Commons talk:Project scope
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.|
"Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use"
I have boldly changed this example, strengthening it to "Artwork without obvious educational use." There are two reasons I would like this change to stick:
- The current text causes confusion in deletion discussions, as it can encourage the view that Commons does not welcome self-created artwork which does have value for reusers. Examples of positive use are self-created illustrative maps for political and legal changes, which are impossible to source elsewhere.
- The constraint "by the uploader" is irrelevant, whether the artist is a Commons contributor or not should make absolutely no difference to whether the file is considered of sufficient cultural, educational or historical value to be hosted on Commons.
- I have no complaint with your 'stronger' version. The real intent of this point, as I see it, is to simply rule out 'random' paintings or drawings created by artists of no note (usually self-uploaded for promotional purposes). This is still covered by your version, without the possible issues you mentioned above. Revent (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, though we should remember in deletion discussions that this is one item in a non-exhaustive non-definitive list of examples. The only rule that matters is "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose." which is quite broad. The "obvious" adjective is overly restrictive if that was actually a rule rather than an example, because for many the only obvious educational use of images is to illustrate Wikipedia. It takes a bit more consideration to regard some images as being useful for an educational purpose (for example, conveying a mood or illustrating an abstract concept) rather than just being a documentary photograph of some object. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- No concerns, makes sense. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jarekt (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- No objections to stronger wording. The intent was to make it very clear that we don't encourage hobby-artists to upload collections of non-educational artworks for the purpose of showcasing their artistic skills as some do for example at DeviantArt. As this is a pretty regular and specific issue, I think we should continue to mention it: "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills". I've boldly made the change, but would be happy to discuss here if need be. There is some overlap with 'self-promotion', but this may be less blatant. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rather agree. May be we could develop as it may be that the fact that the creation is done by a professional can encourage say that it is relevant, but it is not. "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's or creator's skills, that he is amateur or professional". -- Christian Ferrer 17:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The example is stronger without clarification or caveats. As I originally stated, we are better off if deletion discussions focus on the image and its cultural, historical or educational value to reusers, not who uploaded it or hold a position of bad faith if the artist is not 'professional' (presumably this means that they are paid for their work rather than an artist that creates their work purely for pleasure). --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- It may be a language issue as I never talked about the uploader. It simply states that the fact that the artist or creator (not the uploader of course! nor the photographer) is a proffessional is not enough to say that his works are useful to the project and is not an argument, there is nothing of strong by saying that. Unfortunately all proffessional and creator don't produce useful thing, it's a fact. -- Christian Ferrer 05:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)