Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep (nomination withdrawn). JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art[edit]

Request withdrawn by request maker Teofilo talk 04:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to make the present request under the terms of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before nominating a page for deletion #7: For WikiProjects it is usually preferable to either mark the Project as historical or change it to a task force of the parent Project, unless the Project is entirely undesirable.

I have not checked every activity undertaken by that Wikiproject, but I know that at least some of its activities are heavily undesirable, and that seems to be sufficient to ask the wider Wikipedia community to discard it.

I usually do not get involved in community talks on the English Wikipedia although I sometimes edit articles here. But I am more actively involved in community activities on Wikimedia Commons where many files are being uploaded under the name "WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art".

Two big problems :

  • The removal of photographer identity, and an absence of evidence that the photographer has approved the terms of a free licence.

Some people from that Wikiproject appear to be owners of a Flickr account with a similar name and that Flickr account is being used for what we call commons:commons:Flickr washing.

The wider public should be told that the wider English Wikipedia community does not endorse the activities of that group, although they want to call themselves "Wikipedia something".

Perhaps that project could reopen later if it can find leaders who are more knowledgeable in copyrights and free licencing.

A Wikipedian had issued a first warning that copyright matters should be taken seriously in December 2009 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art#Images of sculptures.

For details on the activities of that group on Wikimedia Commons see also :

Additionally I would like to ask the people who opened that Flickr account to remove all pictures from there and to close that Flickr account, or at least to perform those activities on Flickr without using the word "Wikipedia" in their Flickr account name. These people should not claim on their blogs either that the Wikipedia community endorses their activities.

Commons:user:Teofilo (commons:user talk:Teofilo) 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Request withdrawn by request maker Teofilo talk 04:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep great project, just don't upload unfree files to Commons. multichill (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Multichill. I may add that this project recevied much support and praise in the Wikimedia community.
    This course of action is highly unappropriate: if there is a problem with their uploads to Commons, then our role is to disccus these issues with them. Certainly not to open such a page. I find this incredibly rude.
    By the way, you obviously misuse the rationale you use for this request, « entirely undesirable WikiProject», as you state you did not review all of their their activity. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - work with the project to fix issues; don't simply delete it. Mike Peel (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do it yourself. Until now nobody has managed to convince these people to behave responsibly. It is time to take some tough action to prevent them from continuing doing wrong. Commons:user:Teofilo (commons:user talk:Teofilo) 11:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wonder whether we are trying to be an encyclopedia that only talks to itself - amongst those editors who are already "in" and undesireous of new contributors... So you've come across a particular copyright issue that can be fixed and you think that the best way to fix it is to "teach then a lesson" by deleting the whole project - destroying the fantastic work that a group of student academics and GLAM sector professional have been done on Wikipedia entirely for the reasons that we're here - to create and share free knowledge. Why must we fight everyone who tries to join wikipedia as if they have to "prove" themselves? This has got to be the most unhelpful proposal I've seen on Wikipedia for years and even if it does fail you will have demoralised many good-faith contributors and set-back GLAM-WIKI relations by a year at least. Witty Lama 11:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This course of action is absurd and unjustified--personally, you come across as someone who has made a snap, and poor decision, Commons:user:Teofilo, while only understanding a fraction of the information. Why didn't you make your questions on the Talk page first? Here's some responses to your mostly unsubstantiated and erroneous claims:

A. No member of this group has uploaded any image to The Commons under the name "WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art," as you state. As far as I know that user name does not exists. We have always suggested that members use personal accounts for their own work.

B. Please clearly state your claimed copyright infractions, and actually substantiate them. Just saying that they exist does not make them so. Please note that the SIRS website is a U.S. Federal website, which makes the images acceptable for the Commons and Wikipedia.

    • Ehm, no. This is most definitely incorrect and probably cause for many of the problems we see here. Please read: http://sirismm.si.edu/siris/siris-copyright.htm Many images there can come from non-Smithsonian organizations, from private parts of the Smithsonian or were not made by non-federal employees (just 2/3 of the Smithsonian employees are government employees). Properly determining the copyright status of an item in the Smithsonian websites is somewhat of an art in itself. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that but see no course of action to contact a representative for the SOS! images, which are the only ones that WSPA has been interested in. That copyright statement relates more generally to all of the images in the SIRIS Databasae. Because of this distinction, I think it more reasonable to default to the Smithsonian's general TOS for copyright [1]. Of course, I'd be happy to learn more and better understand how to do this.

C. Please substantiate your Flickr Washing claim. (Again, merely calling out some policy is not helpful; base your accusations on facts, please.) Frankly, I don't even know where to begin with the Flickr Washing claim. If you look at the account, the images have been painstakingly credited and sorted into sets. Sets taken from the U.S. Federal website, SIRIS, have been grouped into specific sets. New documentary images have been sorted into groups based on location and the attributed date of the creation of the artwork. What more could we have possibly done?

D. I have never found a photographer's identify associated with any image in the SIRIS database, so I'm not sure how anyone could be accused of removing it.

E. Members of this group have been doing a lot of research about copyright claims for public artworks, and their knowledge has grown considerably since it first opened. Reference that December 2009 discussions is just silly. Have you even looked through all of the information and guidance that this project offers for uploading images? Unlike your actions, many other Wikipedians have been *helpful* and helped provide guidance when they noticed things that the project could be doing better.

F. The fact that this project has the word Wikipedia is nothing more than a way to recognize and point out that the work is being done in Wikipedia. There is a track record of many people calling projects "Wikipedia Something". So far, you're the only Wikipedia that has gone against the activity of this project. Also, it's my understanding that "Wikipedia" is a just as much a community as a website.

G. Personally, I believe, that Commons:user:Teofilo's actions here are what are undesirable and worthy of deletion. It's always a shame to see how one person can do something that hurts the efforts of an entire community so clearly. It's especially shameful when the actions are based on a lack of knowledge, understanding, and facts. Suggesting that this project be thrown out completely is that act of troll. --Richard McCoy (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this somewhat substantial reply. For clarity's sake, I suggest not to use an ambiguous wording like "The Commons" and use either "Flickr The Commons" or "Wikimedia Commons" as they are separate entities.
A) If you mean "Flickr The Commons", there is an account there at http://www.flickr.com/people/wsavespublicart/ whose html code begins with < title >Flickr : Wikipedia Saves Public Art< / title >. If you mean "Wikimedia Commons" I have not seen any user account with that name, but commons:user:Missvain, while identifying herself/himself as such, has created pages where the author fields of information templates is filled with |Author = [http://flickr.com/people/45813125@N08 Wikipedia Saves Public Art] , for example here. The documentation of the information template requires the |author field to be filled with original author of the file; where appropriate, use {{Creator:Name Surname}} with {{Creator}}. If the work is derivated, the author of the original (e. g. depicted or retouched) work should be mentioned as well. Wikipedia Saves Public art is a Wikiproject, a collective body, not a single human being. Therefore Wikipedia Saves Public Art has no fingers. Therefore Wikipedia Saves Public Art cannot carve a statue or press a camera shutter. Therefore Wikipedia Saves Public Art is not a sculptor or a photographer and is not the original author of any file. So these information templates are not filled in a suitable way. For example the |author field of File:John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg by Caroline M. Hufford (1980) (SOS! Control IAS DC000093).jpg should be filled with the sculptor's name, "and photographer:unknown" and the |source field with "Goode, James M., "Washington Sculpture: A Cultural History of Outdoor Sculpture in the Nation's Capitol," Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008, no. 3.30" as the SIRIS catalog page is saying. Without further enquiry showing that this picture from this book is in the Public Domain, or permission from the photographer or copyright owner, all we can say is that pictures taken from recent (2008) books are generally not suitable for Wikimedia Commons.


B) Your SOS! link is a red link, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Please elaborate. In addition to what User:TheDJ already said, the Smithsonian Institution seems to be similar to the Washington Holocaust museum : "PD-USGov doesn't apply to works the US Gov merely owns, just the ones it created" (source). When photographs of sculptures are concerned, we need both the sculptor and the photographer to be proven US federal employees. Photographs or sculptures the Smithsonian institution merely owns are not PD-USGov (Public Domain as United States government works).
C) See what I wrote above about File:John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg by Caroline M. Hufford (1980) (SOS! Control IAS DC000093).jpg in reply to A).
D) You are probably right concerning the SIRIS catalog. This could be a reason why copying photographs from the SIRIS catalog is not a good idea. But some pictures seem to come from elsewhere than the SIRIS catalog. File:Llamas by Una Hanbury (1993) SOS! Control IAS DC000115.jpg was uploaded with a claim that this photo was taken by a team member of Wikipedia Saves Public Art. What is this member's name ? Isn't he/she the original author of the photograph ? Shouldn't his/her name appear in the |author= field of the information template ?
G) I had not read your G) until now. If I had read it (your insult that I am a troll) I would not have written such a long and polite answer. Teofilo talk 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing that there are some serious copyright issues to be addressed on Commons and on Flickr, but please, can someone explain to me how deleting a Wikipedia project is going contribute anything towards solving them. The images on commons will still remain as will the images on Flickr. The best that can be said about this MfD is that it has highlighted the copyvio problem but there were probably more direct and productive ways to go about that. Nancy talk 17:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with numerous editors and admins above that resolving copyright issues is possible and that this Wikiproject has significant value and has operated in good faith. Jgmikulay (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, and note that Teofilo is actively canvassing for people to come here and vote delete Raul654 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion at that link that Raul654 pointed out - people who are interested in helping rather than just biting can discuss the copyright/FoP issues here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art/Image Guide. Witty Lama 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(think we're getting in to WP:SNOW territory here)- This Wikiproject represents what truly makes Wikipedia great: gathering and retaining knowledge for knowledge's sake. Frankly, this nomination, which in the nominator's own words has the goal of "tak[ing] some tough action to prevent them from continuing doing wrong" borders on bad faith.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How absurd. We don't delete projects because they do some things incorrectly, or because some of their users ignore policy - otherwise, Wikipedia itself would be up for deletion. The goal of this project is to upload photos of public art, many of which are old enough to have fallen in the public domain, and many of which are permanent installations in countries with freedom of panorama. In many cases low resolution images of the works are acceptable under En's fair use policy. The users who misbehave should be educated, and in irredeemable cases blocked. At worst, the project page should more clearly emphasize copyright policies. Dcoetzee 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional questions How can a Wikipedia Wikiproject open a collective user account on Flickr ? Arent the Flickr community guidelines saying "Flickr accounts are intended for personal use, for our members to share photos and video that they themselves have created." ? Flickr is not the place to upload pictures taken by your friend or by your sister. You must have taken the photograph yourself. And is a picture copied from a website (the SIRIS catalog) a picture "[you] have [your]sel[f] created" ? Teofilo talk 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True or not, another website's policies have no bearing on a Wikipedia deletion discussion. If a group of people are breaking Flickr's rules, that would be their problem, not ours.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite true for a group of people with any kind of name, but if this group calls itself "Wikipedia something", it is better if they adopt a behavior Wikipedia as whole can endorse. I am not sure if going out to other websites and break their rules is something Wikipedians can endorse. A group which defines itself as Wikipedia-based should behave responsibly outside Wikipedia. Or they can choose another name and find another website as their home. By the way, the Flickr upload tools and bots provided at Wikimedia Commons are designed for Flickr accounts used in accordance with the Flickr general rules. When Flickr accounts have some strange behavior, we list them at commons:Commons:Questionable Flickr images. Teofilo talk 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For people who want to do things collectively as a group, Flickr provides "Flickr groups". Perhaps Wikipedians who want to do something collectively on Flickr could each open separately their own individual private account and then create a Flickr group together. Teofilo talk 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that SIRIS is a wonderful tool. I use it whenever I need information on a US sculpture. Teofilo talk 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. I agree with the person who said that this Wikiproject "represents what truly makes Wikipedia great".--Pharos (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the nature of this discussion, and no doubt will find it useful over time--even if I still do not appreciate Teofilo's intentionally unhelpful approach. It really appears that Teofilo is working so hard to keep WSPA from doing something nefarious (what I don't know). Our intentions are as stated in the project description. The questions about the use of the WSPA Flickr account are interesting. A number of us use that account to keep all of our photos together in one place while we document public artworks. We have also put images in their that have been taken from the SOS! database. Long ago, this Flickr account was vetted and deemed "safe" by Flickr. However, to be certain, I've asked for it to be vetted again. While I understand the argument against the taking of these images from the SOS! database, the intent is true, open, and honest. Also, I do not see a clear point from which to argue in terms of using these images in any "Commons." There is considerable grey area here, and I think even real copyright lawyers would have some trouble deciding who, if anyone, has copyright over those images, especially the ones of artworks that were made before 1923.

Personally, I've would love to see a productive relationship between SOS! and Wikimedia to get this information into Wikipedia so that the scope of the project can be expanded. Perhaps these images could be listed in Wikipedia:Public domain image resources or commons:Commons:Free media resources/Photography, and there could be a more meaningful addition of these images into Wikipedia. However, this discussion has moved so far away from the needless request for deletion, and I hope by now a decision can be rendered for keeping the project and these discussion moved into a more productive forum.

--Richard McCoy (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Productive research start

According to http://americanart.si.edu/research/programs/sos/#aboutsos , the SOS! program defines itself as a group of 7,000 volunteers [who] collected information about the history and condition of their communities' public sculpture. So they are not United States Federal employees and they remain individually the copyright owners of the work they have done. If someone has contacts with them, it would be good to suggest them to licence their work under free licenses. That means that perhaps they should use softwares that help working together in collaborative free licenced projects. That means that perhaps they should use wikis as their software. With a wiki you keep a track of everyone's identity in history tabs, while merging contributions from different people into a single page of text. And you keep an evidence that every individual has agreed to free-licence his own work. Teofilo talk 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote from the Smithsonian Institution : If we have an image in our study files, the record will include an "Illustration" field containing the phrase "Image on file." If the image has been scanned, the digital image will appear in the database record. To search for records with digital images, select the "Search Images" tab at the top of the database search screen. To see images that are not yet scanned, you can visit our office in Washington or you can request that a photocopy be mailed to you. (We can provide up to 20 photocopied images via the mail). If you wish to obtain a photograph for publication purposes, you need to contact the owner of the artwork. Every museum has its own "rights and reproduction" policies and charges for obtaining photographs. http://sirismm.si.edu/siris/aboutari.htm So it is quite clear that these pictures are not intended for commercial use, and therefore not suitable for Wikimedia Commons (See commons:Commons:Licencing, the policy page defining which pictures are suitable for Wikimedia Commons). Teofilo talk 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're interested in SOS! and interested in helping to research this highly complex topic. It was my secret hope that you were not just some person who is completely negative and actively trying to undue the good work of many, but instead a thoughtful and productive collaborator. Too bad you didn't start by putting your energies towards a productive end first, rather than absurdly suggesting to delete this whole project.
SOS! is much different than the Art Inventory projects that are hosted on SIRIS (not only in scope but in fact that all of the artworks in the SOS! database are outside). Referencing that site isn't the definitive statement on the copyright of the SOS! images.
The SOS! project was funded for three years: 92-94 (way, way before wikis, and when we all rode the interwebs on stage coaches). Without funding, SOS! is basically dead now. Finding all of those volunteers who took those photos and asking for copyright permission would be a Herculean task, but my guess is that somewhere, on the forms that the volunteers submitted, each person signed a copyright release that gave control of their images to the S.I. I hope that you can continue to go down this road as far as it will take you. Having your insight & experience may prove to be helpful. And, finding out the true nature of the copyright of those 32,000 entries that are stored in the SIRIS database would be extremely beneficial to all. Here's hoping you find some good information!
When you're done, though, please put it on the talk page of the WSPA Project page. Many thanks, --Richard McCoy (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment about the SIRIS's rights and reproductions disclaimr -- WMF policy is to adhere to the Bridgeman case (which said that copies of public domain works are also in the public domain). I think that ruling renders a museum's copyright claims moot. Raul654 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawn Most people voted "keep" so the request is not going to pass. Let us not spend much more time on this. Teofilo talk 04:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Saves_Public_Art&oldid=1078576979"