Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Changing the world

That is indeed a fantastic image for unrequited love. I've also had protest images I took appear widely in the media; it's cool because it's a much more direct way to see the impact of Wikipedia editing than you generally get editing text. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd love to get images I've taken used in the media. I've taken a few pictures of campaign rallies - no notable protests yet, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No picture of mine is so poignant or seems to have become wonderfully prominent, but dozens have been published in books, magazines, and Websites. Unsung Hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as a matter of fact, this is what is wrong with WP images. How do we know that the photographer didn't set up the photo himself or herself? We don't, and I am really suspicious about the reality of this claim. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that in any way specific to images on Wikipedia? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that should be raised, perhaps in a separate column, because it is at the core of what both Wikipedia and the free-culture movement at large are all about. It baffles me how professional journalists, who are no doubt educated in copyright to some degree, simply can't get one simple line right: "Photo: 'JMI students and locals protesting against CAA NRC' by DiplomatTesterMan, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0." Publishers should stop treating free content simply as a gratis resource and start valuing it as an important manifestation of how reporting has been democratized. It has already changed how journalism works, for the better, and it is high time to show some appreciation. We're in this together. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing to see. At least with American sources, it's rare for a recognizable publication to just omit attribution altogether, but many will do something like "by Wikimedia Commons" or the like. If it's a particularly well-known source doing that, I might tweet at them or something (Psychology Today and Business Insider come to mind) but there's just too much to try to police (assuming that's something one really wants to do in the first place). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing this. I did a little lightning talk for Wikipedia Day NYC a few years ago on the same subject (the reach/value of protest photos contributed to Commons/Wikipedia). I'd been documenting protests in the NYC area and saw they just kept getting used in various media (big and small, from across the political spectrum). Many of those photos are still finding new use, and probably will continue to do so as long as the issues remain relevant to the news. I find this argument -- the wide use of photos if they're used on Wikipedia -- one of the most persuasive when trying to convince people to donate theirs. You can also use tools like Glamorous and Glamorgan to see how many of your uploads are being used on Wikimedia projects and how many pageviews those articles receive. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be referred to with 'she' pronoun? I got confused when User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender userscript shows the user's desired pronoun to be 'she' when the article is referring to her as 'he' in the article. A stroll through her userpage also affirms that the user wants to be referred to with 'she' pronoun. – robertsky (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've made the correction. Please note that this is the editor-in-chief;\'s mistake, not the author's. It's something as EIC that I'm specifically supposed to check. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)