overall, look like someone trying to inflate the importance of their own observations of life. I'm not saying it isn't notable, but it is not detached enough. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiretap laws
It seems like there should be something in here about police and judges using wiretap laws to charge people who make video of them performing their public duties. It's becoming more common to hear in the news, does that make it notable? --W0lfie (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The usual response
I just ran across another article documenting the usual response to sousveillance. It would be good to collect some of these and start a paragraph about it. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Go 4 it. You're a veteran, so you know the usual cautions about notaiblity, reliable sources, NPOV, etc. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable cases in UK ?
Ian Tomlinson - non-participant passing through a protest stand-off - who died following a violent intervention by a specialist police officer. Criminal case against the officer concluded 'not guilty of manslaughter' a few days ago, on grounds of his intentions. Future civil action is likely.

Motorist fined over filmed cyclist abuse

Van driver throws juice bottle at cyclist for “not paying road tax”

Not sure how to wedge these in ... are they sufficiently notable ? Last is just a blog, but "driver was cautioned for assault and charged with driving without due consideration: he received five points on his licence and had to pay a fine" so it should be a matter of public record somewhere.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In literature
Boodlepounce has boldly removed this section. There are no citations and the common theme appears to Boodlepounce to be privacy or lack thereof rather than sousveillance. In particular, Boodlepounce has read 1984 and We and does not remember anything remotely resembling sousveillance in them. Boodlepounce points out that without a reliable source stating that sousveillance is a theme in these works, any such list must inevitably constitute /wp;/or\original research by way of synthesis. Boodlepounce (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of picture
I've removed a picture of questionable relevance and low quality being used to illustrate the article. As there are already high-quality photographs in the article, having a poorly drawn sketch seems unnecessary. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone who wishes to see the picture in the article should establish consensus to do so. -- Jayron  32  18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any image that uses cyan peculiar blue, such as the current child's drawering, employs more than adequate relevance. -Dirtclustit (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
The current picture, located at File:SurSousveillanceStephanieMannAge6.jpg, is of low quality and of little actual value in adding meaning to the article; especially as there are already in existence, and being used, photographs that capture the same concept. Requesting outside comment from anyone who has never edited this article before regarding the suitability of the picture for the article. Please comment to remove or keep the if the picture. Thank you. -- Jayron  32  23:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Here is the picture:


 * Remove the picture, as I stated above. -- Jayron  32  23:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's really cute and some ways illustrates Sousveillance better than the photographs by contrasting the two cameras directly. We like it a lot. groupuscule (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes :) but Wikipedia is not a place for cuteness. Except for the kitten article. jonkerz ♠talk 01:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not inherently a place for cuteness, but the picture also illustrates the sur-/sous- relationship quite nicely (in a literal and figurative sense), in a way that none of the photographs do. Not sure that cuteness should count against the image, as JohnInDC seems to suggest. Masem might be correct that an adult illustrator could do better. groupuscule (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. It would have been one thing if this image came from, say, xkcd, in that style, as a commentary on the method (xkcd comics are licensed cc-by, so it would have been free). But as a "new" image made for WP, it is of terribly poor quality and can be replaced by similarly-simple but more professional image to demonstrate the concept better, if it needs that at all. --M ASEM (t) 01:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Twee. JohnInDC (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove - Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think the burden of proof lies on the editors who want to include a stick figure drawing to illustrate a concept that is more efficiently illustrated by the photos already in the lead. jonkerz ♠talk 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Unencyclopedic, inappropriate, and frankly unprofessional. If we were discussing line art drawn by minors this image might be useful, but we are not. And even then its use would be dubious. See, e.g., the example at WP:IRELEV. More importantly, the image erroneously and inappropriately places emphasis on the sous- prefix that, while perhaps important in explaining the etymological derivation from surveillance, does not convey the actual meaning of the concept of sousveillance, which is related tangentially (at best) to the literal meaning of the term. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove, manifestly unencyclopedic. – Quadell (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - directly and concisely presents the idea in schematic form. A more sophisticated or "professional" rendering may enhance the style, but not necessarily the substance of what is meant here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't. It places too much emphasis on the contrast between sur- and sous- instead of the wearable camera aspect. It is confusing and frankly distracting from the subject and the prose. Wikipedia isn't about diagrams, it's about writing an encyclopedia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a drawing of an unmanned camera pointing at a little girl and a little girl with a camera pointing back at the surveillance camera. Is she taking a picture of the activity in which she's participating, or conducting her own surveillance of the camera that's watching her?  An actually useful drawing would portray a surveillance camera recording a bunch of little girls doing something, while one of the little girls has a camera recording her own activity (without any particular attention to the surveillance camera).  But even then I'm not sure what such a drawing would add to the several photos etc. that are already in the article.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A drawing such as the one you suggest, showing one literal instance of sousveillance, would most likely need supplementary verbal explanation to convey the concept with any useful degree of clarity. The child's drawing simply shows the conceptual metaphor at the core of the idea of sousveillance. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? freely translates to "who will watch the watchers?" Watching the watcher is exactly what this drawing shows. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's a perfect image to illustrate the David and Goliath concept of sousveillance. Sousveillance is "undersight," rather than oversight, according to Steve Mann, who coined the term, cameras "mounted on people in low places" to increase equality. And here we have a big state camera v. a small person doing the same thing right back, and therefore no longer powerless. That it was drawn by a six-year-old, and the way it was drawn, is in a sense a further illustration of the same concept. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the image would be more appropriate if your explanation above were used as a caption. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that the image's creator and its method of creation have any bearing on the concept itself, at least any we should be advancing or implying in the article ourselves. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is actually the problem. The image is basically saying "Look, surveillance is stupid and evil, sousveillance is good and not evil, even a six-year-old can understand that". I do not necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but our readers should be able to draw their own conclusions from the article without a smiling stick figure in the lead. jonkerz ♠talk 02:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nicely shows the topic. From the mouths/pens of babes. Let's not get too full of ourselves. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm decidedly against gratuitous cuteness, but this simple drawing succinctly communicates the essence of the term "sousveillance" in an instantly memorable way. If someone were to ask the author of the xkcd comics, I think he would commend the drawing for its concise effectiveness, regardless of the age or status of the artist. Until/unless somebody comes up with a clearly superior alternative illustration, I say keep this one.  Reify-tech (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. With all respect to Jayron and others, the lo-fi, childlike aesthetic is as valid a medium as any other type of illustration, just as, for example, nerdcore is a valid form of hip hop. I've noticed that some editors have difficulty accepting this type of illustration as a valid and/or equivalent medium, but in fact it has wide acceptance in publishing.  Beyond its appropriate use, SlimVirgin's rationale holds true for the context of this subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the illustration was posted not to sharpen the reader's understanding of the concept of "sousveillance" but rather as a display of a child's presumed precocity.  The caption, "Six-year-old student (bilingual, French immersion school) drawing depicting Surveillance versus Sousveillance" didn't help.  Information about the creator is irrelevant to the concept, of course; and, given that the illustration already contains its own caption, then it needn't be repeated underneath.  If this child's drawing is to be included at all, it should stand on its own.  If it has to be explained or justified in its caption then it's the wrong illustration.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentAlthough I continue to vote Keep, I agree with JohnInDC that the superfluous irrelevant caption should go Bellagio99 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not enthused about the caption, either. The illustration can stand on its own merits, and anyone interested in its origin can find the information in Wikmedia Commons. Reify-tech (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we use captions like this all the time in every subject area, so I don't "get" the concern here at all. I see nothing wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak remove / possible use on Simple English Wiki instead? - I'm torn on this one but ultimately agree with JohnInDC. I do think that it demonstrates the concept in a way none of the other images do, but it certainly seems to set a bad precedent for image use. I.e. it's a picture described in the commons in such a way that makes it seem like the the girl and not the concept is the reason for the upload, and it was [as far as I can tell] uploaded by her father who also happens to be a major subject of this article. I'm not saying it has no place on the Commons, but it seems like we probably wouldn't want every WP article to have an editor's child's doodle at the top, pithy and insightful as they may be. What about moving it to the Simple English sousveillance article? --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Oh my, really?  This superior drawing, encyclopedic and concise and with the forward-looking esthetic, just happens to be by the child of a major subject of the article?  At least it accounts for the otherwise inexplicably fawning caption.  I've lost all sympathy for the pro-inclusion arguments now.  JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Source of caption is irrelevant as long as it is CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio99 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of order: Being CC is not reason one way or the other for use in this article. -- Jayron  32  13:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The validity of a form as an aesthetic (whether graphical or textual) does not imply it is appropriate for use in Wikipedia. Cf. WP:TONE. Some aesthetic value is surely a necessary requirement for using an image, but it is absolutely not a sufficient one. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct. My observation, however, is that the community demographic (for whatever reason) is biased against this particular type of aesthetic. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Unencyclopedic.  Rlsheehan (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replace. You ask for keep or remove. I can't pick. The kid has the right idea. The subject is a concept, and an illustration is a great idea. I would suggest "replace" with maybe one eye-in-the-sky and several identical, iconic images of people (representing the public) all wearing the gear. That would be a good lede image which would convey what the article is about on the spot. We have an image creation department, and I'm sure they could throw something together. The current confusing multiple lead images could get bumped because they really don't say what the subject of the article is at a glance. It suggests that the subject of the article is somehow about a surveillance cam and three camera necklaces. The four images need to work together and they don't. It took me a bit of time to get it. What do you think of that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the current image kinda stinks. There needs to be a descriptive, textual caption, as in WP:CAP. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove. Wow.  Seriously?  And how is this encyclopedic? 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Illustration provides clear indication of meaning of sousveillance even if the child is pointing the camera at another camera and not an activity s/he is participating in. Caption should be rewritten. Rex (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible we can keep the drawing present until we decide whether to keep or delete or replace? It is very difficult to discuss something we can't see, and when someone deletes the drawing, it is hard to know what is being discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.59.115 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've embedded the picture at the beginning of this discussion. I agree with the earlier observation that the burden is on the proponents of this - unusual - picture to establish reasons to include it.  I would also add that any time a picture that has to be explained with two or three sentences and several references, the picture fails in its essential mission to clarify a point.  I'm removing it again until some measure of agreement is achieve here.  Perhaps - as Anna suggests above, a suitable replacement.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although it could be professionally re-drawn by someone with a professional degree in Graphics, the drawing, as it is, falls within the spirit of Wikipedia's inclusive nature.  Let's make Wikipedia open to everyone, not just professionals.  The amateur (the word "amateur" derives from the French "love of") often has more passion and interest in a subject than the professional.  If we limit Wikipedia only to professionals, we'll lose a great deal of its power == crowdsourcing.  The picture is simple and easy to understand.  If a 6-year old can understand it, in this simple way, it will help the layperson understand it.  We're often taught to make things simple, when possible (e.g. when there's no loss in doing so).  Making it simple to understand at the outset helps draw people in to read the more subtle differences in the concepts.  Full disclosure: I'm the father of the girl who drew the picture. Glogger (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - (already cast my opinion above) - Seems there are parallel issues being debated here. Maybe it would be useful to separate them:
 * First, there's the question of image type/quality: whether the image would have any place in an encyclopedia article at all. It's here that identity of the artist and amateurism/professionalism come into play.
 * Second, there's the question of image appropriateness for this article: does it effectively illustrate an aspect of the subject more clearly than if the same aspect were described with words? (Or insert your preferred content guideline here).
 * ...I think there are valid arguments to be made each way on both issues, but consensus might more easily be achieved if they aren't conflated. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no requirement of professional 'look and feel' required for inclusion. It is an accurate depiction, highlights that the issue is important to children as well as adults, and the illustrator is someone with documented experience in the area. It interesting that this top-down parental attitude suggesting that the image is not 'good enough' for wikipedia is another example of the use of unequal power relations to silence, unless of course there is a technical reason for it not being included. Childism and heteronomous attitudes to children are part of the larger issue of surveillance. Great to see that children are watching back. --Jasonnolan (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Remove - this picture is awful and makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia for children or for the contributions of children. This is not Reddit; we don't 'explain like I'm five'. The image adds nothing to the article, in fact it actively degrades its quality, and the reputation of Wikipedia by extension. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Robofish (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The drawing was made by Steve Mann's daughter at age six. It is highly iconic within surveillance studies and continues to be reprinted, quite often, in academic articles featured within specialized journals as well as within academic and non-academic books about surveillance and sousveillance. Personally, I do not find a children's drawing, if it illustrates a concept correctly, to be more or less appropriate for an encyclopedia entry than that of any other person, even if they are a professional artist. If anything, that fact that a child can correctly grasp a highly-specialized concept and illustrate its meaning accordingly, in a simple way, adds value to it and merits its inclusion within the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.51.27.185 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Remove - I had to double-check to make sure I was still on Wikipedia. Coolgamer (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A google images search for it shows 63 occurrences of other sites using it... the image itself is becoming somewhat iconic in certain circles. It's time to dispense with the notion that an encyclopedia can't be occasionally whimsical at the appropriate occasion and this is one of them. Marteau (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130913190505/http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-06/ps_transparency to http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-06/ps_transparency/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Lingual cart before horse
No one who didn't stumble on Wikipedia's article or link thereto knows what "sousveillance" means, and I had never heard of it before. Wikipedia is known to have a weakness of this editorializing of particular language. The problem isn't that the word does not make sense. The word is fine, but it's a construction that isn't a part of any language.

Therefore, alternatives like the mentioned "inverted surveillance" or somesuch language should be used, while the article itself can introduce how, IF IT IS RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT, these individuals are using this term of "sousveillance," which, I'm sorry to say, sounds confusingly similar to the actual term surveillance.

Otherwise, you're just cloaking this article behind a made up word no one knows to type, in this pointless Wikipedia sponsored effort to reform language.76.105.131.18 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion. However, sousveillance has been around as a word for over a decade, and is widely used and cited. See for details.Bellagio99 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516204712/http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13130-cyclists-cellphones-help-monitor-air-pollution.html to http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13130-cyclists-cellphones-help-monitor-air-pollution.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930060012/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070825.wyoutube25/BNStory/National/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070825.wyoutube25/BNStory/National/home
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040618111911/http://reason.com:80/0311/source.shtml to http://reason.com/0311/source.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040422145119/http://research.microsoft.com:80/CARPE2004/ to http://research.microsoft.com/CARPE2004/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040422145119/http://research.microsoft.com:80/CARPE2004/ to http://research.microsoft.com/CARPE2004/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102054718/http://sousveillance.org:80/ to http://sousveillance.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203195925/http://www.glogger.mobi/ to http://glogger.mobi/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905210719/http://www.notanalternative.net/tp-sousveillance-culture-conference-426 to http://www.notanalternative.net/tp-sousveillance-culture-conference-426
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sousveillance.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sousveillance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325090745/http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf to http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325090745/http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf to http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160223014231/http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/snowden_biopolitics to http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/snowden_biopolitics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sousveillance's dependency on video platforms, and why it can be dangerous
I think today's sousveillance is improved by the rise in video and streaming platforms like Youtube, Periscope or Twitch. However, the perfect scenario would be to have perfectly neutral platforms with adapted algorithms and no censorships, and this is not the case. For Youtube for example, we know that censorship can be quite random, and who knows if Google have interest not to suggest videos that could be harmful to the government or any existing autority ?

Plus, on a more general scale, sousveillance implies filming our everyday life, and if this data is gathered by internet giants, this could be ultimately be profitable to them, and to governments they treat wwith, insofar it helps them predict and adapt to human behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriLE PAGE TPT (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a horrible article and should be deleted promptly
This is a terrible article. It suggests the existence of some phenomenon that is not surveillance or is opposed to surveillance. An furthermore it suggests that this phenomenon is a dog whistle in a political sense. In other words, it is a demand to see surveillance in strictly moral terms, it is the "surveillance is evil" of Wikipedia pages. The suggestion is that surveillance is so evil that a new word must be created to show everyone how evil surveillance is. We are supposed to think that sousveillance does not have the moral baggage of surveillance. So this article is pure propaganda. The word "power" appears in the article.

This is more junk that escaped from an art school. It is more of the rhetoric of Call It Sleep https://archive.org/details/call_it_sleep_situ. It is a rhetorical exercise. This is not a subject for a Wikipedia article. Give these art students an inch and they'll take a mile.

I demand this article be deleted immediately. It is filth. 50.202.216.18 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request
I removed the drawing. [and the rest is removed. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)] 50.202.216.18 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an opinion on Dr. Mann, or his use or non-use of his children for self-promotional purposes, and I certainly wouldn't agree with anything the user above me wrote, especially not the personal attacks; with that said, I think a child's drawing in an article not about children's topics is inappropriate for multiple reasons on Wikipedia:


 * For one thing, although Mann coined the term sousveillance, it seems that many others in the literature are using it. So it is at the very least somewhat nepotistic to assume that Stephanie Mann is better at depicting the subject matter than children generally. Even Mann herself could likely do a better job as she should be closer to 12 now, assuming the original upload year of 2013 is correct.
 * But more seriously, I don't understand why a child's drawing is a particularly good illustration of the concept. I've never seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia. While it would be very cute indeed for all Wikipedia articles to be illustrated by children, I'm not sure that it helps our readers, and doesn't seem to me particularly encyclopedic.


 * Do you want to weigh in User:Glogger? I'll give you, let's say a day or so to reply, and if not (or if no objection) I'll draw a replacement. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, and this is an even more serious problem, I don't think parents own the copyright of works produced by their children. As a copyright is property, Stephanie's parents would only be temporary custodians (according to this article), meaning that for Wikipedia's purposes they cannot release the drawing under the GFDL, as the GFDL is a lifetime grant. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not User Glogger, but I think the drawing is fun and somewhat appropriate. As to the property rights of parents over their kids drawing, that is an interesting point. But my favorite restaurant, has kids' drawings of a man and a woman over the appropriate washrooms. I doubt they cleared it with their kids. and does GFDL apply to Canada and Wikipedia? Bellagio99 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Copyright law matters to a severe degree on Wikipedia. In my country Philippines, there is no freedom of panorama; that is to say, architects own copyright of photos of their buildings. I have never heard of a single lawsuit against any social media user for uploading photos of Filipino buildings. Nobody in the Philippines even knows about this restriction or cares about it. It's a silly law that doesn't reflect reality, like many of our laws, totally unimplemented.And yet&mdash;that law matters on Wikipedia and uploading photos of buildings built after a certain point is not allowed on Commons or Wikipedia. So what happens in your favorite restaurant really doesn't matter, in my country we happily photo and share buildings on social media, sell them on stock photo sites even, and no architect has ever complained to my knowledge; if they did netizens would probably be outraged. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've replaced the image with one of my own creation due to consensus that the image is inappropriate at Village pump (policy). Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I've nominated the image for deletion. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I've nominated the image for deletion. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

While the image offered as a replacement for the child's drawing has smoother lines and could be said to be a more polished presentation, those are not necessarily advantages in such a context. The raw quality of the simpler drawing goes directly to the core of what it is meant to convey. It also reads well as a small thumbnail, while the more sophisticated image needs some enlargement before the small figure's camera can be easily seen as a camera.

Awnings and other architectural features in the background may be intended to serve as scene-setting, or they may be distracting extraneous detail, called "non-data ink" or chartjunk in the coinage of Edward Tufte.

Regarding issues of licensing and intellectual property, I don't see anything resembling clear consensus at that village pump discussion. I see a couple of editors saying things along the lines of "perhaps caution is advisable" and "maybe we should ask some cogizant specialists."

Maybe some interested party should ask the kid what she thinks about it. Even as a minor, legalistic casuistry aside, she is the one with standing to allow or deny the use of her picture. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to fix the problems you have with my image, but it seems like even if I do you still think the current one is better. I've nominated File:SurSousVeillanceByStephanieMannAge6.png for deletion, so let's see how that goes and revisit this after a few opinions collect there. The consensus in 2013 centered around the suitability of the image; I disagree and think it unsuitable but I don't think reopening that issue is productive, User:Drmies closed it as keep and I can respect that. I think that our question today should center around the copyright issue; it seems quite clear to me that User:Glogger cannot grant copyright of their child's work. Let's see if experts agree. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing to consider when re-working your image is that in the original the two cameras point at each other. Yes, I prefer the spontaneous nature of the current one, acknowledging that personal preference may not be the best basis for choosing wiki content.
 * As far as I am aware, nobody has yet asked the original artist what she has to say about it. Quite likely she is aware of its use on wikis in several languages. For a number of reasons, I do not wish to stir that particular pot further, and yet here we are, six years after its uploading. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate for me to track down and message a twelve year old girl. Ideally User:Glogger would chime in. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is one of the things prompting my reluctance to "stir that particular pot further". I do think it would be appropriate to reach out to Glogger to make him aware of the deletion discussion on the Commons. (Some platforms let users choose to be notified when their user name is mentioned, but I don't think Wikipedia works that way without an explicit ping.) He was last active on WP in February, so perhaps an email would be in order, along with a note on his user talk page. I will leave that to you, as the initiator of the deletion request. Just plain Bill (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an RfC, which as far as I know was never challenged. Consensus can change, that is true, but in this case a new RfC would be required to overturn the old one. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So procedurally, you're saying I should challenge the RFC concurrent to the Commons deletion nomination? Wouldn't a deletion on copyright grounds make any RFC redundant, why discuss in two places rather than just on Commons? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Psiĥedelisto, ordinarily, yes. I had not seen, when I posted this, your copyvio deletion request, which may well have merit (I'm sad to say, haha, as a parent). But much of this discussion, which doesn't focus on copyright, should be done in the context of a new RfC ("procedurally speaking" anyway, though those procedures aren't written in stone). I do not concede that that discussion, where you gained some traction, is enough to delete/remove, but that may change quickly, after some of the resident experts weigh in. In other words, whatever happens there may obviate the need for an RfC (and I don't think that ever came up in the old RfC). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP Colleagues. I changed the header title, because it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to the simple Deletion Request. I also think that the first IP User comment is inappropriate too--I've never seen anything like it in my years of editing--but don't know WP protocol enough to know if I could delete it. Advice please.Bellagio99 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed it. Requests for oversight is the way towards removing disruptive or defamatory content from the page history, if someone is so inclined. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bellagio99, Just plain Bill], I am very sorry I didn't see that content the first time I responded here. Thank you for pointing it out; I've removed and revdeleted. [[User:Drmies|Drmies (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article should stand, with or without the picture. It is interesting and well-written. I do have a COI as I have done some work in the area. YMMV. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is going to stand. We do not remove stuff because some IP cusses and complains. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)