File talk:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg

Regarding pixelated reality vs. transparent fantasy

As a means of redacting the trademarked rooster logo seen in the source image, obscuring through pixelation seems preferable to artificial blank space. A pixelated field in the image makes the redaction explicit to viewers of the image (as it's used within various Wiki articles) without placing a burden upon readers to consult an image's file page in order to become appraised of the reality of the situation. Seems to better embody principles of 'least surprise' and honest representation than a digitally contrived blank space. As in reality the existence of a logo (ie. 'of something') printed on the space in question is a readily observable fact. Having 'something' in place seems better than faking 'nothing' -- at least so far as facilitating accurate encyclopedic communication to readers of the various WikiMedia projects which make use of this image.

This matter was recently addressed in talk page discussion on one of the wikis wherein the image is used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sriracha_sauce_%28Huy_Fong_Foods%29#Infobox_bottle_image

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, I don't intend to disparage the graphist who made the previous blank space alteration. I think it was actually quite well done. To my eye they seamlessly created clear space which matched the rest of the bottle as a replacement for the trademarked rooster logo. A pragmatic solution at the time -- when controversy over the permissibility of displaying the logo came up -- and quite well executed from a graphist's perspective. However, unfortunately, some of us have come to the opinion that, in retrospect, it was a bit too well done. So natural as to risk confusing/misleading those who view it in an encyclopedic context. In light of such, it now seems that some form of explicit obvious redaction would be preferable. While such might not be as visually attractive in and of itself, it would perhaps better serve the purposes of conveying information in an encyclopedic context.

In the Wikipedia discussion I linked previously, using a sort of digital 'sticker' noting "logo redacted" or some such to cover the rooster image was also proposed as an option. I opted for pixelation as it seemed more of a common modern solution for such issues; black 'censored' bars/ellipses and such seem a bit dated/out of vogue to me (though in practice they would still be effective in swiftly and simply communicating to viewers that redaction has taken place without need to look further).

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kevjonesin if you want a alternative version then upload it with a different file name. COM:OVERWRITE Offnfopt^(talk) 22:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Offnfopt that you have attempted to cite a policy which you yourself did not follow previously when overwriting the source file with your digital construction further leads me to suspect that you may be exhibiting territoriality for territoriality sake rather than giving consideration to the Commons mission of supporting a family of Wikimedia projects et al. Adapting this file which is already in use seems much more elegant than creating an alternate and then interacting with multiple other wikis/articles to carry the change through to all readers. Or are you perhaps offering to take responsibility for doing the 'legwork' and seeing such through yourself? If not, please step aside and allow a bit of wiki pragmatism to proceed in the interest of disseminating honest reference material to the viewers of the various WikiMedia projects affected. You are of course free to upload your digital construction under another filename if you like. Something one presumes you would have done already if staying within the letter-of-the-law of COM:OVERWRITE was of honest concern to you.

If you wish to be stickler for applying COM:OVERWRITE in this instance, please lead the way by doing so yourself and I will consider doing so as well if you so insist. Otherwise, please recognize that three other editors (Brianhe, Jonathunder, and Kevjonesin) have expressed[1] the opinion that pixelation or a 'redaction sticker' would better serve current usage than an artificial blank space and allow the change we've endorsed to proceed without further hindrance.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Kevjonesin my edit was made to the file because if I didn't edit the file it would have been deleted due to copyright issues. If you look at the file history you will notice you are unable to revert prior to my version because it has been deleted by a admin, due to copyright issues. Just because you prefer your version does not mean every group and every project and every individual who may want to use the media will think the same as you. By overwriting the file you are removing the ability of choice. If you upload your version as I stated with a different filename, that gives a choice. If the English Wikipedia comes to a consensus that they prefer to use your image, that is fine and they can change the English article to reflect that by changing the article to point to your new file name. The image is used on other wikis such as the Vietnamese Wikipedia, they could come to a completely different consensus than the English Wikipedia. Don't make assumptions that your version is best for everyone. You have already spent more effort typing up these allegations against me than it would have took to upload your image under a different filename. As I noted above, if you want to use your alternative version you should upload it under a different filename. Offnfopt^(talk) 10:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

p.s.— I don't need to have my name on the endorsed update, my interest is primarily in presenting an honest and informative image to viewers who encounter it presented as reference material. Offnfopt, if the matter comes down accommodating your sense of ownership by having your name on the file in use, please feel free to take on making some version of the proposed alteration yourself and then submit your own version (with the rooster logo covered or obscured as we've proposed, rather than removed and reconstructed). An opportunity perhaps for you to feel empowered as part of an endorsed change rather than through opposition to it.

Personally, I think some sort of blur/distortion (such as pixelation) is preferable to a 'digital sticker'. Distortions (rather than 'stickers') may still conveys some hint of the form, color, etc. of what has been redacted to benefit the viewer while still effectively addressing trademark concerns. But perhaps you'll arrive at some '3rd option' yet to be considered that still both addresses the original trademark concern while also explicitly revealing that redaction has taken place. If you'd like to take 'an easy route' you even have my permission to simply re-upload the pixelated version I uploaded previously under your own user name as I'm more concerned with function than attribution in this matter. Regardless, please implement as you will and upload the updated version here for consideration by your fellow editors (under same filename, over previous version, so as to carry the upgrade through to existing implementations). Thanks in advance for kind consideration and a cooperative community spirit, --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Offnfopt, if orthodoxy and a strict interpretation of COM:OVERWRITE is to be the priority than indeed this page should have been deleted and another started for your digital reconstruction. As your choice not to do so has already brought us into the realm of pragmatic adaptation I would personally prefer to proceed with further pragmatic adaptation. However, if you wish to insist on a stiff approach then I suppose we can both start alternate file pages and then have this one deleted for copyright violation (as it likely should have been in the first place). Frankly, I find your stance of slack for you and strict orthodoxy for others rather off-putting. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Kevjonesin this issue is resolved. The conclusion is if you want a alternative version, you will need to upload it under a different file name. What is contained in that alternative version is up to your discretion. I am not taking on requests for edits from you. If you want a alternative version that ball is in your court, but that alternative version should be under a alternative filename. To keep things as civil as I can, I'm ending on this comment and won't reply to your other assertions. Offnfopt^(talk)

Regarding: “... this issue is resolved. The conclusion is ...”, Offnfopt, that you presume on your own to unilaterally make such assertions does little to assuage my concerns that I may be interacting with someone feeding a sense of entitlement by attempting to exert personal ownership over a community resource. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The pixelated version is now here: File:PixelatedHuyFongSriracha.jpg Jonathunder (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tnx Jonathunder, I see you've applied such to the en:Wikipedia article. That at least serves as a 'stop gap' solution while the forthgoing status of this page gets determined. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything further needed here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Kevjonesin Jonathunder has already done the steps you wouldn't, so you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. My action followed commons policy and I gave you sensible reasons to revert you overwriting the file. Jonathunder has uploaded the image under a different filename and there is no reason to continue this discussion. Offnfopt^(talk) 15:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Summation and deletion considerations

I find it noteworthy that while user:Offnfopt tried to make ‘an appeal to authority’ (by bringing forth COM:OVERWRITE, a policy he himself initiated divergence from in the first place), he has yet to offer any practical or aesthetic rationale as to why digitally constructing false blank space might be preferable to some more overt manner of redacting the trademarked rooster logo which was visible in Kimsey0's original upload. It’s my feeling that while fake blank space -- artificial clear plastic over a faux field of sauce digitally contrived in place of the rooster logo -- may serve to address protecting Commons from the vague possibility of a lawsuit and look pretty in isolation it fails to fully take usage within in the broader context of Commons’ sister sites like Wikipedia and Wiktionary into account. When placed within sites intended to serve as sources of public research and reference information Offnfopt’s construction becomes a visual lie. Inaccurate and misleading. Rather than expecting the viewer to seek further to discover they’re viewing a significantly altered image by proceeding from a wiki article to notes on an image file page or burdening wiki editors with responsibility for explaining the image’s inaccuracy on article pages and viewers with taking in such written qualifiers, would it not be more elegant to just make the fact that redaction has occurred visually explicit in the first place? It seems so to me, and others have concurred. Alternative means of redaction have been proposed. Yet a visually dishonest image still remains in place under the filename of a straight forward Flickr upload due to user:Offnfopt’s having chosen to uploaded his personal digital creation under the same name over the original rather than adhere to COM:OVERWRITE himself and start a fresh page with a title distinguishing it from the original.

When others sought to update the file with an image that not only addresses Commons’ legal concerns but also seeks to better accommodate usage on other Wikimedia sites by retaining a greater degree of visual information from the original and explicitly visually indicating within the image itself that redaction has occurred Offnfopt swiftly and glibly (offered a brief unilateral assertion rather than nuanced response) reverted without initiating further discussion and then when question is raised asserts that the very policy he himself disregarded should protect his upload from edits by others seeking change.

Personally, in this instance, I think simply overwriting the current image with a new version which addresses the explicit redaction concerns put forth previously might aptly serve folks' best interests, but I do recognize that to do so would technically digress from strict adherence to COM:OVERWRITE and would require cordial agreement (or at least some sort of consensus) to allow for the variance. It is largely that the ‘fake blank space’ version currently in place in practice when applied in Wikimedia sister projects makes for an objectionable sort of visual lie to which I object. Allowing it to remain in place as a stand-in for the original upload when better options exist seems obtuse and ridiculous to me.

Anyway, at this point it seems clear that cordial consensus does not exist for variance from COM:OVERWRITE as I object to having Offnfopt’s version in place here and he seems to object to having any other option than his own in place here. So it seems to me what we are left with is the option to return to ‘the-letter-of-the-law’ and delete this, File:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg, page if indeed as it appears the file originally presented under this name was deemed* *(when, how, and by whom? I've not actually found any record of discussion on the matter; it be just be another example of Offnfopt acting unilaterally) to be at risk of incurring copyright violation liability. If indeed there was (or is determined to be) some sort of consensus on Commons that the rooster logo on a bottle within a larger scene as documented within in the original photo was of legitimate liability concern technically the page should have been (should be) removed from Commons. User:Offnfopt may upload his digital alteration under another different and distinct filename as per COM:OVERWRITE if he so chooses.

Unless someone else wishes to take responsibility for inter-wiki ‘housekeeping’ that might be necessitated by deletion, I’m willing to take on informing other projects currently linking this image and offer links to alternatives as needed.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to delete this file that I can see. Both versions exist under different names, which is fine. Let's move on. Jonathunder (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)