Talk:Main Page/Archive 144

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 142

→

On This Day: Nixon Pardoned

Just a suggestion, but I think the blurb about Ford's pardon of Nixon should be tweaked so that Pardon gets the bold, as the pardon was the important event of the day, and it should be directed to Presidency_of_Gerald_Ford#Nixon_pardon instead of the generic Pardon article. That way people looking for info on the pardon (as I was - I wanted to read the text of the pardon) have but to click the bolded Pardon. Just my 2 cents. Arakunem^Talk 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Been here nearly 3 years, and still not WP:BOLD enough to mess with the front page. :) Arakunem^Talk 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Samoa flag next to Norwegian topic

The top item is Norwegian, with the Samoa flag pictured next to it. Then, in the second topic, Samoa is mentioned including a reference to the pictured flag. To me as a first impression this is counter-feeling. But it might be acceptable in internet-publishing? -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a FAQ Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why are the images on "In the news" and "On this day" not aligned next to each relevant entry?. Basically it's a technical issue, and you're supposed to look for the (pictured) label. Not ideal, but *shrug*. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, we agree on "not ideal". Having read the FAQ-answer, I understand it is not (browser-, HTML-, database-)technical, but more on the organisation of templates used on Main Page and elsewhere. I could research the deeper answers, or maybe sandbox the insert another layer of template for Main Page-only. But not today ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Influenza prevention

Due to the beginning of the school season and the coming of cooler weather, along with a recent story that 2,000 students at Washington State University are infection with H1N1 influenza A, I think the article influenza prevention should be prominently displayed somewhere on the Wikipedia homepage because it would be a very important public service announcement that could potentially save lives.

I realize that this article is not a traditional Wikipedia article that would appear prominently. Given the threat of the prospect of a resurgence of the pandemic H1N1/09 virus in the Northern Hemisphere in the coming months of cold weather, I believe traditional Wikipedia policies should be forgone in order to engage in a public service that would likely be responsible for the saving of human life.

Here is my argument:

Websites that convey crucial information about the preventive measures people can take to drastically reduce their chances of becoming infected with swine flu are very under-trafficked. All that needs to be observed is the reach of given websites. Important sites that deliver concise, crucial information have the following traffic rankings (all according to Alexa.com and current as of 09/08/11):

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention website (at[3]) is currentlty the 2,266th most visited website on the Internet, with a reach of 0.064% of global users visiting the page.[4]
Similarly, the website for the World Health Organization (at [5]) is the 3,126th most visited webpage on the Internet, with a reach of 0.027% of Internet users visiting the site.[6]
Wikipedia, on the other hand, is the 6th most visited site on the Internet with 9.96% of Internet users vising the site.[7]

Given recent stories in the news that indicate that up to half of the people in the United States could become infected[8], up to 90,000 people may die from the virus[9](and largely young people, as they are more susceptible to the virus; young people also belong to the demographic that uses Wikipedia the most), and the fact that the vaccine for H1N1 will not be widely available until approximatley the likely time the virus peaks[10], it is clear that if Wikipedia were to create a simple information page that contains a short and clear indication of simple, preventive measures, it seems clear that, even if one human life is saved (which is certain to be the case if this is implemented) it would not only justify the breeching of standard, accepted policies of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion on the "Main Page", but it would also be morally imperative, and I believe Wikipedia would have an obligation to create such an article and display it prominently. This all being said, the content I have added to the article is a mere proposal, and additions, deletions, and alterations are obviously welcome.

I hope my arguments are clear and have been thoughtfully considered. Thank you. Sagan666 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the aims are laudable, Wikipedia is not a public health site. Remember, more people die of malaria and dysentery than of swine flu (at least at the moment), yet we don't post big notices telling people to use mosquito nets or boil their water. Furthermore, I would rather see vulnerable people directed to more, uh, assured sources of information; can you imagine what would happen when such an article got vandalised? There's also a slippery slope here - if you're really concerned, start directing people to the WHO site. Also, remember Wikipedia readers are not restricted to the US. Modest Genius ^talk 03:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also slightly uncomfortable at how that article mostly consists of copy-pasted advice from the WHO and CDC. Modest Genius ^talk 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually against this proposal. Obviously, such a proposal shouldn't be given as prominent position as ITN or the Featured Article, however a short blurb somewhere on the page (possible down the bottom near the Featured Media) would reach a significant amount of the population. While the H1N1 virus is currently nowhere near comparable to malaria, such diseases are largely endemic to poorer nations, and those most at risk unlikely to have access to wikipedia. In the Western world however, there is a large opportunity to spread awareness, saving lives. A "Public Service" statement somewhere on the page might actually be a good idea :) Iciac (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone form the (temperate) Southern Hemisphere where we're coming out of the winter months now and it's not so cold (thankfully) and where in many places H1N1 flu has been spreading and killing as well as my knowledge of tropical countries like Malaysia which don't of course have the four seasons and where H1N1 flu has ditto been spreading and killing; as well as my knowledge that school has been going on in many of these countries most of the while, it seems to me if we wanted to put this, it should already be there. This doesn't mean we shouldn't put it now of course. But personally I say no. There are plenty of places for public service announcements, wikipedia isn't one of them. Also in many cases people will be best directed to their health authorities information sheet for country specific information but our article can't or shouldn't do that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I argue that the question is now whether or not Wikipedia is a better source for this information than the official websites for WHO or the CDC, it is the pragmatic concern that Wikipedia is where people go to get their information. All one has to go is look at the spike in views when the flu initially broke out last spring.

For instance, in April, when the disease broke out, there was a drastic spike in views of the Wikipedia entry Swine influenza. On the 20th of that month, for instance, the aforementioned article received a mere 3 hits. Only nine days later, after the news broke out, the article was getting 1.3 million hits a day (and I don't think this includes redirects).See here for the chart

Also, you mentioned malaria and dysentery, etc. While more people die from these afflictions, my response to this is that, as mentioned above, these diseases are not prevalent in areas where people have wide access to Wikipedia. The point is that people are actually worried about swine flu and will readily pay attention to such information, where for other diseases such public notices would be disregarded.

Finally, the outbreak in the Northern Hemisphere is going to be worse than in the Southern, because the weather here is colder than in the south. Sagan666 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the first and foremost source of information on the Internet. Why don't we make readily available some information that could save lives? Sagan666 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there approximately one zillion articles that could conceivably save lives? If they do this, what's to stop the main page from simply becoming a bulletin board for everybody's pet cause? APL (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i would have supported if i thought that article would actually save lives. to be honest those are general guidelines that people should be following in their every day life. nothing special. unless there was a specific advisory given where u need to sit upside down for 20 min to survive which people wouldnt do everyday (hypothetically lol), i dont see this making the main page under current conditions. -- Ashish -g55 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When this gets as bad as the Spanish Influenza or the Bubonic Plague then, and only then, does it become important enough to take up space on our platinum plated front page.--Willski72 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's colder in winter in Oaxaca (chosen as a random northern hemisphere example and the place with the first known H1N1/09 flu death) then in winter in Tierra del Fuego? Wow sorry I didn't know that. Also can I have a ^{[citation needed]} for your claim that the outbreak will be worse in the northern hemisphere because their winters are colder. You are aware I hope that the reason why the flu is seasonal is unclear, but may not be directly to temperature right? The common belief that if you're cold your more likely to get a flu or a cold is generally held to be a myth. One of the reasons why it's believed the flu tends to peak is because of the greater close contact brought upon by cold weather. Apparently new evidence as discussed in flu season [11] suggests there may be some connection to temperature, but much more to humidity. There may be some increase in the severity of symptoms and likelihood of flu related deaths because of the colder weather but I'm not so sure of that either. (A cold winter will generally definitely result in more deaths in general but not necessarily flu related.) In other words, while the outbreak in the northern hemisphere may end up being worse, I doubt it will be primarily because of their colder winters. It's definitely never a claim I've read in any reliable source. If you have some evidence to back up your claim, you're welcome to present it of course and it may even belong in one of our articles Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting you chose Argentina as your example. In fact, in the Southern Hemisphere in their winter, Argentina was the hardest hit amongst all South American countries (see here and here). I am well aware of the debate around the casual reasons that cold weather increases in the spread of the flu. Whether or not the cold weather makes people get sicker by the people themselves being colder or people being driven indoors to get away from the cold weather, thus putting themselves at a more prolonged state of close proximity with other people, is not the issue. While the results of the flu season in the Southern Hemisphere are promising (source), there is still the chance that it could mutate and become more deadly (source). I am advocating cautionary preventative action by Wikipedia. It does not need to take over the main page or by any means be sensationalist. Even a modest notice somewhere on the page would have a very positive effect. Sagan666 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is though, the fact that there may be some correlation with temperature doesn't mean you can say 'northern hemisphere's have colder winters so they will be hit harder'. Again, I challenge you to produce a reliable source which makes this claim. If you can't I suggest you acknowledge it's just your belief. As I've said above, there may be other reasons why the northern hemisphere may be harder hit. That's largely irrelevant though since I was challenging your claims that they will be harder hit because their winters are colder. If you want to make this claim now, well that's up to you. But we shouldn't be crystal balling on wikipedia. Whatever may or may not happen, is not justification in itself for us do something. If there is a wide spread belief, supported by reliable sources that this is going to be a major problem in the northern hemisphere, much worse then in the southern hemisphere then that would be relevant but AFAIK, the actual situation is we just don't know what will happen. The simple fact is, I see no reason why we should put up a notice now but should not have earlier simply because the northern hemisphere is going to be hit soon, beyond perhaps the greater population level there. None of what you've said so far has convinced me otherwise. In fact to some extents I think we had greater justification to do things earlier, since I would presume most countries have already had many public information campaigns, even in the temperate norther hemisphere. They've also had ample time to plan for such campaigns etc. Whereas other countries, both southern hemisphere ones and tropical ones had little time to prepare before they were hit. As I said from the beginning, I'm not saying this is an argument for excluding a notice. (Personally I don't support it but for different reasons). However if you are trying to justify it now and say it's more important now then before, I'm not so far seeing much reason to support that beyond the population thing. Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So far in 09, more people have died by lightning strikes than Swine flu. Should we mention on this page that folks should not wear tinfoil hats in the rain?64.122.70.121 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I was ever making the claim that it is better now to put up a notice than it was before. In fact, putting up a notice earlier would have been a good idea, and I am sure would have made things better. Do not attach excessively to my claim that the fact that the Northern Hemisphere is going to be worse off because of the colder weather. One of the reasons that H1N1 did not turn into worse of a crisis is that school was being dismissed throughout the country as the pandemic began. Had people remained in school, the crisis would have been worse. Now, with school back in session, and the most vulnerable people (young people; that is, students) are spending much more time in close proximity, and say what you sill about the cold weather claim, but give more people colds, get more people sneezing, and get more people indoors where there are sharing much more air together through ventilation systems and they will infect each other more. My argument does not hinge on whether or not H1N1 will turn into a horrendous epidemic of epic proportions. Entertain this idea: if there is a non-zero chance that H1N1 will mutate or take on some new genetic information that makes it much more deadly, wouldn't this still craete a moral obligation to prevent the spread of disease. And don't being up another disease like malaria or dysentery, or other unofortunate events like lighting strikes. People do not care about lightning strikes or dysentery(in the places where large numbers of people read Wikipedia, that is), but they do care about and are concerned about swine flu. I was just advocating a helpful, if even small, notice somewhere on a prominent page of the website that is used most by people for information. Sagan666 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - the hundreds that die daily from dysentery are not even American, normal people do not care about these deaths. I am concerned however, now that all the children are going back to school and spending time in close proximity after a long summer apart, about the undeniably increased possiblity of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted dieases. I think we have a moral obligation that overwrites any other argument to use wikipedia for good here. Perhaps we could sport a massive picture (or even an aninmation) of a naked guy putting on a condom at the top of the main page. Please think of the children etc. 60.242.107.10 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, how long do we reckon it will take someone to upload a video to Commons of themselves putting on a condom? Btw, there should be a WP:SARCASM

REDIRECT Target page name

barnstar for these occasions! Modest Genius ^talk 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I realize all of the other causes and reasons we could post something on the main page of Wikipedia to help people. My single point is that, given the relevance and public attention that is given to pandemic H1N1, readers would actually heed warnings and health suggestions, instead of the way in which they would ignore something that was directed to a more "targeted" audience. Also, if I am correct in my reading of your response (the one above Modest Genius done by an IP address), you seem to believe that I am insinuating that non-Americans or people with less access to computers/Internet than Americans are somehow sub-human. I am making no such assertion or hint. Perhaps my suggestion that a small health notice be put on the main page of Wikipedia is an enormous act of idiocy, but, even if it is, being disingenuous or excessively combative I think is, well, excessive. Sagan666 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the policy document? There's no way I could possibly be counter productive, let alone excessive. Also Modest Genius your suggestion makes no sense at all. How can you award the barnstar if I have to be anonymous to earn it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.107.10 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

REDIRECT [[
REDIRECT Target page name
REDIRECT [[

File:Target page name

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

]] ]]

Proposal to add an "Articles to improve" Main page section

A proposal has been made to add a new section to the Main page that would list about 5 "articles to improve". See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Main_page_feature_suggestion for more details and to join in the discussion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Brown apology importance

I don't think Gordon Brown apologising for the treatment of Alan Turing is important enough to be on the main page. There is only two lines about it in the article, and it just seems plain insignificant compared to other events featured.

Ruyter ^Contrib 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be a generation issue or perhaps a location one. There are very few mathematics ITNs and thousands of people asked him to apologise, with the date on this source suggesting it has been in the news in the UK for some time. The event has also received coverage outside the UK, for example in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and the United States. --can dle •wicke 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though, it is one of two LGBT issues on ITN at the moment; both of them seem pretty minor compared to the usual stuff (that said, it seems to be a slow news week as far as ITN is concerned). J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just about what is getting posted. There is a ferry accident which killed over 200 people in Sierra Leone but it is sadly going out of date due to a lack of interest. There is also the resignation of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin which is waiting its turn. One of the LGBT issues will be gone very soon as well and it has often happened that ITN has featured lots of politics, sports, disasters at once so two is small enough (and neither involve death which some people don't like). I also don't think a first ever change of legislation in Latin America is minor but I suppose it depends where you are in the world. --can dle •wicke 23:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

John Goebel

None —Preceding unsigned comment added by John9347 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you requesting an article about John Goebel? --can dle •wicke 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that he was wanting an article about himself. However, after searching Google, he's a collegiate athlete that I'm not sure warrants his own article at this time. – LATICS talk 01:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

News layout

Readers who don't go further might suppose picture @ top is of 1st person mentioned. Peter jackson (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They might. See Wikipedia:Main_Page_FAQ#Why_are_the_images_on_.22In_the_news.22_and_.22On_this_day.22_not_aligned_next_to_each_relevant_entry.3F Modest Genius ^talk 09:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this but I just requested in the errors section that the image be updated to one of Borlaug's as we have plenty of free images for him and it makes sense, where possible, to have the image relevant to the top (the newest) item - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor thing

In the section "On this day...", i feel Gregorian calendar should be Gregorian Calendar... since we're not talking about any general calendar but a specific Calendar... in which case Calendar ought to have a capital C... very minor thing - probably not worth mentioning - guess it shows how bored I am basically... anyway thanks - Krishvanth (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The article exists at Gregorian calendar (lowercase c). If you want it moved, you should bring it up at Talk:Gregorian calendar. howcheng {chat} 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Swap the current DYK image from Sakae Menda to Flag of Scotland

I was too late to change it in the prep area, but it is my honest opinion (despite being the article creator) that more people will be attracted to the current set of DYK's by displaying an image of the Flag of Scotland representing the Scottish Referendum Bill 2010 hook, rather than an image of Sakae Menda. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical question

What were the settings used in order to have the green column the same height as the blue column, regardless the length of the text inside them? --Alex:D (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You will probably want to try at MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css. I'm not sure many of our CSS coders frequent this page here. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Add that................

Pattrick Swayze just died from pancreatic cancer at 57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDM08 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:ITN/C. Algebraist 03:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Software updates are being applied to Wikimedia sites; there may be some brief interruption as the servers update.

What is it exactly they are changing? Where can I find this information? Thanks. 92.129.158.33 (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I wish I'd seen it flagged beforehand; my watchlist is changed, and I have no idea of how to reconfigure it. Perhaps when I wake up sometime tomorrow, all will be clear; but at present, it isn't. Rodhull andemu 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And the Juan Martín del Potro article (linked from the main page) is loading blank. Perhaps other articles are similarly affected. —David Levy 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The blank page and other loading errors are being discussed here. 7 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, removing {{Infobox Tennis player}} enabled the article to load. —David Levy 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Norton again this year?

There was a crazy guy who walked around the town I grew up in too, who told people he was waiting for the aliens to come and pick him up. If I find his birthday can I submit that date for notable events on that day? Or maybe the day he moved to town and started telling his story? Every time Wikipedia puts up that Norton guy for notable events on this day it's credibility as a real encyclopedia gets kicked in the nuts a little bit harder. Please remove him now and forever from the main page.24.8.248.132 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean Emperor Norton? Can't say I've ever noticed him before or even heard of him. --can dle •wicke 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? How often does Norton gets on the main page? How often does a 150th anniversary occur? --74.13.126.54 (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Norton is a notable figure from the history of San Francisco. Yes, he was probably a bit off his rocker, but merchants accepted his self-issued currency, and when he died, his funeral was attended by a mass number of people. He was notable enough for books to be written on him, inspired a character in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (one of the greatest novels in American literature), and even got an entire issue of Neil Gaiman's The Sandman devoted to him. If the crazy guy from your town ever gets that much attention, then he could warrant an encyclopedia article as well. And for the record, Emperor Norton was not listed in 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, or 2004, so this is his first appearance in OTD. His only other appearance on the Main Page was as Today's Featured Article for April 3, 2004 (unless he appeared as part of DYK sometime, but I'm not digging through the archives to figure that out). howcheng {chat} 03:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither [12] nor [13] find him so I don't see any evidence he was on DYK anytime recently either. However according to the article talk page "A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 12 October 2005 and 12 October 2006" and a look confirms this 2005 2006 but it was not used in 2004 or from 2007 (well very briefly) onwards Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it use to be on October 12, the date when he "ordered" the United States Congress to dissolve, but his self-proclamation of being "Emperor" seemed a bit more relevant. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to what? I know I've seen this guy on the main page a couple of times before, and it seemed a little cute the first time but now it just seems like wikipedia is going out of its way to celebrate crackpots.129.82.30.199 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You are free to update Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, even a year in advance. Just read the rules, i.e., make sure the edit is in past tense, and that the day article has the information in it as well. Images to illustrate the anniversary are also welcome. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"...are believed to..."

Indeed. Do let's be sure to insert "is believed to" into reports of Christian adams too, eh.--Wetman (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The box above tells me you need WP:ERRORS. 79.71.113.135 (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wetman (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Incorrect Grammar

In the "newest articles" section:

"…that the leader of the Ottoman forces at the Battle of Parkany (painting pictured) was later executed for failing to defend their Hungarian lands?"

What exactly is the antecedent for the word "their"? This sentence should be clarified or re-worded. 220.29.16.5 (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please post these requests at WP:ERRORS. Many thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing photo credit for the Today's featured picture

I have been moderately bold and removed the photo credit from tomorrow's regular version on the Featured picture for the Main page. I will file an error report above for the protected version to be updated (at least that ensures another set of eyes for the change).

I could only find one thorough discussion on the issue of removing the photo credit, and it looking at the arguments it seems ok to remove the photo credit. The Featured article doesn't have a credit, a photo can have more than one author (indeed this should be encouraged with sharing of raw files and uncropped images etc) and it sets a deceiving example as credit in Wikipedia is always discovered by clicking on an image (or the history tab).--Commander Keane (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the last, major, most recent debate and discussion happen in August 2007 and is archived on Talk:Main Page/Archive 105#Photo credit for picture of the day. At the time, there was no consensus to remove the photo credits. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing that discussion, I would agree that there was no consensus. However as it was so long ago, it might well be worth revisiting the topic. I would definitely support removal of the photo credits, for the reasons stated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The removed credit needs to be replaced as per conventions (in fact I have reverted the above edit). Unlike articles, images typically have a definite creator and the photo credit is sensible. This type of behaviour has driven enough good photo contributors off Wikipedia, and also discourages outside bodies from allowing Wikipedia to use their images. Ironically enough that includes the photographer, User:Fir0002, whose work you've just disrespected. He has been one of our best photo contributors over a number of years, having gained over 170 Featured Pictures, but has in fact just retired from Wikipedia due to behaviour such as this. --jjron (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is disrepecting the creators of these pictures. This just isn't the right way to give recognition for their work. If Fir0002 has retired then that is sad, but I doubt that the main reason he worked with pictures was to able to get his username on the main page. If editors think like this, then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is credit given for editor's work in a reader-facing location, and this practice for images should end as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked the error report, but I hope discussion can continue here.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You forget that in many, many other works (newspapers, reference works and the like) the author of images will be credited, but not of text. As was said, images usually have one main author, and, much more so than text, images are often taken from elsewhere. With historically significant images, the author is often an integral part of the issue- for instance, take this image. Though the subject of the image is the public response to cowpox/innoculation, meaning that is what a caption would discuss, people are going to be very interested in the author of what is, basically, a work of art. I want to echo the concerns above that this is the kind of behaviour that is driving photographers away from Wikipedia, and state that I am strongly opposed to removing the credit line. J Milburn (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article credits the author (like The cow pock) then I agree it makes sense to also credit on the Main page (and visa versa). Featured articles also usually have one main author - yet no credit.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As for driving away photographers, if our goal is maintain photographers shouldn't we credit in articles (+ a url of the author's choosing etc)? Featured pictures are a small percentage of the images we have after all. The current situation of no credit in article but credit on the Main page is hypocritical.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite being mainly a photo contributor with a handful of FPs, I agree Commander Keane. The FPC crowd is a small bunch of people that takes themselves way too seriously. Their impact overall on this encyclopedia is small at best. The lions share of work is done by countless article writers. People don't come here for the pictures, and even if they did, chances of them stumbling across an FP are slim. Bringing up Fir as an argument here and is plain dishonest, he shared his reasons and lack of a non-commercial license option was point one. Please do not create a fear scenario which essentially equates threatening-to-leave. That is poor style. --Dschwen 12:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I come here as much for the images as for the articles. Don't assume that your own lack of interest in FPC reflects a majority opinion. The argument that our contributing photographers have a small-at-best impact on Wikipedia is extremely unfair to those photographers... the vast majority of articles would be greatly improved with higher-quality images, indicating that we desperately need more image contributors. Start clicking the "random article" link and keep track of how many articles would be more complete if only they were illustrated with high-quality photos, diagrams, charts, and other graphics. Additionally, I just read through Fir's reasons for leaving, and alongside his NC-license concerns he clearly lists disrespectful treatment of his images as a strong influence on his decision to retire. I suggest reading carefully, rather than skimming, a source of information the next time you want to use it to argue a point. Thank you. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"disrespectful treatment of his images" what is that even supposed to mean? Are we disrespecting article writers by not crediting them too? Other than that you just prove my point, impact of FPC is minimal. FPCs are not geared at providing lots of articles with good images. Some contributors don't even upload images they couldn't nominate at FPC. This is a joke! FPC does not encourage the contribution of lots of good images, which is what wikipedia apparently needs, but it encourages the contribution of a few images which are selected not by demand in articles, but by wow factor and prettyness. FPC is just stroking the egos of a few contributors. People who carry around the number of FPs they have "contributed" on a billboard. --Dschwen 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

well thats a little harsh. User:Fir0002 uploaded 2500+ images and less than 10% have been featured. remember wikipedia is all voluntary so whatever the reason for upload maybe it all makes some impact -- Ashish -g55 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was not adressing Fir0002 with my comment. --Dschwen 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that most of your later argument applies to FAs right? While we don't credit authors on the main page, editors do carry around the number of FAs they've contributed to and it does seem many people are proud of the FAs they make. (Indeed in some RFAs, arbcom elections and other things, some editors don't support someone who does have at least one and maybe more FA.) We want a lot of good articles (not using the specific definition here), not just a few featured articles. Of course ideally we'd want a lot of featured articles (but we'd also ideally want a lot of featured pictures). But there's nothing wrong with recognising our best articles nor our best pictures. And as our job as an encylopaedia requires both good articles and good pictures, there's nothing wrong with those contributors who do contribute being proud of their work and advertising it. None of this of course either tells us whether we should or shouldn't recognise TFP contributors on the main page, but given your later points, I think it is relevant. Can you provide some evidence of your claim that 'Some contributors don't even upload images they couldn't nominate at FPC'? If that's true, it is rather unfortunate but I'd like some real evidence for it. BTW, you are apparently right about one thing. I've read Fir's retirement notice User:Fir0002/Retirement and I see no evidence credit had anything to do with it Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to go around pointing fingers, so feel free not to believe me. One of my main arguments was the limited usefulnes of FPC as a tool to further the illustration of en.wp. Check the FPC page. Earlier today I commented on a few candidates where articles are being illustrated that already have good and even featured images. There is a saying where I'm from "the devil always craps on the biggest pile". True here. There are a few subjects which are readily available (let's say a common fly) and photographical techniques (let's say macro photography) which will always amaze the layman. FPC is biased towards a small selection of pictures. As I said it does not encourage widespread illustration of articles in need of better pictures. You cannot compare that to FA at all. Or is there similar redundancy in the FA process, that I'm not aware of? Let me reiterate one last thing: neither am I not interested in FPC, nor do I think the project is a bad thing. The problem is, that it is overrated. Plain and simple. --Dschwen 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is, do they illustrate the same thing? If we have 5 featured images illustrating a flies eye and showing exactly the same thing, then indeed we have a problem. Is this really the case? While it may not seem it to the lay person a fly is a rather complex organism and I can easily imagine at least 50 images that would be useful, even if not necessarily used in an article. Note that having a narrow focus, like working on flies images is fine too. Personally I would prefer a wider focus, but we get that with articles too, for example there are a number of Pokaemon and Startrek related articles and while I'd prefer it if editors work on something other then Pokaemon or Star Trek articles, but no one is going to say FA is a bad (people who do are generally ignored) because some editors choose a narrow focus of Pokaemon or Star Trek articles. Also saying they are good is pointless. Only featured counts, otherwise if an editor comes across a good article they should just leave it and go work on some other article. Clearly that's nonsense. Note that if a better image replaces an existing featured image which is demoted, that's also fine. After all, no is is going to tell another editor they shouldn't work on a featured article to improve it because it's already good enough. Edit: I look at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects and guess what? I can only find 2 housefly FPs. I also came across from the housefly article File:Musca domestica housefly.jpg which is FP candidate but possibly going to fail. In any case all of these show different things. There are a bunch of other fly FPs but I do hope your not suggesting we don't need a picture of a blow-fly because we have a housefly or hoverflies mating because we have houseflies mating. I guess it was just a random example, but you should be careful with your examples since otherwise they defeat the purpose and just confuse the situation. As it stands, I'm not seeing evidence for your concerns of great redundancy in our FPs. There may be a narrower focus on FP then FA because of the great difficulties in some areas but that's a different matter. BTW I acknowledge it is true of course with images a contributor usually has to start from scratch as it were, there's limited scope for collaboration (which is part of the reason for this whole discussion about credits anyway). This is unfortunate but a necessary part of the process. BTW, I avoided this because I didn't want to offend people but decided I might as well just say it. I personally would prefer and think it more important for an encylopaedia to have 50 fly FPs illustrating various things (well preferably including movies and the like) then 50 FAs on Pokaemon. I appreciate not everyone agrees with this, but I suspect a number of people do and it may be worth bearing in mind if you think we don't need 50 fly FPs. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is completely missing the point. If you think 50 fly FPs are nice to have that's fine with me. Just don't go around and pretend that FPC is doing anything to help illustrate all the many articles that are in desparate need for good images. Only featured counts is complete BS! That attidude leads to the the other big problem with FPC, which is essentailly putting the cart in front of the horse. FPC is a little game some people play for the sake of increasing their stats (a bit like MafiaWars on Facebook I suppose). Candidates are crammed into articles and immediately nominated. Just in the last few days there was one candidate which lasted 8minutes in the article (misidentified species). There currently is one spider nomination, which replaced an existing featured picture in the article, turns out that too was a misidentified species. Abolishing self-nominations and demanding a few days/weeks time for the images to settle in their articles would already go a long way in solving this. Which brings us back to the original point: Are authors of featured pictures really so darn special that their names are the only ones that should be mentioned on the mainpage? I don't think so. --Dschwen 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check fir's talk page, and the article history a little more carefully. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You apppear to be getting sidetracked. Whatever current problems FPC has with the way things are working (although it seems good to me that FPC is at least helping to reduce misidentification in a few cases) are irrelevant and I suggest you take them up on the FPC page. And you appear to have missed my point. You started off with a list of gripes about how bad FP is. I pointed out that a lot of what you said also applies to FA. You then said I was wrong but didn't really explain why very well. I replied as best I could why none of what you were saying really explained why FP was worse then FA. The fact is FP is helping us illustrate articles and fulfill our goal as an encylopaedia. FP and FA both only affect a tiny number of what we cover (we only have ~2500 FAs). This doesn't mean they are bad. You are trying to claim that FP only does a narrow thing with a small number of pictures. This is partially true. But it's also true with FA. FA does technically have scope for the involvement of a larger number of contributors and in more diverse areas then FP will but that's not a bad thing. In fact, it does illustrate why there's need to actively encourage these contributors. And in practice, a significant amount of FA work is in fairly narrow areas too. As I've mentioned, images by their nature don't tend to lend to collaboration or successive efforts which means that we do have to replace the worse with the better but on the other hand images also tend to require less work (as you yourself have acknowledge) for a single one then for an article. (It is of course true that if you replace a FP with one showing the same thing but better you get a chance at the main page again whereas you don't if you improve an existing FA.) The reason why only featured counts, is because it's the same for FA. We do have a FA process. It's nonsense to suggest that editors should not bother to work on articles that are already good because they're good enough and instead should work on other articles. We don't do this in practice and if you attempt to suggest that you'd be shot down in flames. It's the same with featured pictures. The fact that we already have good images doesn't mean editors shouldn't be encouraged to work on getting better pictures. In both cases, contributors are trying to improve on something which we already cover well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to make us the best. Both are worthwhile efforts. So far, you have completely failed to explain why FP is so bad, but FA is good. This is really the main issue I've raised here and I suggest rather then getting sidetracked on all your grievances with FP you explain why you feel FP is so bad in comparison to FA. (It is clearly different in a number of ways, but not in the ways you are describing, and none of them seem intrinsically bad to me.) If you are unable to do so, then I suggest we end this part of the discussion since I'm not personally interested in hearing why you think FPC or FP is such a bad thing, only why you think FP is so different from FA. If on the otherhand you feel both FA and FP are wasted efforts, then just say so so we at least know where you stand. Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, you have completely failed to explain why FP is so bad, but FA is good. Ok, I'm going to assume good faith here and apologize for not making myself clear enough. It is neither my intention to a) establish that FP is bad nor b) claim that FA is good(tm). The only thing that my argument requires is for you to see that FP is not tremenously more valuable than FA. Why a few people should be so darn special that they deserve their names posted on the main page and other people who do at least comparable amounts of work (in a collaborative fashion - remember, this is what wikipedia is all about) not. --Dschwen 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree then that we've gone hopelessly off track. My point, which I obviously didn't explain well enough was 1) FA and FP have a number of key similarities and your apparent (in my eyes) dismisal as FP as having only limited benefit missed the point (in my eyes) that most of what you were saying applied to FA as well. For example when you said You cannot compare that to FA at all. Or is there similar redundancy in the FA process, that I'm not aware of?. In other words what I was trying to say all along is that if you want to dismiss FP as only having a minor contribution to wikipedia, you have to acknowledge that is the same for FA. This was the only thing I was discussing in this specific area, your argument as I saw it that FP was quite different to FA in only having a minor contribution to wikipedia as a whole. For the record, I never intended to claim that FP was more important then FA. In fact, I don't know if anyone in this discussion has claimed that FP is important then FA that I noticed. Note that while some may have claimed that the contributions of FP contributors are in some ways more valuable then FA contributors or more worthy of acknowledgement, this doesn't mean they are saying FP is more important or valuable then FA, if you're under this impression I suggest you seek clarification as I don't think anyone was trying to suggest this. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the POTD coordinator, we need to have one standard, whatever that may be, that applies to all FPs that appear on the Main Page, whether they are works of art, historical photographs, or files uploaded by Wikipedians. It would be patently unfair to credit Rembrandt, Da Vinci, or a famous photographer, but omit the credit for "just" a Wikipedian. Speaking as someone who has uploaded tons of files on behalf of photo submission and who has gotten numerous image releases from Flickr and other sites, one common complaint I get is that photo credits don't appear next to the image, but instead are hidden on the description page. IMHO credits should always appear next to the images -- after all, that's how every other major media outlet does it -- but I'm not going to fight that battle for the entire encyclopedia. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain which media outlets you are specifically referring to when you say "every other major media outlet" credits thumbnails? The CNN Homepage is not crediting thumbnails, only the lead image which is running "full size". The BBC Homepage is not crediting thumbnails, not even the lead image. Time's homepage is also crediting only their lead image, none of the thumbnails, not even the thumbnail for the photo essay! (Which is running larger than the thumbnail for Wikipedia's FP of the day.)

Admittedly, New York Time's policy is not immediately obvious to me. They seem to often, but not always, credit thumbnails.

APL (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

...And National Geographic of all places. APL (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they always credit thumbnails, but they always credit images in articles (from what I can tell). See my links below. howcheng {chat} 02:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I assumed that you were still talking about the Featured Picture OTD. APL (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the main page unique in providing newspaper-style photo credits, or are there other places on WP where the thumbnails are credited? APL (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice in articles to not credit photos; however, you can find credits here and there. I have been crediting photo submission uploads for people have requested them with the caveat that the credits might get removed at a later date. My own personal practice is to credit images when we have an article about the creator, although both WP:Image use policy and WP:Captions say we should avoid putting credits in articles. howcheng {chat} 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Howcheng. Remember that at Wikipedia no consensus defaults to status quo. Durova³¹⁴ 18:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can want one standard for the Main page while the most important standard (to me at least) is to have the same rules for articles and the Main page. howcheng, how do you explain to photo submitters that their images will not get a credit in an article but the Main page FP does? Consistency seems to be the crux of the issue. For a Rembrandt we don't credit the photographer/scanner who went to the gallery and took the photo of the painting, and Rembrandt would be mentioned in the image summary on the Main page already. On the Main page of online news outlets I did not see any credits, and even no way to find a credit for the images displayed ([14], [15], [16]).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you misread. I wrote above, "IMHO credits should always appear next to the images". And no one submits photos to go specifically to the Main Page anyway, but there are plenty of people who insist they want their names in the article, a request to which I usually oblige but warn them ahead of time that it might get removed later. As for major media outlets, see the New York Times and the LA Times; CNN (to which you linked) currently has "AFP/Getty Images" watermarked on the image that's on the Main Page as of this instant. BBC does the same for photos in articles. As for works of art, we have in the past credited the photographer. howcheng {chat} 02:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, yes CNN changed :P Interestingly, since AFP/Getty Images images are not free I think it is a requirement that the outlets quote the photographer/wire service (maybe the outlet can pay more not to display a watermark or credit). Why Wikipedia should be taking lessons from non-free outlets is a mystery to me. We can agree that it is a compromise to show the credit on the Main page? I don't think there is a hope of having credits in articles like you desire. Compromising our integrity.--Commander Keane (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Point : Those sources all credit the author of the text at least as prominently, if not more-so. And they all still didn't credit main-page thumbnails. (only 'full size' lead images. Sometimes.) If you need to know who took the image for any of those mainpage thumbnails you're obliged to click on them.

The reason this is always so contentious is that, while it makes perfect sense in print, insisting that a web credit be done of this way smacks of arrogance. It's essentially saying "My Name must always be on screen! Whether the user asks for it or not!". The proper way to handle important information that 99.9% of viewers aren't interested in is to only display it to people who ask for it. This is basic web/hypertext philosophy. To do this one specific thing the old fashioned way because a certain group of people want to see their name in lights is very grating. APL (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving attribution to photos is the least we can do for our feature picture producers. Compromise is not a dirty word. Chillum 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Has someone suggested a compromise? APL (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The compromise is the status quo: Credits on the Main Page, not in articles. howcheng {chat} 03:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am not fussed about a credit. I think that external contributors of content in particular might be. As for Dschwen, I shouldn't have to remind you to Assume good faith. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are pragmatic arguments to be made for retaining the status quo. Several of them stem from a common factor: most of the public has no idea what the word copyleft means. Wikipedia already has a dearth of talented photographers and many of our best contributors worry that their work will be stolen. That's a realistic fear: one found her featured picture in use in a commercial advertisement in violation of license. It would mislead the public by implication to credit sources on featured pictures from US government PD and expired copyrights, but provide less information for authorship on works that are not in the public domain. To ascribe those concerns to egotism is unfair; please review WP:AGF and suppose the responses may be taken at face value. Durova³¹⁴ 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Durova raises an excellent point just above, and I would like to add a second- people are mindlessly assuming that the main page is the only place where images are credited; that is not true. It is the usual practise to credit images on portal pages as well. Portals, like the main page, exist to show off our finest contributions, and in showing a fine image, one says where one found it. In many ways, you could say that articles are from Wikipedia- if one person didn't write it, someone else would. A featured picture comes from a single source- even if others have modified it, it is primarily the work of a single person or organisation, while featured articles rely on templates, minor fixes, comments, vandalism reversion and so on from others, even if written almost entirely by others. Images are frequently taken entirely from another source, without even requiring cropping. Also, you can rest assured the ego issue does not apply to me- I have contributed exactly 0 featured pictures (well, featured pictures I have made myself) while writing the vast majority of 3 FAs, and numerous GAs and DYKs. I do not feel put off that my article writing is not credited on the main page, but I can certainly sympathise with others who's images are not credited. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why understanding copyleft is an issue. It's not a matter of the licensing, it's a mater of consistency, treating contributors fairly, and adopting print conventions on a web site. If the decision were made to eliminate photo credits, why would you assume it would only happen on non-free images? On the rest of WP all newspaper style credits are against the MoS, so I don't understand your point about crediting NASA but not Joe Public.

If understanding copyleft were a requirement for enjoying images on WP there would be a serious problem. The articles are intended for the same audience as the main page.

(Sometimes authorship information appears in a properly worded caption when it's relevant to the subject mater, ("This painting is one of Leonardo's most famous.") but that's not a credit, and I don't think anyone would confuse it for the kind of credits that are there now. They don't in the rest of the encyclopedia. APL (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"If one person didn't write it, someone else would." That's a specious argument - there are many articles we still don't have, and you could just as easily say that "If one person didn't take the photo, someone else will." You could then make the argument that the hypothetical replacement photo wouldn't necessarily have the same *quality*, but you can make the same argument about FA: there are a number of articles where a single contributor is responsible for practically all of the quality content, with others only contributing spelling fixes/formatting changes/templates/etc. If we deny Main Page credit to the main contributor based on those small tweaks, should we deny FP photographers credit if someone else does cropping/contrast adjustment/etc? If so will we go down the path that people WP:OWN the photos they upload, where only they can perform alterations to them, lest FP credit get wrested from their grasp? Are we being unfair to article writers where we don't have a "Featured Text" item, where we single out sentences or paragraphs from a single contributor which are particularly well written? I understand the argument that photographers who don't get credit may be less likely to contribute, but we have had that same argument with text, where people have argued that professionals won't contribute to Wikipedia if they don't get credit or control over how their contributions are used.

Fundamentally, I think this boils down to difference in perspectives on how the philosophy behind WP:OWN applies to images. On one hand we have people who more-or-less believe that a photo contributed to Wikipedia should be thought of like articles, where they shouldn't "belong" to any one person. Copyright issues are different, but the same arguments apply equally to photos and text. On the other hand we have people who believe that the photographer has an intrinsic connection to and responsibility for the work that goes above-and-beyond what text contributors have, and thus deserve more credit. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonus thought experiment: What about the case where an editor merges photos from different photographers into a single composite image, which then gets to TFP status? Do we credit the person who did the "mash-up"? If not, why not? Isn't someone who takes existing pictures and makes sure they are arranged appropriately and aesthetically on a computer just as deserving of credit as someone who takes existing objects in nature and arranges them appropriately and aesthetically on film? If so, why don't we credit editors of FA (assuming there is a single editor who we can peg with the credit) who take the text/template/images of other editors and arrange them appropriately and aesthetically to get featured article status? - I'm not trying to diminish the contributions of photographers, I'm just trying to understand why there seems to be a distinction between text and images. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this has nothing do with WP:OWN. noone said that u can not feature an image without credit. its more of a courtesy thing that if a user uploaded an image that was good enough to be featured the least that can be done is give them credit. i really dont see anything wrong with that. and comparing images to articles is useless since so many people work on articles so it would be virtually impossible to give credits like that. for image we have one person and it really does not hurt to give credit. it is NOT a copyright it is more of a thankyou note from wikipedia IMO. -- Ashish -g55 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's text norms are driven by the assumption that a given piece of text can be altered and improved endlessly. Fundamentally, that doesn't carry over to media. Most image editing reaches a dead end where no serious improvement is possible without a better source file.

Wikipedian portraits of Claire Danes
Original.
After wiki-style collaborative editing.
Replacement.

Compared to text, a much smaller pool of people are capable of providing high quality images. Usually it requires specialized skills, often it involves the purchase of high end equipment, and frequently it means obtaining access. Nobody can request Claire Danes through interlibrary loan. Noam Cohen of The New York Times wrote about this dilemma in July,[17] regarding a featured portrait of Mark Harmon contributed by Jerry Avenaim.

It would be wonderful if Jerry Avenaim's donations were the norm at Wikipedia; they aren't. Birds, flowers, and insects dominate FPs because these are the encyclopedic subjects that the small pool of highly active volunteers can access. Those also happen to be subjects where the risk of uncredited reuse is minimal. Avenaim was worried about exploitation, and rightly so. That's why most of his uploads aren't high enough resolution to feature, and possibly why that portrait of Claire Danes is too small to consider at FPC. Both Wired and Time are running my restorations without crediting Commons as the source; I've had trouble getting either publication to answer emails. Analogies from text editing don't apply well to the media side of the project; the issues over here are different. Durova³¹⁴ 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So that's what it boils down to: Mainpage credit in exchange for a few pictures of stars and starlets? What are we, the yellow press? This is a complete fringe issue. --Dschwen 17:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The matter is broader and more serious than that. Above, an unregistered user posts a thought experiment. That scenario actually happened with our portrait of Abner Doubleday. Neither half of the stereograph contained adequate data on the bottom edge of his jacket so I completed restoration with a separate copy from the same sitting, which was otherwise inferior but contained the missing section. This wasn't a simple job of patching; brightness and contrast were significantly different. For a full sense of the labor download and view at 300% resolution.

Restoration of Abner Doubleday
Before restoration
After. Note the bottom edge of the jacket.

The answer to the IP's question is no, this work doesn't get credited on the main page. Although maybe it should. FP galleries didn't credit edits until I requested it; perhaps Time and Wired would become more responsive. Currently am on another undertaking of this type: The Library of Congress owns a damaged copy of Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre. In order to do a complete restoration it is necessary to composite from a second source file, which would be digitized from a different print. One of the chapters is assisting negotiations with a second library. So far that's taken a month, a pile of emails, and a slide show. We have a promise but nothing in hand. Durova³¹⁴ 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: I created the FP galleries in their current state and edits have been credited since the beginning (example), although the practice may have been disregarded until you brought it up again. howcheng {chat} 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly unfair to credit photographers, but not people who invest hours in restoring old images such as you. I fully recognize that. But it seems equally unfair not to credit article writers who spend at least as much time researching and writing articles. We just seem to draw different conclusions here. I'd much rather not have a few individual credit takers in a project that is clearly a group effort. After all that would be unfair to the countles worker bees that invest thousands or millions of hours doing necessary but entirely unglamorous things like maintenance, little fixes, updates, spelling, copyediting. --Dschwen 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between text and media really doesn't hold up to scrutiny (see above). Most featured pictures have only one editor; seldom if ever is there more than two. Durova³¹⁴ 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is besides the point as I am not arguing to credit article writers, I'm arguing to credit nobody. And I don't buy the does not hold up to scrutiny. Check a few FAs and I'm sure you'll see that the most of them have only a handful of major contributors. And work is work. If you don't want to compare the modes of contribution, compare the amount of work invested. Do you honestly think The amount of work that went into a typical FP is even comparable to the amount of work that goes into a FA? You cannot seriously think that! --Dschwen 19:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps think about talent? I can write an FA, I can't contribute a featured picture (yet). Again, as an article writer myself, I feel the FP contributors should be credited, where article writers are not. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To some extent, Dschwen may be right. I checked (edits from August 2009 and before) Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe which appears to be primarily the work of User:Midnightdreary, Cædwalla of Wessex of User:Mike Christie, Crush (video game) of User:Masem (albeit significantly less clear cut), and Amchitka of User:Jakew. However all of these did have a large number of other contributors, some more significant then others. And importantly, I'm going solely by number of contributions it's possible some editors made substantial contributions in a small number of edits. The big issue of course is how would we decide who to acknowledge/credit and when? The nature of articles means it's rather risky IMHO, which doesn't hold for most FPs. Personally I would have no problems crediting FA writers if we could come up with a fair way that doesn't lead to endless drama or 20 names on the main page, but we clearly can't. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If Time magazine had plagiarized 20 hours' labor of a Wikipedia text contribution, someone from their staff would probably be looking for a new job. But for this? They don't even disclose that the version they run comes from Wikimedia Commons. I don't aim to hurt anyone's livelihood, but I do want to grow the pool of volunteers who do this work. That isn't easy when leading publications apply a lower standard of credit for media than they do for text, and fail to respond to repeated polite emails. Durova³¹⁵ 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Louis Brandeis
Before restoration
After restoration (20 hours' labor). Reproduced without attribution by Time magazine.[1]

We also have to take into consideration that other websites use the POTD as their POTD as well and removing the credit from wiki will result in no credit on the non wiki pages as well, which will be going against the license terms most of the images are released under. As a side note, it seems wiki editors are trying to push away quality photographers insead of bringing 'em in. --Muhammad(talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- it seems wiki editors are trying to push away quality photographers insead of bringing 'em in That sounds pretty serious? Where do you get that idea? --Dschwen 21:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  - We'll be going off topic now but anyway... Starting from the licesnsing it has now come to this. Don't you see the trend? --Muhammad(talk) 00:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    - No, I don't see the trend. What I see is a game of "either Wikipedia plays by my rules or I leave". What I see is contributors trying to extort the community to have the most basic principles of Wikipedia changed. That's not going to happen. But, yes, you are right, that is diverging from the original topic. --Dschwen 00:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The licensing situation isn't going to change because Wikipedia's mission is to remove proprietary restrictions from knowledge. The non-commercial only license, effectively stating that "we're only going to allow you to reuse this if you operate your knowledge distribution in a manner of my choosing" is just not compatible with that, however galling it is to see work "exploited" for the profit of others! (Fair use, which I dislike on WP and often pops into these debates, does not suffer from that disadvantage: it's a specific form of legal unlicensed used, which could also be used by any redistributor of WP content. Assuming they are subject to U.S. law or something broadly compatible, which is part of my problem with it!) It is unfortunate that some image contributers clearly feel let down by this, but the redistributality is seen as mission-critical. Are there workarounds, such as submitting lower resolutions to Wikipedia while keeping high resolution images under NC? (I know that even the release of smaller images would instantly wipe out much of the market for web images, unfortunately.) I wonder if there are other ways Wikipedians can show our support for image creators (photographers, restorers, graphic artists, et al). Crediting POTD seems perfectly reasonable to me, particularly since we also do it for historic photographers and artists. (It's a shame that Wikipedia usernames look a bit odd and somewhat amateurish in comparison, for some reason I think always looks much better when a contributor's real name is used!) Personally I would like to go further and credit more pictures in articles (citizendium does it more often than us); I think it looks more professional, shows more respect to sorely-needed image contributors, and reiterates to content redistributors that we do care about image copyright and credits. I know I'm in the minority on that one, but I do think it's a strong case in at many instances. Perhaps another way to show solidarity with image contributors would be a stronger campaign to pursue redistributors who breach licensing requirements? I am sure there are many other editors who would like to show our support; as it stands I realize image contributors don't get much other reward beyond FPC and POTD for what is unusually individual effort, which is one reason I would like credits at POTD and in portals even if nowhere else. TheGrappler (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would be happy with consistency, if that means a credit on all images that is fine (although I am concerned about multiple authors, "various" is ok and perhaps people can opt for "Wikimedia Commons" if they like). For Wikipedia text, the licence is in the footer of every page and it would be fair to have the licence under every image in articles and on the Main page (along with the author). I think this would help with illegal misuse of images (in tandem with adding something about images in the footer). I don't know how to solve Durova's problem with Time as the images are in the public domain. I am not sure about how people feel about putting the licence and author under the TFA and news/anniversary images - but it would be consistent to include it. Incidentally, Citizendium (as pointed to by TheGrappler) has a nice style (apart from the strange double credit) with grey text directly under the image, the licence and no link (links are always available on the description page). I would like to see that on Wikipedia, although for the POTD there might be complaints that the name/licence under the image increases page height. I am also unsure why the POTD day credit says "credit", it seems superfluous (hoepfully howcheng is still reading for these possible style changes). Not being consistent with aritcles and POTD does not seem fair.--Commander Keane (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  - The word "credit" is in there because of inertia: it was there when POTD started and has never been removed. howcheng {chat} 07:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    - If I had to pick, I'd have the licence displayed over the author. Off-site users of my photographs treat them as if they were public domain 95% of the time. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Noodle Snacks, I agree with you. The license under the images would help raising awarenes for free content and should help make people think about re-use conditions. Thus it would help furthering the project goals (or at least one of its basic philosophies). I don't quite see that being the case with the name credit. --Dschwen 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Any chance someone could call a WP:SNOW day already? Pretty much the same arguments are repeating themselves over and over and over again. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Substituting a display of the license would be no solution at all to historic image editors. Most of us work with public domain material. Shoemaker's Holiday could claim 'sweat of the brow' copyright over his restorations because he lives in the UK (and then release his version copyleft), but he is reluctant to do so because there are institutions that leverage that part of British law to withhold free access from the public. Remember that legal threat by a museum against a Commons administrator? It's less clear whether I could assert copyright over restorations from the States, but I never do. Instead I rely upon traditions of attribution which ought to credit the source. Per the Time example cited above, those traditions are much weaker than they ought to be. If you substituted license for authorship, nearly every reader will interpret that as an invitation to exploit Adam, myself, and the others. We'll be left with the dilemma whether to go along meekly, or to protect our work with the very sorts of claims that the institutions we'd like to access have been hiding behind to keep their collections out of our hands. Are any of you writing to Time to seek proper attribution? No you're not. Don't compound that by erecting new obstacles. Durova³¹⁵ 16:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, when I thought about what to write above at breakfast I intended to preemt this comment, but forgot to write it. Yes, Durova, just labeling it PD would be somewhat counterproductive. So it should also clearly be labled as a restoration by Wikipedian. --Dschwen 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

:) Durova³¹⁵ 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't labelling it restoration by Wikipedian go against the spirit of Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid we aim to achieve on the main page? Personally it does seem to me saying it because of a reluctance to mention contributors is creating more issues then is solves. Also what do we do if it was not restored by a wikipedian but someone else e.g. on a different site or someone on the commons who has never contributed to wikipedia (and so can't by definition be considered a wikipedian)? What about if a wikipedian is pissed off enough about the way this is being handled that they purposely release it somewhere other then wikipedia and object to be called a wikipedian even if it is nominally true? Or even if they do release it on wikipedia but don't considered themselves wikipedians? Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, self reference? Nonsense. The main page is not an article. By that logic we would have to take down the Wikipedia logo from the main Page as well ;-) --Dschwen 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While the main page is not an article, we do limit self references on the main page particularly in the relevant sections as we do in articles. For example, TFA, DYK, SA/OTD and ITN generaly exclude items mentioning wikipedia without very good reason (there was suggestion to mention wikipedia in our DYK for Beate Eriksen but it was quickly dismissed). You may want to participate in discussions on some areas of the main page, since if you did you'd find noselfrefs is in fact quite relevant to the main page. On the specific topic of POTD Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Unused shows Jimbo Wales image despite being a FP is not going on the main page for this specific reasons (and I'm pretty sure that Raul has implied Wikipedia is unlikely to make it to the main page even if it is a FA). See also my comments User talk:Howcheng/MerkinPOTD which if there was consideration of Merkin being TFP I think would have received far more attention. While Merkin is a specific case where perhaps an exception would be warranted definitely I personally would strongly object to irrelevant references to wikipedians on the main page which are likely to be inherently confusing to many readers who aren't familiar with the term and come across as needless self promotion of wikipedia. The logo example is irrelevant since that is part of the interface which occurs on every page. (A better example would be the welcome to wikipedia links etc, but those are relevant to the context) Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not fully read the discussion because I dont have a free week but I Strongly Oppose removing photo credits on the main page --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I read it and didn't see anything that was both on-topic and any different to last time. It's the same basic argument – people contributing front-page quality photographs are no more deserving of a byline than those contributing to front-page articles – provoking the same flawed comparisons. It's not a simple issue but one thing is obvious and central: article editors (by definition) add and disseminate other peoples' work, while photographers license their own work. The CC-BY license they're obliged to use for this purpose respects that authorship as a core principle and this is reflected in the attribution given. If FAs were also primary sources they'd require attribution in the same way – then we'd be comparing apples with apples. Yes, it is a courtesy extended only to image creators but it is patently not anything at all to do with recognition of some extra amount of effort exerted, they're two completely different, unrelated and unquantifiable activities.
One of the great things about WIkipedia is the effort we exert to pare content down to nothing more than essential information. We don't have anything in article namespace that doesn't pertain directly to the article, and that includes image credits – although some editors forcefully argue in favour of this and do randomly add caption credits. But the main page isn't article namespace. What's pertinent here is the publicising of exceptional content, a recognition that explains, incidentally, why other images on the main page are not credited. It is difficult to provide a definitive, positive reason for this other than there being no reason to extend the courtesy to any other element, in so far as no other element can claim this justification. mikaul^talk 14:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is sweet. To paraphrase (correct me if I misunderstood): article writers provide no original contribution, they merely process other peoples work. Thus they deserve no credit. Hmm... I wonder what Durova has to reply to this. --Dschwen 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to read thoroughly to avoid misunderstanding, so let me paraphrase for you: image credits are not about who is more deserving, they're a courtesy based in licensing, a convention that has no parallel in editing. I don't see how there's anything more to say other than point out the illogic of revoking this convention at a time when we're trying to encourage more professional photographers to donate their work. mikaul^talk 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, rereading and responding to some of your points. article editors (by definition) add and disseminate other peoples' work, while photographers license their own work. I thoroughly disagree with this oversimplified statement. Isn't a photographer making a picture of a building disseminating the architects work as well? Isn't the macro photographer disseminating natures work? They did not create the pretty butterfly or whatever either. You are belittling article contributors as simple copy-editors here. The CC-BY license they're obliged to use for this purpose respects that authorship as a core principle and this is reflected in the attribution given. If FAs were also primary sources they'd require attribution in the same way – then we'd be comparing apples with apples. Articles are also licensed under CC-BY-SA. Attribution requirements are not dependent on the originality/quality of the work, only on the license. We are comparing apples with apples, unless you are saying articles are a lesser CC work than photos. it is patently not anything at all to do with recognition of some extra amount of effort exerted, they're two completely different, unrelated and unquantifiable activities. I disagree, while they are different activities they are by no means unquantifiable. Durova provides some tangible quantification in one of her comments above. 20h, that is twenty hours of work that went into one of her restorations. no other element can claim this justification you are not giving a justification and backing this point with arguments (other than the flimsy ones above which I set out to debunk). --Dschwen 14:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess my suggestion that we let this one go under WP:SNOW actually fell under WP:SNOW itself. Dschwen, there is no consensus toward removing the photo credit and no apparent progress being made toward that consensus. Is the discussion continuing solely for purposes of picking apart arguments and getting the last word? 168.9.120.8 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is no consensus for change, however the arguments for the status quo are very unsatisfactory. And I'm not willing to let misleading statements stand here uncommented. Do you have a problem with that? Feel free not to respond anymore if you are not interested in keeping this discussion going. --Dschwen 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything useful coming from drawing this out either, but I'm prepared to defend my arguments. On disseminating the works of nature, I really do think you're splitting hairs. On the other hand, if you're looking to debate the issue on teleological grounds I'd be happy to engage ;) On CC-BY licensing, I think I'm right in saying article attribution is given to WIkipedia, because there is no identifiable author. Again, I'm expressly not arguing about relative worth here. On quantifiable effort, I'm personally acquainted with people who work like chess players with a stopwatch and notebook, but most, I would argue, are like me and do so much related peripheral stuff surrounding their work the hourly tally is anyone's guess, quite apart from the entirely different activities in question. Unless we are all chess players, comparisons are meaningless: more apples and oranges right there. Writing this now (while waiting for paint to dry on a set, making and eating breakfast) is a case in point; trying to do three things simulaneously (with limited success, I might add) makes a nonsense of quantifying any one of them. Finally, this debate as originally stated set out to establish a negative – that PotD should not appear here with image credits. I've attempted to explain why the status quo is justifiable and failed to read a single solid net benefit for its removal. It's up to you to prove the negative, not me to defend the way things are, so I'm going to take my flimsy arguments off to a darkened room and see if I can't create myself a truly original thought :) --mikaul^talk 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave it at that. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But let me add that questioning the status quo should not only be permitted but encouraged. Doing something "because we've always done it like that" is not satisfactory (at least for me). And given the amount black phosphors this section generated, there seem to be a couple of at least controversial points. --Dschwen 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The one useful thing that might come out of this is the addition of restoration credit to POTD. Today on Commons another volunteer left word about my restoration of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising being sold, uncredited, at eBay.

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising restoration, exploited without credit on eBay
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, unrestored
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, restored[2]

In order to confirm that this is indeed my work I checked the rest of their online store and found 12 more of my restorations for sale by the same vendor.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] The vendor also happens to be violating copyrights owned by the Walt Disney Corporation and the NAACP; I've placed a few phone calls this afternoon. Now would this website please cease encouraging the exploitation of my volunteer labor? This isn't a theoretical problem. Durova³¹⁸ 21:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so after reading this conversation, it seems rather obvious that photographers and restorationists would like to be credited. So, let's cut to the chase: regardless of your views on whether credit should or should not appear on the main page, does it really hurt anything if it does? In my opinion, it does not. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm that is not really a confirmation, they sell prints of nearly 2000 historical images. Even if they used a version restored by you, they are doing nothing wrong. While it would be polite they have no obligation to credit you. If you think that is an exploitation of your work (how can that be? You have no loss here.) you might want to rethink your motivations for contributing (please don't, I'm just making a point ;-) ). --Dschwen 22:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moral rights (copyright law). –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this even the least bit relevant? Did you actually read the link you're wiki-slapping me with? You do realize that Durova's work is not copyrightable in most legislations (the UK being an exception, but Wikimedia is trying to fight that, to make PD works from museums more accessible - you cannot have your cake and eat it too!). --Dschwen 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mistaken about the UK being an exception. As far as I'm aware there is actually quite a few countries where either court cases or the law isn't clear enough such that the principles of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would apply and a few where it appears it wouldn't (i.e. there is protection). Swiss is one where the work wouldn't be copyrightable Swiss copyright law#Lack of originality. This source also suggests Germany [30]. Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs lists these and also Brazil, Japan, Poland and Romania as other places where it's probably not copyrightable. On the other hand in that article and Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The U.S. case of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999) France, Netherlands, Nordic countries and Spain (as well as the UK) are listed as places where either the law isn't clear enough or there is protection. IIRC, Australia was another possibility since they do have some recognition of sweat of brow doctrine. While this has little to do with the Durova situation since you made the claim of the UK being the odd exception I felt it important to point out AFAIK you're not correct. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right. UK is the prominent example where sweat of brow is holding up strong. I did not mean to imply that it is the only one. Main point being that sweat of brow is bad for Wikipedia (see Dcoetzee case). --Dschwen 15:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Worth pointing out, for those viewers following along at home, the specific case to which Dschwen is alluding. Cutting a soon-to-be very long story short, a lot will probably depend on the definition of original works, and to some extent a consideration of "sweat of brow" will likely form part of that decision. For our purposes, its enough to ask whether digitally repaired and reformatted versions of analogue works such as those referenced above should be relicensed so as to remove them from the public domain, bringing them within a license (ie CC-BY) that requires attribution. This has little to do with our main page attribution, though. Legal issues aside, we have to decide whether the considerable effort invested by individual volunteers in replacing damaged and unattractive images with greatly enhanced featured pictures is equivalent to the provision of original content made by photographers, illustrators and film-makers. As with the legal issues, the answer depends on exactly how we define original works for our specific purposes. mikaul^talk 11:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're perhaps confusing the legal issues and the ethical issues which is what I presume Durova is addressing. Legally presuming the person lives in the US or some other country where the law allows it, they're doing nothing wrong. The question Durova is (again I presume) raising is whether we should encourage this sort of behaviour from an ethical standpoint. If we don't credit photographers and restorationists then there's little reason for other sources to. It seems logical that other sources will take a hint from the source of their photographs. Mind you, if this eBayer is violating copyright of Walt Disney and NAACP I'm not sure whether they would actually bother to credit Durova in any case. (eBayers of this sort aren't that uncommon, I heard of one selling OpenOffice downloads for $7.50 or something who weren't even using their own site but just pointing people to the openly available mirror.) I would point out that this is one area where the end result is less acknowledgment then with text. With text, even if the source is public domain, we immediately claim the work as GFDL and CC. Technically this very likely isn't true for a direct copy in the US and many other countries (even some of those mentioned earlier have exceptions for photographs which wouldn't apply to text). However once the text has been sufficiently reworked which is necessary for many PD sources our claim would likely hold. Contributors to such text are therefore legally entitled to a hyperlink or URL at a minimum if it is ever published or reused. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, before everybody gets all outraged about the evil print-salesman/-saleswoman I would like to point out that unless there's something Durova isn't telling us, these are just unproven (and rather unlikely) accusations. The 12 pictures out of the almost 2000 pictures, which seem to be selected for historical importance, can be a complete coincidence, given that Durova also selects pictures according to their importance. So what are these few phonecalls you placed, and what is coming out of them? Comparing them to the OpoeOffice scammers is hardly fair, the product you are buying is not the image or the rights to the image, but the physical print. Also I'm not confusing legal and ethical issues at all. It is just that the outrage (cease encouraging the exploitation of my volunteer labor) is inappropriate here. --Dschwen 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check more closely: that isn't a collection of 2000 images. The seller cycles overlapping auctions and cross-categorizes the same material between different categories within the eBay store. It's reasonable to raise objections; the examples at this page are egregious. If Time magazine were plagiarizing text instead of media no reputable Wikipedian would scold the fellow editor whose hard work went uncredited. What's inappropriate is to make counterfactual assertions regarding the extent of the problem, when convenience links are provided and take less than two minutes to check properly. Durova³¹⁹ 02:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What counterfactual assertions are you referring to? --Dschwen 04:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Please check more closely: that isn't a collection of 2000 images." Durova³¹⁹ 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Restorationists definitely deserve to be credited on the main page; I had always wondered why they weren't. Though the eBay user is definitely being sleazy (selling an easily-accessible print for $8+$4 S&H that any Internet user could print at WalMart for $2.50). That said, he (and Time) aren't doing anything wrong here. The images are PD and require no attribution. They should attribute you, per common decency, but they needn't, per copyright law (unfortunately, sleaziness is legal). Bringing up plagiarizing of Wikipedia text is a disparate comparison: text is protected under CC-BY-SA; these images are not. upstate NYer 03:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Credit for image sources is standard practice among reputable publishers. Time credits the source on other images within the same group of articles. It appears you are confusing copyright with plagiarism; the concepts are not synonymous. Durova³¹⁹ 16:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest (and I can kind of understand their dilemma), they probably just don't want to admit using Wikipedia as a source, not thinking of the effort by that human being that put the hours into it. They source everything else either to a photographer or Getty. And to respond to your comment, while they are not synonymous, only one has legal ramifications; the other carries no actual requirements, only moral expectations. upstate NYer 18:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Slightly relevant to the above, I have just come across File:Jens Stoltenberg 2007 04 18.jpg which ask that attribution be given whenever the image is used. Now I want to put this on the main page (to go with the ITN item), but I'm not sure if I can or should now, as there is certainly no way to include a credit there. What do others think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think those license conditions are contrary to the sprit and intent of the free licensing under which WIkipedia is published and certainly contrary to our image use guidelines, which clearly state that all images be attributed on their description page only, not in article namesapce. As such it's not suitable for use in the encyclopedia, never mind the main page. --mikaul^talk 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)