Commons talk:Project scope
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.|
Someone else raised this in 2008 to no response - what is the policy on faked or misrepresented images? Presumably they should be described accurately as such in their description, but is Commons still serving an educational purpose by hosting them? I flagged a photoshopped videophone image for deletion recently on the grounds that it was an inaccurate representation of the device in use but the image was kept with the argument that the it was in use on Wikipedia pages (making it automatically educational under COM:INUSE) and its fakeness was "an issue for discussion on the Wiki pages where it appears".
Is that Commons policy on educational use - that a misleading image clearly described as such is still educational, and it's up to the end user (whether they're a Wikipedia editor or a teacher searching Google for a commons-licenced photo of a Tandberg E20 videophone) to read the small print and use the image accordingly? Should this be mentioned in the project scope? --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Commons:File naming is sufficient to cover this. File names have to be accurate and meaningful. So, as a corollary, we can say that fake images have to be named in a way that makes their 'fakeness' clear. As an example, a photograph of an impersonator of the Queen, should not be named "Queen Elizabeth in London.jpg" but something like "Queen Elizabeth impersonator in London.jpg". Getting this right in the file name is a lot better than just relying on saying something somewhere on the image page.
- As for the main point, plenty of altered or constructed images have educational value and are in scope. Others that are simply nonsense, vanity publishing, spam etc. and have no clear educational value are out of scope. In this scenario, the scope policy is already sufficient without having to add caveats, though you might consider if there are edgy examples that could be part of a useful reference case book. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Should that extend to including something like "photoshopped" or "artist's impression" in a filename, where an image has been altered in a way that has (as here by casually photoshopping a simple fullscreen image onto a videophone) rendered it more illustrative than accurate? --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Misleading images no 2
With regards to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macedonia (region) borders - mk.png:
- the file's title is deceiptful with regards to what is being shown. This has been the prime reason it was recommended for deletion as renaming to an appropriate title was reverted. A file rename was conducted from the old Macedonia borders - mk.png to Macedonian irredentism to make the image useful in this function, adding the respective category (Irredentism). The file got renamed again to Macedonia (region) border -mk.png, this time having the (region) part as an assertion that this is about the geographic region and not about the country, and the irredentist category has been removed.
- In the policy page (text section) it is mentioned that neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible, and in any event neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation. So if the file is not to be renamed in order to reflect what the image shows, or the title stays and the image colours change, it is in violation of the policy as it certainly is provocative and a mockery. Furthermore, an extra reason for at least renaming the file as per the Commons:Deletion_policy#Self-promotion_or_vandalism.2Fattack is that designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept. In other words it's perfectly fine to host nationalistic, fake, or otherwise POV material as they can be used for this purpose and they are clearly indicated as such. This is not the case here.
- An example of an accurate title and depiction is at File:Region of Macedonia and present states borders.png where the file in question derives from. Gts-tg (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The above is the same text I used while asking for reconsideration from the admin that decided to keep the file, however the answer was anything but helpful and rather ironic, so I am addressing the community here, while at the same time I see that very similar points are mentioned in the case above. Gts-tg (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
"... collection of holiday snaps and so on". Does a person have to specify that any and all images were not taken while they were on a holiday? The wording implies that they have to make a specific trip to take an image and not load images taken during holidays. ... or we can change the wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- With holiday snaps we mean pics where you or your friends are smiling on it while binge drinking at the beach. But if you do pics of a castle or museum then that's totally fine also to do that while being on holiday.--Sanandros (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not used section to tbe presised
Ellin asked me on my talk about some DRs which I closed to explain them. These DRs were some duplicated files in different formats. I told here that I keep them because of history and because some people outside of wikimedia could prefer the jpg format instead of png and svg formats. Now she asks to eventually specify this not used policy. I'd like to know if we need that or not.--Sanandros (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)