Commons:Valued image candidates/Cheating.JPG/Archive of previous reviews

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Studio shot for illustrating cheating at an exam. The best illustration of cheating on Wikimedia IMO. Not geocoded in accordance to the exceptions in the guidelines. -- Slaunger 14:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really illustrative for the secret cheating, clearly just a setup. --Foroa 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would you always find studio shots of related subjects as unworthy for VI? IMO, there are some advantages of the studio shot. Time can be spend on setting up a composition, where the subject of the image can be clearly illustrated. Chances are that a real photo of secret cheating, would be much harder to clearly associate with the subject of cheating due to a much lower photographic quality. I think this is subtantiated by the fact that the image is used in three different content pages on en alone and in several other wikis. This indicates usefulnes for WMF projects and underlines the VI scope, that at the time of nomination it is the best illustration of its kind. Should a better image come by from "real world" secret cheating later, that can always throw this image of its VI throne in a Most Valued Image review. I also find the history of this photo interesting in this context. It is actually made on request from a wiki, the English AFAIK, and I think the VI stamp is appropriate recognition for someone taking the time to setup the scenario and make the work available to WMF projects. -- Slaunger 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have nothing against studiowork but on this picture, one clearly sees it as a setup and it simply does not stand out. It is not because we have no other "speaking" pictures on cheating that we have to accept anything for it as valued image. The picture has its value because it is being used, but is does not mean because it is the only one that it must be nominated. --Foroa 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for clarifying your views about studiowork. That helped me understanding your POV. I agree the image does not have to be nominated, but here we consider its candidacy in case it is nominated. In this case I think it qualifies for VI - for the time being. If another user comes by wondering: Is that really a VI? I can do that much better! or I know a more valuable image on Commons of that subject! Well, then I think it is great if that user demonstrates this and nominates a new Image for VI competing with this one in a "Most valuable Review". If the new image is found more valuable, the original is demoted (if we follow the MVR proposal regarding delisting - the alternative is Once a VI, always a VI). -- Slaunger 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree with Fora. I actually think that being a setup is in favor of the picture, as otherwise it could be mis-interpreted as an endorsement of cheating. As it is, this picture is to be taken more like a diagram illustrating an abstract idea. As cheating is supposed to be secret, if it where caught on camera it would be an example of unsuccessful cheating. It manages to capture the idea without being merely an example of an instance of an abstract concept. Now if only there was something like this illustrating Truancy! --Inkwina (talk contribs) 06:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The best image we have of the generic idea of cheating at an exam. Seems to fit all the criteria. -- MichaelMaggs 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Status: 2 support, 1 oppose 
=> Promoted -- Slaunger 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)