Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Proposal 3

Proposal 3: If placeholder images are retained, the method by which they are applied should be modified
''If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 3 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about how the methods should change.''


 * Agree. (a) Placeholders should be applied only on a case-by-case basis by editors familiar with the articles; they should not be rolled out systematically; (b) placeholders should be removed after a reasonable period of time if no photo is forthcoming.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree especially with item b of Northwesterner1's statment above. The current image policy is so restrictive that most pages will never be able to have a picture in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Commons has 2,684,813 freely usable media files.Geni 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I don't believe they have been haphazardly added and see no reason to invent some kind of rule about who can add this image to article; editors who disagree with the addition can remove it or take it to the talk page. Northwesterner1's (b) proposal can come into effect upon our deadline. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Per Northwesterner1 above.Nrswanson (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I raise the same objection I raised to the previous proposal. The question is far too vague to be of any use as it stands. We should discuss what changes might be useful (with reasons, which are lacking on this page) before agreeing or disagreeing with change as a general principle. --Cherry blossom tree 09:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Per Northwesterner1 above. I am strongly against mass placement. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr Northwesterner1's statement is simply they position you cannot logical agree per it.Geni 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree, per Doubleblue's comments. --Padraic 13:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. But mass placement should be discouraged, and it should be completely optional to use such images. Rettetast (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is always has been. No one is going to make you add them.Geni 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Like stub templates and maintenance tags, they should remain until the issue has been adressed (== an article has been added). Northwesterner1's (b) proposal is just wrong - if it is removed before an image has been uploaded, then what was the point of having it there in the first place? WP:DEADLINE, again. Jobjörn (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I see no problems here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Mass rollout by editors unfamiliar with the subject is inappropriate. Some types of biographical articles (eg actors, musicians, politicians) are far more in need of images than others (eg scientists, academics), and in some cases (eg living victims of crime, minors) pictures might be completely inappropriate. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So far neither of those appears to have been a problem.Geni 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They have certainly been added to bios of academics where the likelihood of a photograph being supplied is low, and any illustrative value would be minimal. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it unlikely to have a photo of an academic? If true in any particular case, then the placeholder image could be removed upon agreement on the article's talk page. I believe a photo of the person in a biographical article is of value. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree (kind of) per Espresso Addict - because sometimes images are inappropriate (minors/crime victims/etc), they should not be added by bot. In all other cases, however, I would encourage editors to add away. Even people who might not have as great a need for a picture, it still adds to the article to have one. Many people are visual learners, so having an image at the top is beneficial wherever it is not an invasion of privacy. I don't think the request should be taken down after X number of days, because it's always possible someone with a picture will pop by. Mangostar (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Per Northwesterner1 above. Voceditenore (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, there must be basic common sense, not a bot that requests photographs of a pharaoh who's been dead for the last 3000 years. There are cultures where images of (living) people were discouraged; there were cultures were most artifacts were lost for good; finally, there's always the question of reliable attribution. These should be excluded. NVO (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Generaly the advice has always been to limit use to liveing people (3000 years would put us in the Third Intermediate Period which due to political upheaval would be rather tricky yes geting an image for other times in egyption history would be less of a problem).Geni 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Agree. I am not a big fan of automated or semi-automated placement. These image placeholders should only be put on articles by editors who have active interests/ contributions in that individual article.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Insearchofintelligentlife is a sockpuppet (now blocked) --Kleinzach (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) *Agree per Northwesterner, Sensevivid, etc.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand that Divinediscourse is a sockpuppet now blocked. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Bothe points of Northwesterner1 (time limit and no automatic rollout) are excellent.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I see no problems with the current methods.  Powers T 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - Placeholders should not be added arbitrarily to any article one comes across using semi-automated or automated methods. - hahnch e n 17:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - widespread semi-automated processes have the appearance (whether true or not) of carrying the weight of an official policy or widespread consensus. In my experience editors are reluctant to undo a string of near-identical edits performed by a semi-automated process, even when they disagree with its implementation. Plus, AWB's instructions explicitly state that it's not to be used for controversial edits. In the absence of widespread consensus to include the placeholders, this would certainly qualify as a controversial edit. -Pete (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Seems to work well right now IMHO.  howcheng  {chat} 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I haven't seen any problems with their application (apart from general objections to the principle of their use), and another set of rules looks like instruction creep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree There is a fucking problem, a big fucking problem. I removed hundreds of placeholders from articles of dead people, for my trouble in making sure that these images were misplaced, I was blocked and then mass reverted by an admin.  Hours of work, culled in seconds, with an admin tool.  Fucking thanks User:Cyrius, great editing there, you improved the encyclopedia. Sensevivid (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Placeholders have not been used nearly enough; judgment should still be used in using them (I'm against full-auto bots adding them), but we should look at ways of introducing much more systematic use throughout the entire project.  —CComMack (t–c) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I don't think there's any real problem with how they're currently applied; if there is, it's the one highlighted by CComMack above, that they haven't been used nearly enough. Terraxos (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I haven't seen issues with how the placeholder is being applied. I suggest there should be some mechanism by which editors can remove the placeholder and replace it with something that will indicate future editors/bots that the placeholder should not be re-added. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per Northwesterner, Sensevivid and others. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Comment -- Judiciousness should be made on the application of these placeholder images. So, agree with modifying how and when they are applied. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per Mangostar and others. There are biographies for which images will never be appropriate. Automatic or semi-automatic addition should be prohibited. –  j ak s mata  14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree - If you don't think a placeholder image belongs in an article, remove it. Common sense, not legislation. — Omegatron (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree The method by which they are applied is fine. A placeholder image is put into an article infobox, someone clicks onto the placeholder image to upload an image, the results are categorized and then reviewed. What's the big deal? Actually, it seems like a good idea. As for addressing mass posting of placeholder images, that would seem to fall under the rules for placing article space templates. Now, if you are talking about the image(s) used, then that is a different issue. GregManninLB (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is now closed as of Wednesday, April 23 (12.00 GMT/UTC)****

Side comments 1
Genisock, I think it would be appropriate for you to move your responses from the proposal section to a separate subsection (such as this) or to the discussion above. I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I however believe in logical debate rather than trying to trigger votes to early in the procedure.Genisock2 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * " . . too early?" Could you check your spelling and grammar before you post? I try to read your comments but I often find them difficult, if not impossible, to understand. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any issues that you think have not been talked about? I think this debate has been quite fair and thorough.Nrswanson (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The debate has hardly started. For example we are yet to consider why you appear to be in direct opposition to the "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license" part of the wikimedia foundation's mission.Genisock2 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you start this question as a new section, Geni. If you feel there is more to debate, you should take an active interest in shaping the conversation. I have a resounding answer to your new question: We're Not. But I look forward to seeing the debate play out in full. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.Genisock2 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Argument by not opening a question for argument is a better strategy?Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a strawman.Genisock2 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the education. Please find the logical error in this statement: Geni, if you feel that the debate has been insufficient and that a particular point hasn't been discussed, such as "Why are opponents of the placeholder image acting in direct opposition to the Wikimedia Foundation's stated philosophy?" please open a new section to discuss this question. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting).Genisock2 wrote: For example we are yet to consider why you appear to be in direct opposition to the "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license" part of the wikimedia foundation's mission. I really don't understand this assertion, and frankly find it rather disingenuous. Nothing I have read here indicates that those of us who do not favour the mass imposition of these amateurish ghost pictures are in direct opposition to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission. We are contending that there are alternative ways of furthering that mission that are less obtrusive, less detrimental to the articles' presentation (and perception by readers), and more in keeping with producing a high quality encyclopedia – presumably also one of the Foundation's key goals. Genisock2, it may well be that you think that the status quo is the only way to achieve the Foundation's goals. If so, fine, argue your case on that basis. But please do not argue on the basis that disagreeing with your method constitutes opposition to the Foundation's goals. That is an unfair distortion, and not very conducive to reaching a consensus which Northwesterner1, Kleinzach and others have been trying to facilitate here. Voceditenore (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "amateurish ghost pictures" Hmm you might want to take that up with Kleinzach who seemed to think they looked like stuff on commercial sites. "there are alternative ways of furthering that mission" indeed their are but since they are not mutually exclusive with the placeholder image method that doesn't actually provide you with a case. "less detrimental to the articles' presentation" Actually given that one aspect of good presentation tends to be uniformity of style they improve it. "and perception by readers" no evidence has been provided for this claim. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Acquiring free images is part of that progress So even a slight drop in quality now is worth it for free images in the long run. You also might want to read the foundation's mission statement. Responding to an attempt to increase the amount of free content with in effect variations on the theme of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT does in fact fall into the category of opposing the foundations goals. This is why any case you make must be logic and evidence based rather than emotion based.Genisock2 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... "amateurish" and "commercial" are not mutually exclusive. ;-) IMDb is a prime example. If "one aspect of good presentation tends to be uniformity of style", then why not have a uniform alternative method of soliciting free-content? I had already read the foundation's mission statement, thanks. However, I see nothing in it which is incompatible with what many of us have been arguing here. Continually citing WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is a distortion of what we have been saying here, as is your continued assertion that only one postion is a 'logical' one. In any case, I'll be away from my desk for the next week, so I'm signing off with best wishes to all for a fruitful discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Geni, Your response to Voceditenore is filled with the emotion-based rhetoric that you claim to have overcome.
 * Commercial sites that use such images can look amateurish too.
 * "Articles where Wikipedia does not have a free image should not use a placeholder image" is a uniform style rule.
 * Perception by readers: I'm a reader. I feel qualified to say how the image affects my perception of the article. Apparently, many other readers on this page agree with me. I'm also an educated and visually literate person who can make reasonable assumptions about how such images are "read" by Wikipedia's mass readership.
 * If you believe the debate should be logic and evidence based, I would appreciate you articulating some new questions in the section above that can be discussed at length, instead of taking your current approach of delivering 50+ one-liner comments scattered throughout the page, many of them sarcastic or repetitive, that do not contribute to moving the discussion forward.
 * If you think that what is going on here on this page and in the archived discussion is one long variation of "I don't like it," you're not paying attention. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)We have no idea if they site hired professional webdesigners but IMDb probably did
 * 2)Maybe but it doesn't result in a uniform style instead results in rather a lot of foreshortened infoboxes. This appears to be why the album people have Image:Nocover.png
 * 3)so when you run across an article with a placeholder in you become immediately suspicious of it's content?
 * 4)If people repeat the same arguments they should logically expect the same response if they haven't addressed that response.
 * 5)I pay attention. subjective aesthetic judgments appear to be the only consistent objections.Genisock2 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)Professionals create "amateurish" work too. The "ish" suffix means "similar to or in some way resembling."
 * 2)"Foreshortened infoboxes are acceptable if Wikipedia has no free image" is also a uniform style rule. You might object to that style rule, but you would be making a subjective aesthetic judgment; in my opinion you have every right to state such judgments, just don't pretend that you're not making a subjective aesthetic judgment or state that everyone else should stop doing the same.
 * 3)No, but it does affect my visual impression of the article, which may affect on some level my assessment of its content. Fortunately, I have additional tools to judge the content, including my familiarity with Wikipedia, my ability to look at the article history and footnotes, etc.; some first-time readers do not know how to use all those tools.
 * 4)I have repeatedly asked why you don't start a new question section(s) above to articulate whatever area(s) of the discussion you feel are lacking. Still awaiting your response.
 * 5)WP:SELF is not only about aesthetics. It is also about site functionality and professional standards of content. This is a multiform, substantive debate that you have repeatedly distorted and dismissed as if it is a debate about what color clothes Wikipedia should wear today.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to Self-references to avoid, I have yet to see a compelling argument that placeholders violate this guideline. It's a couple of days since I argued that it is at least ambiguous, but no-one has responded yet. --Cherry blossom tree 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because we think the arguement was already compellingly made and have nothing further to add. You might not view it as compelling but I do and so do a lot of other people apparently.Nrswanson (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked which section of Self-references to avoid is violated by image placeholders, which so far no-one has answered. If you can't answer this question then you cannot think that the argument has been compellingly made. You can still think that image placeholdrs are bad and should be removed, but you cannot use Self-references to avoid to support your argument. --Cherry blossom tree 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I believe (a) the placeholder violates the "letter" of the guideline with "click here," although I acknowledge this can be fixed with a redesign; (b) the placeholder violates the "letter" of the guideline with the inability to be automatically omitted from print versions of the article and articles mirrored elsewhere; proponents have claimed this can't be fixed by a redesign; (c) the placeholder is explicitly discouraged by the section, "Limited use of self-references are sometimes found in the Template namespace and the Category namespace, such as with disambiguation and stub notices. Expanding this to other areas is not encouraged"; and most importantly (d) it violates the "spirit" of the guideline, insofar as the reasons that led editors to write WP:SELF in the first place are the same reasons I oppose the image placeholder. The image placeholder may not be specifically singled out and identified in WP:SELF; however, I think the guiding principle that a Wikipedia article should not have a big red arrow pointing to itself applies to this case. Like NrSwanson, I think most people have made up their minds on this point; which is to say, they find the arguments presented above compelling one way or the other. Don't be offended that no one responded to your point. This discussion is large and unwieldy. I bet many people, like me, listened to your point and weighed it against their own beliefs and interpretations of WP:SELF and factored it into their thinking.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a) I don't believe that anyone actually has the use of "click here" at the heart of their objection, but as you point out, if they did the way to fix it would be with a redesign rather than deleting it.
 * b) Self-references to avoid doesn't make any reference to whether something can be automatically omitted from a print version.
 * c) It's not clear what "expanding this to other areas" means but I'm not at all sure that it discourages image placeholders. At the very most, it means 'don't do things like this unless you have a good reason.'
 * d) As I recall it, Self-references to avoid was written to discourage people from writing things like "this comedian once told a joke about Wikipedia" or "this is a bit like how we do things at Wikipedia." These placeholders are entirely within the spirit of this guideline, which explicitly permits the use of housekeeping notices.
 * Thankyou for your comments - I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Don't worry - I wasn't offended. At least not by that. --Cherry blossom tree 09:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Side comments 2
Re: vote of-


 * Disagree. I don't believe they have been haphazardly added and see no reason to invent some kind of rule about who can add this image to article; editors who disagree with the addition can remove it or take it to the talk page. Northwesterner1's (b) proposal can come into effect upon our deadline. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- when the first wave of widespread placement of placeholders was implemented by David Gerard in Oct 2007, I disagreed with its placement but was told off by said David Gerard, a WikiMedia Foundation employee, that when it comes to any discussion of whether an editor can remove the images, that they cannot do so as the placeholder is in the spirit of WikiMedia's goal of getting free images. He told me it would be fruitless to argue as the big elders of WikiMedia support this. So, regarding "editors who disagree with the addition can remove it or take it to the talk page", that doesn't seem to be the case. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Guroadrunner (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly confident that David Gerard is not a paid employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and assuming I'm looking at the correct discussion (his talk page in October) he didn't claim to be. He also made no comment as to whether other editors could remove these placeholders and I know that he has agreed not to add the placeholder to those articles where regular editors don't want it. See his talk page, for instance. If there's more discussion that I haven't found, then can you link to it? Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 13:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair. I incorrectly stated he was a paid employee. As I understand it, he is some sort of employee for the Foundation. You are looking at the correct conversation.
 * Not to bring this dispute into discussion on this page, I'll back it up that my feelings that we cannot remove placeholders come from his words: "[The placeholders] produce free content contributions of pictures, which is this thing called the 'mission of the foundation.' You are welcome to try to vote out the Foundation mission in an RFC if you feel that's productive " That was in response to saying not to add them. Also, when a placeholder is removed, it seems to get put back in on the next round of AWB edits. However, you are right that he has agreed to section off certain areas from these widespread applications. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he was justifying his decision to add the placeholders, rather than saying you can't remove them, but it's really up to him to clarify. --Cherry blossom tree 13:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not gone through to read the discussion you are describing but I agree with many points raised here. Adding (or removing) the placeholder without discussion before on the talk page is part of the normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Should you strongly disagree with the addition (or removal) of a placeholder image, revert and explain on the talk page. Further changes should await a consensus through that discussion. Only if something is against a core policy WP:Five Pillars should this be circumvented, even if one is an employee of the foundation or Jimbo himself. The fact that these placeholders correspond with the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is what frustrates me the most about some of the disagreements about these placeholder images. There seems to be a feeling that we don't want to encourage and welcome new editors but that's the whole spirit and difference of Wikipedia with other projects. I doubt any of us would have contributed to this project had we not felt welcome to contribute. It's generally vandals who don't care if they are encouraged to contribute or not that attack websites. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)