Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system

The upload system was origianly developed towards the end of the fair use conflicts and in dirrect responce to editors complaints about the lack of images (see late 2006 early 2007 at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/archive_toc. A full description of the system can be found at Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images please read that before expressing an opinion. The system likely has more tricks up its sleeve than you think. Also please click on the image to see what any uploader would see. It was not however the first placeholder on wikipedia that distinction is held by Image:Nocover.png (although it doesn't have the backend built in which in it's original version of Image:Nocover.gif dates back to 30 June 2005. This demonstrates that the placeholders have a long history of acceptance in wikipedia. The system has in some form or another since been adopted by other language wikipedia's including no.wikipedia. A significant number of free images have been uploaded as a result both directly through the system indirectly via things like OTRS and indirectly due to regular editors being reminded of the need for images (turns out that regular editors don't look at talk pages much either these days). The exact appearance of the images has been adapted a number of times in response to various concerns. Further development is always welcome. Since the images are SVGs size is entirely a product of either in article settings or infobox template design. As well bringing reader's attention to the fact they can help the project it also simplifies the means by which they can do so. The need for this is clearly shown by de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Usability/Test_Februar_2006. As the system grew out of the fair use debates the initial approach was that the image would appear only on articles that would not qualify for a fair use image (living people who made public appearances at least from time to time) In order to facilitate debate and consensus building please state your position in your own words.Genisock2 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the other proposals all fail, then the default is that, obviously, no change is implemented. Therefore, this proposal is superfluous. In addition, since it seems likely from the way things have been going so far that Proposal 1 is going to pass, I question why the proposer felt the need to add another proposal at this time. Finally, what happened to Proposal 4? Lexicon (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an opinion rather than a proposal (anomalously numbered! Where is Proposal 4?). I suggest we delete the words "Proposal 5" from the heading. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nope It's a proposal with a bunch of evidences and reasoning to back it up. now stop it with the rule lawyering.Genisock2 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. (Quote) "a bunch of evidences and reasoning to back it up" sounds like a Genisock2 opinion to me. What does a link to a Norwegian page about Øystein Sunde and a statement that (quote) "The system likely has more tricks up its sleeve than you think." got to do with a proposal? --Kleinzach (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can figure out the reason for the link to the Bokmål wikipedia. Should be fairly obvious from the context. The more tricks than you think comment is because I'm getting a little fed up with people who don't appear to have spent much time studying the system makeing comments that are not consistent with how the system works.Genisock2 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a publication. It is not a system. That is the fundamental mistake you are making. It exists for the readers - not for techy games. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for very solid legal reasons wikipedia is closer to being a system however I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would expect you to understand that by system I meant the placeholder system. It is not a game.Genisock2 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to considering this proposal if it is rephrased as an action statement ("Don't make significant changes to the status quo"), but first, I'd like to hear (a) What does an "agree" vote here signify that a "disagree" vote under Proposals 1, 2, and 3 would not signify? (b) If we introduce this now, aren't we disenfranchising the people who commented above under Proposal 1 and who may not revisit this page in order to comment again on Proposal 5?Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy.Genisock2 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, ideally it's a process that moves forward toward consensus. How does this proposal move us forward in a way that noting "disagree" under Proposals 1, 2, and 3 above would not accomplish?Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it also covers proposals 4,6,7 and 8.Genisock2 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genisock, thanks for the background -- I find myself wishing I'd heard some of this earlier in the process, especially as we were drafting the introduction to this discussion. It is very helpful to know the history of this system. I'm not sure whether or not it will change my views, I'd like to read the links you've provided more carefully and think it over a bit. However, I find myself agreeing with Kleinzach and Northwesterner -- a proposal to "leave things as they are" is the exact opposite of a proposal to "change things," which is what the first proposal is. In essence, !voting "disagree" to the first proposal is the same as !voting "agree" on this one, which makes this kind of redundant.

I would encourage you to incorporate your text into the introductory section, rather than making a separate proposal. It may be too late to have an effect on many of the !votes, but you won't know unless you try. -Pete (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different ways of changing the system. This is the alternative.Genisock2 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no support for calling this section 'Proposal 5'. In order not to confuse other participants I've removed these words and put 'Opinion' instead. Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I don't recall much advanced suporty for createing the original ~~votes~~ proposals. Now stop it with the rule lawyering.Genisock2 (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see you have put back the words 'Proposal 5', despite rejection by the four other editors here. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy I'm sure we wrote that down somewhere.Genisock2 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for Proposal 4. =) Powers ^T 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this information is pertinent and should go up at the top of the page but not under the name of a proposal.Nrswanson (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. And edited ~~so it doesn't have the usual condescending arrogant sneer of Genisock's writing.~~Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should go after Question 6 and before 'Ideas for modification'? How would that be? --Kleinzach (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that "History of the upload system" is a reasonable description of what is written there? The first sentence and one or two others cover history. The rest not remotely.Genisock2 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a much closer description than proposal. What would you suggest Genisock?Broadweighbabe (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests that the person who gave it that title hasn't actually read it beyond the first sentence. I'd probably title it "The history, context and technical aspects of the use of the uselang function and image placeholders to facilitate the uploading of free images to wikimedia projects" but then I've never been one for snappy titles. Otherwise "read this before commenting".Genisock2 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you approve of this new title?Nrswanson (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections I've moved this to its new location after Question 6. --Kleinzach (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment -- the nocover image for CDs is less intrusive than the current male/female/camera placeholder images used. More white space and lightness is seen with the nocover image. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]