Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 6: Do placeholders help discourage editors from uploading non-free (i.e. fair use) images?

I routinely patrol biographies of living persons in support of our fair use policies. In particular in this case, the observance of the edict by the Foundation (Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy) that fair use images of living people are emminently replaceable, and thus we do not accept fair use images for depiction purposes of living people. In removing fair use images of living people under this policy, I routinely replace the images in use with the place holder images. I have noticed a significant trend where if I replace the image with one of these place holders, the chance that someone will put another fair use image up in place of it is greatly reduced compared to the lack of using the place holder images. This has made policing fair use image use of living people considerably easier. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is a benefit hard to prove as true. But assuming it is, I don't think that it out weighs the negatives.Nrswanson (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If absolutely necessary, I can develop some stats on that. I'm giving you what I see from my experience as clearly the case. What I call the recidivism rate of fair use images onto articles with the place holder is very, very low. As to the negatives, I personally haven't read all of the above, just enough to ascertain if my point here was covered. That said, I don't find there to be much in the way of negatives. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Maybe. I think this can be fairly considered an additional benefit. However, I don't think it outweighs other concerns. It also would be an argument against using the placeholder on the biographies of recently deceased people. Fair use images are acceptable on those articles, aren't they? We don't want to discourage them there, right? (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) Several people have claimed that the placeholder is recommended only for bios of living persons; however, I have found it on numerous bios of recently deceased persons (i.e. 20th century). If it is being mistakenly applied to those articles or causes confusion about what kind of images are appropriate there, that's a potential problem.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I voiced below, I think the needs of a policy (WP:NFCC) outweigh the needs of a guideline (WP:SELF). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an odd way of framing it. Having no images on articles where we don't have free images is perfectly compatible with WP:NFCC. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw man. I didn't state that, and never argued that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: You weighed the "needs of a policy" against the "needs of a guideline." As I see it, the need of the policy is that living bios shouldn't use fair-use images. The need of the guideline is that Wikipedia articles shouldn't be self-referential. So getting rid of the placeholders meets the need of the guideline and has no clear effect on the need of the policy. You're suggesting that the placeholder makes enforcement of that policy easier but it doesn't change the fact that articles without images are also in compliance. I made the argument above because I thought you were suggesting that the "need" of the NFCC policy is that we take every possible measure to get free images; that doesn't seem to me to be need of the policy at all.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The need of the policy is not to have fair use images used to depict living people. When the place holders are used, the incident rate of having such images used for that purpose drops significantly. I use this technique on articles where I find fair use images, replacing them with the place holder. I used to do it without the place holder, and ran into considerable resistance. On articles where no images exist, I don't put a place holder. I use it as a tool to combat fair use non-compliance which is a policy issue, not a guideline issue. I never argued that articles without images are not in compliance; that's a straw man. It has nothing to do with the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Northwesterner1 raises a good point. This is just another reason that these image placeholders should not be placed by automated or semi-automated means.Nrswanson (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Northwesterner1's point is addressed by editors updating articles of deceased people. That's just routine maintenance. Should we also not add Category:Living people to articles because those people will die someday and we don't want to cause a problem for the article when the person dies? Of course not. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the major points of contention Hammersoft is that these placeholders are being put on articles on mass by a handful of editors who can't have possibly read all the articles or known whether or not the image placeholder was appropriate for that article or not. They also are not keeping there eye on such articles.Nrswanson (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean "recently deceased" as in they died last month and the article hasn't been updated. I have found the placeholder on numerous articles of people who died in the 70s or 80s or earlier. It's being placed on many articles other than living person bios.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then remove the place holders on those articles. That's a non-issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Twenty percent times 50,000 articles is 10,000 articles. I don't see how that's a non-issue. I could easily say about your anecdote about watching over the bio articles, then "just remove the non-free images." Instead, I said you have a legitimate point.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stats. Of the first twenty images linked to the female placeholder, four are deceased. Gia Carangi, Kathleen Kenyon, Ruth Gordon, Sophie Germain. Three are twentieth-century figures who died in the 1970s or 1980s. One (Germain) has been dead 1831. If you're arguing in favor of the placeholders on the grounds that they help educate editors about "fair use"/"free" images, I will argue that in these four cases (20% of the sample) they are actually misleading editors about what kinds of images are usable. Now, the proponents will say that the guidelines discourage the use of the placeholder on any articles other than living person bios; however, the practice is somewhat less clear.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't my argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a one-on-one debate. I feel justified in addressing the arguments of others presented elsewhere on this page when it seems relevant to this discussion.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: No. Looking through Category:Images of people replacing placeholders it’s obvious that many people continue to upload copyright violations. I doubt there can be a system that would discourage a determined copyright violator or someone who simply doesn’t read anything except “click here”. –  j ak s mata  21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: No. I would have to concur with Jaksmata's assessment.Nrswanson (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: No. per Jaksmata. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Side conversations

 * Well you are certainly welcome to gather statistics. On my part, I view place holders as a violation of Wikipedia Self so your statistics would not influence me either way. They may, however, be of interest to others.Nrswanson (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find WP:SELF to convincing personally. As noted elsewhere above, there's other templates this argument applies to and we haven't axed those. Further, it's common knowledge that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Asking for free imagery via the very article the subject is about seems a great way to generate interest in developing free works. I also see WP:NFCC's (a policy) outweighing those of WP:SELF (a guideline). To remove these place holders when they do so much good upholding NFCC seems counter intuitive to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note the extensive list of self referencing things at SELF. We seem to accept those. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Any objections to moving this up as a subquestion of question 2 above -- are placeholders effective in soliciting new images?

Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * None by me. Also Northwesterner1 already addressed your arguements about WP Self above Hammersoft. I a gree with him and nrswanson.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to some of it being moved. I do object to the point being raised that these place holders help us keep within policy should remain a separate section. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Broadweighbabe, I think Hammersoft is making a new point. We've already discussed whether the placeholders help bring in new free images. As I understand it, Hammersoft is arguing further that the placeholders help keep out fair use images, which is a compelling argument and I think worthy of discussion. Hammersoft, I don't understand what you do and don't object to... do you want to make the move yourself?Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood perfectly Northwesterner1. I was refering to his arguements about WP self if you read my comment carefully.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for misunderstanding. In any case, it seems to me we should disentangle these two questions -- WP:SELF and the fair use rationale.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this section deserves to be made into one of the 'Questions' so it will be easier to find and take an appropriate place in the debate. I trust that acceptable to everybody. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies to Northwesterner1, I didn't notice your suggestion to move this to Question 2, until after I had created Question 6. In my defence, I think this illustrates just how difficult it has become to negotiate this page (currently 154 k). I am in a different time zone from most of you. This morning (my time) I tried to read all the comments made in the night, but obviously missed some.


 * I have been urging the creation of subpages to make this page easier to access, but also to allow multiple pages to be covered by our watchlists so we can see where the action is happening. I'd appreciate some support on this, see here. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A 6th question seems good.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional question
If it is not too late, I would like to ask whether the use of the placeholder images on articles about dead people (eg. William Henry Perkin, Jr. (I mentioned this at User talk:David Gerard and have that article on my watchlist, and from there found my way here), discourages people from adding fair-use pictures? In some cases of dead people, there will not be any free pictures, and the choice is between writing to someone to ask for a currently non-free picture to be freely licensed, or deciding on a fair use. Of course, as you go back in time, you will start to find public domain pictures, but it is entirely possible that some articles of dead people will have image placeholders on them until existing images drop into the public domain - in some cases that could be decades. Was that really the intention of placeholder images? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)