Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Proposal 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal 1: Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles[edit]

If this proposal passes, we edit style guidelines to explicitly disapprove the use of these images on article pages. We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place and/or move them to talk pages.

  • Agree. Per concerns in the discussion above and in the archived discussion. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I am on record on other discussion pages about my dislike of these place holders. MarnetteD | Talk 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I remain unconvinced by the rationale for inclusion, and the reasons for exclusion are too important to ignore. Cygnis insignis 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: Useful as a placeholder and inviting contributions. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: Per discussion above and in the archived discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. per discussion. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Per concerns in the discussion above and in the archived discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Prefer the less-instrusive template:reqphoto on talk pages. --Padraic 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I see the benefits of using these images to request free images, but for millions of readers these placeholders give no information and are just intrusive. Rettetast (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. As above. Jobjörn (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - They help. Garion96 (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Ludicrous position. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Placeholders distract attention from the text, take up screenspace, and give an amateurish look. Much like the high school yearbooks where people who missed the photo session are represented by silhouettes labeled Camera Shy. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such images appear on profession sites.Genisock2 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You gave your views. I gave mine. Do you want a debate about what I think of the placeholders? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per discussion above. Lexicon (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Do not object to tag soliciting free image, with link to WP project page that contained the "click here" svg; but do object to the use of the placeholder image.Lini (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why?
  • Agree This is a case of editors forgetting that tens of millions of non-editor "civilians" use the Wikipedia every day. "No Free Image. Please click here if you have one" is non-sensical to the vast majority of people using the Wikipedia - people like my MOM, for example. A biographical article does not REQUIRE an image to be complete. Attempting to entice non-editors into participating in one of the most legally sensitive copyright issue that we face editing the Wikipedia poses its own issues. How much editorial time is consumed deleting images that aren't properly licensed? This was a cute idea that some well-intentioned editors didn't think through and took to far and now we're suffering as a result. It will be best practice for the Wikipedia to stop using this silly come on and move along to more serious and valuable editing. --AStanhope (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Intrusive and ugly on the article page. Prefer use of "photo required" option within the WP Biography talk page template, or some other talk page solution. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show that that has any effectiveness in getting images from readers at all?Genisock2 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genisock2, something about Wikipedia's approach, before your form, was pretty effective, because lots of free photos were uploaded before your form existed. Whether or not Espresso Addict mentioned the very most effective approach here doesn't seem too important to me. -Pete (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any stats on effectiveness, but I consider there is an obvious benefit in terms of readability of the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree These placeholders have generated many free photos. Editors almost uniformly think photos of article subjects are necessary, judging by fair use battles. It is ludicrous to allow style guidelines to trump an effective way of building the encyclopedia. Many people who have photos may not be regular contributors, so they won't check the talk page for notices or even think to upload one if they have it. This is a way to let that one random guy who has a photo of some celebrity help out. I prefer the picture over the tag because I think it is less intrusive than an all-the-way-across-the-top banner. Mangostar (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly agree Plus, the banner needn't be placed at the top of the page. Voceditenore (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. They're disruptive. Sandstein (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. They violate WP:SELF and are not really that useful. How many more out-of-focus fan snapshots do we need anyway? Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of images received through the system are not out of focus.Genisock2 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. It is quite clear that an article with no image could use an image. There is no need to put an empty box there to remind anyone of the fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show this is the case for readers? Particularly when you consider that readers will find our existing upload system hard to use.Genisock2 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Existing text templates suffice. NVO (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I happen to believe that they encourage casual readers to contribute images. -- Lincolnite (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - req is better off in Wikispace, and pics are not always available unless you make them up for old dead people. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Readers really don't look at the wikipedia namespace and image shouldn't be on articles about dead people.Genisock2 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I do not think it is realistic to expect every article to have an image (what encyclopedia does?), so there is no need to hold a spot for something that is unexpected. Since many images have been submitted prior to implementation of this system, it seems to me the cost (50,000 aesthetically unappealing articles) does not equal the benefit (458 submitted images), especially since it is un-knowable if these images would have been uploaded via the traditional method anyway. Mitico (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree The lack of an image of the subject of an article is not a major problem with it. Having a picture just to draw attention to the lack is distracting and spoils the reading experience.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: I'd be happy to have a text requesting an image, similar in appearance to stub info, at bottom of article, but if that's not on offer then we just have to remove these unsightly and distracting additions. PamD (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. And I believe there are already talk page templates that indicate that a photo is being sought for the subject. These belong on the talk pages. Fishal (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I don't see these images as significantly different from the "edit this page" tab at the top of every article. They are at least marginally helpful and do not significantly diminish the presentation of the article. The placeholders are also extremely useful for heading off non-free images. Powers T 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - These images are being placed in an increasing number of articles in a semi automated method, and their insistence is enforced in a de-facto manner. I have removed some dubious images only to have been reverted by editors thinking that they're standard. If anything (and I hope not), they should be a simple line of text in the caption box stating no image is available. And why does the image state "no free image", when quite simply, "no image" is fine? The article on Robert Altman would not benefit in the slightest by having a placeholder, we shouldn't have to provoke readers into editing via gross ugliness. - hahnchen 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It states no free image because in many cases we do have non-free images, but those are unacceptable in an article on a living person. Altman is no longer living so the placeholder graphic would not appear there anyway. Powers T 18:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The placeholder unnecessarily clutters up an article, in a most prominent position. I do, however, strongly support efforts to solicit new free images; I believe efforts should be focused off-wiki, through groups like WikiWednesday (or perhaps even WikiProjects), by pressuring government to make its own works public domain, contacting individuals for their own pictures, and organizing image drives. I would probably change my position if both the following conditions were met (which I'm told are impossible or very difficult to implement): (1) the placeholder is moved to the bottom of the article, and (2) it does not appear when the article is printed out. -Pete (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. My personal experience replacing these placeholders with photos submitted to OTRS tells me they work. howcheng {chat} 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - Since we are no longer allowed to upload publicity photos, we need a system like this to solicit free images from the people who visit Wikipedia, or we'll just be stuck with no images at all. They have been demonstrated to work and fit in with all the other maintenance templates. Also, this smells like forum shopping. — Omegatron (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this forum shopping? This is the first full-scale centralized discussion about the issue, and it has been publicized everywhere that prior discussion about the issue has occurred. Using WP:CENT with cross posts to WP:RFC and publicity at signpost is not forum shopping; it's letting everyone know where the forum is.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree-placeholders make Wikipedia look sloppy is an admittance to our problems, reliability, completness, etc. -- penubag  (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Сасусlе 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. These images are not particularly intrusive and have the potential to lead to a huge increase in the number of biographical photos. They haven't been in use on wide scale for long enough to measure their success; if there a move towards deletion, we should at least have a decent evaluation of their effectiveness, and the current stats are useless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The placeholders are a valuable tool for expanding our collection of free images, and I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments against them. —CComMack (t–c) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. You're kidding, right? They could look better, but otherwise a generic "we don't have a good photo of this person yet, care to help?" is hardly unhelpful. I think done right it actually makes us look a bit more professional, especially since it sort of standardises biography infoboxes. I don't think there's any case that these placeholders are harmful beyond "they look kinda ugly", which in itself does not merit deciding against their usage. The argument that these placeholders are self-referential is ludicrous; many commonly used templates are self-referential but nobody says we should take them out. Johnleemk | Talk 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The current placeholder images are far from perfect, but I don't think there's a problem with them in principle: they draw attention to the fact that an article is lacking an image (and have, at least sometimes, led to a free image being uploaded), in a way not substantially different from any other article improvement tag. Removing them en masse would seem like a step backwards to me. Terraxos (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Agree Although I believe that photos are a positive addition to articles there must be a better way to encourage the uploading of photos than damaging the physical appearance of the articles. As a web designer they make me cringe every time I run across them.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Insearchofintelligentlife is a sockpuppet (now blocked) --Kleinzach (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. I don't see any substantive difference between the placeholder and the multitude of maintenance tags. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree There are less intrusive ways of doing this. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree strongly there might be situations where using a placeholder is not apropriate or desired, and I'm not in favour of indiscriminate automatic inclution of placeholders. However the apropriate response to "overzealous" inclution of placeholders is not to turn around and say that no placeholders should be used anywhere ever. For example I think it makes perfect sense to replace images deleted for having inapropriate license status or failing the non-free content criteria and simmilar with placeholders. The article editors obviously though an image was apropriate, and the placeholder makes it more clear that not just any image will do. If such images are simply deletd and removed more often than not a simmilar, or often even the same image will be re-uploaded and deleted again several times more. I don't even have a problem with people removing placeholders if they feel they are inapropriate or even ugly, that's something the editors of the various articles have to work out between themselves, but I would absolutely not support any proposal that aim to "outlaw" the use placeholder across the board in one fell swoop. Again, not saying we should have a policy saying placeholders have to be used, just that we should leave the option open and then wether or not it should be used in any particular article is something the editors of that article have to work out between themselves, not something we should should seek to make global absolute policy or guidelines for. --Sherool (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Agree strongly Placeholders destroy the reading experience of the article by virtue of being unprofessional advertisements that are a blatant violation of WP:Self. They also encourage the uploading of photos by a population of people who are likely to upload copywrited material and are therefore a danger to the credibility of wikipedia as a whole. I am all for more photos but believe there are better sollutions within the internal wikipedia community that can adress this matter.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: we understand that Divinediscourse was a sockpuppet - now blocked. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please be pointing out the copyvios in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders?Genisock2 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please Genisock. It is the easiest thing to do to fake a copywrite on wikipedia if you claim you took the photo yourself, and there is no way to know the truth of it unless another editor is lucky enough to spot it.Divinediscourse (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's your chance to spot it. If what you say about the system is true there should be plently of obvious copyvios there.Genisock2 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a logical supposition for two reasons. First, I am not familiar with any of the individuals with whom those pictures are of. I am therefore not qualified to identify let alone note a copywrite violation. Second, out of the billions (or more?) of copywrited images out there, I have no way of knowing whether an image is copywrited or not unless I happen to stumble upon the identical photograph in another place that is obviously copywrited. Regardless, I know human nature amd I know wikipedia. I garauntee you there are pictures in there that are fraudulent is some manner or other.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are familia with the system either. It has a copyvio filtering system built in.Geni 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - Wikipedia has to promote free content as well as build an encyclopedia. The "do you have a free image?" photo does that. Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree:I would like to see this system gone. There are already more appropriate templates that go on the talk page for soliciting images. For the record, I don't like the other templates that solicit expansion of articles/sections, but that's a debate for somewhere else. – jaksmata 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain -- the intended outcome of getting images has a purpose, but the current systematic application, and that image, are the problems. Guroadrunner (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Suggestions on how to improve an article should be made on the talk page. Shanes (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Firstly, I don't think image placeholders are a "suggestion on how to improve an article" so much as an invitation to do so. Secondly, even if you stand by your definition, you would be forced to concede that many "suggestions on how to improve articles" do appear on the article page. If you think there shouldn't, then that's fair enough, but I see no reason why we shouldn;t follow established practice in this instance. --Cherry blossom tree 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the guideline you linked to do you think image placeholders contavene? --Cherry blossom tree 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree per User:Howcheng. If it works, why get rid of it? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, per above. If it this doesn't pass, I'd strongly go with Proposal 3. --Bobak (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I understand the purpose, and I'm not actively against the placeholders, but when asked if I prefer them on the main page or the talkpage, then, yes, of course, they are more appropriate for the talk page. They are not a necessity but are an invitation to add something to an article. Most articles need some form of assistance, but we don't want to see large tags on every article asking people to do the minor but obvious edit. Ask people to add sources to an unsourced article of reasonable length and age - yes; ask people to be aware of potential POV in an article and address it - yes; but ask people to sort of make this article a little bit better looking and more appealing is perhaps not imperative, and is something implicit in the very nature of Wikipedia anyway. SilkTork *YES! 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal is now closed as of Wednesday, April 23 (12.00 GMT/UTC)

Results[edit]

Agree Disagree Neutral
35 (66%) 17 (32%) 1 (2%)

Side Comments 1[edit]

  • I think I've read most of this page, so I may as well add my opinion, for what it's worth. I probably disagree, with some reservations. I don't think image placeholders violate Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, but even if they did I don't think this is an important issue. I think the best argument against them is that they are ugly. I don't agree with it myself, but I realise that a lot of people do and have factored it into my conclusion. Against this you have to consider the success of placeholders in soliciting images. I don't consider any of the statistics produced so far to be useful (I'd be very interested to see some worthwhile stats produce to make a more informed decision) but the anecdotal evidence we have suggests that they do generate free images. If there was another system in place producing these free images (eg soliciting them from PR firms) then I would probably be happy to see these placeholders go, but at this point I don't feel I can support removing them. --Cherry blossom tree 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why move this to side comments? -- I think it's intended to be a disagree !vote...isn't it? Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side comments 2[edit]

No-one has made any arguments against blank placeholders, so it would be ridiculous to remove them on the basis of this discussion. --Cherry blossom tree 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how the text of the proposal is ambiguous, but we're just discussing the ones that ask users to upload images and include guides to help the uploader (currently used for many biographical articles). – jaksmata 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal refers to the main 'image placeholders' examples above and the variants (now in use) listed in the archived discussion (here). It's implicit that the proposal covers any similar image placeholders that were unknown when the discussion started, so, actually there is no ambiguity. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comments 3[edit]

Genisock, I think it would be appropriate for you to move your responses from the proposal section to a separate subsection (such as this) or to the discussion above. I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Polls are evil.Genisock2 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we are not doing "evil polling" as defined by that article Genisock. We actually are discussing the issues and the way polling questions are written in this case, allows for a wide array of opinions. That is why there are so many different polling questions. You just don't like the way the discussion is going because the current consensus is against the current image placeholder. You are obviously intelligent and knowledgable but you are behaving like a spoiled child and your snide condescending remarks are unfruitful to this discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You jumped straight into voteing before any reasonable amount of discussion took place and are now not only objecting to attempts to debate but throwing around ad-homs.Geni 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nrswanson was one of the earliest contributors to the discussion on this page, 45 minutes after the first edit by Genisock2. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And look how little time it took to go from that to voteing.Geni 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the archived discussion above that was over several days.Broadweighbabe (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few days amoung a limited highly selected group. Not very long.Geni 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That "limited highly selected group" had 32 people participating. I'm not sure what the number is here, but it's not much more. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genisock I don't recall you saying anything negative to Kleinzach about his ideas when he proffered them either on this page or the previous one. You were given plenty of time and opportunity to participate in the development of the structure of this discussion. I don't see how, therefore, you can complain. You were given a perfectly good opportunity to air such concerns beforehead. My suspicion is that if the discussion was going the other way you wouldn't be screaming that the structure of this debate is unfair.Nrswanson (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall a vote being proposed so early in the proceedings. Can you show where it was suggested?Genisock2 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. I just did it -- perhaps unwisely -- but in good faith.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Northwesterner1 are you denying that there was an active attempt to canvas past opponents?Genisock2 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any such attempt. Can you point me to where it occurred? The only canvassing that went on to my knowledge is stated above in the participation section -- broad wiki locations like RFC and past talk pages or wikiprojects where discussion about these images has happened (pro and con). That seems to me the point of a centralized discussion. Bring together all participants in previous discussions and let them know where the real deal is going down.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zee wikiproject comments were hardly neutral.[1][2].Geni 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Is an attempt to figure out the best place to hold the debate, whether it should be at a WikiProject or RFC or WP:CENT. It's not a canvassing attempt. [4] is a canvas but I'll let Kleinzach speak for himself and others can decide whether it was good faith. Regardless, I think there has been broad publicity of this debate -- the vast majority of it, if not all of it, done in a neutral manner.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on 9 April here "I hope we can avoid the usual charges and counter-charges of canvassing etc." Peregrine Fisher was in the middle in the initial debate, neither for nor against. I contacted him about the scope of the Free Image WikiProject. I contacted Tizio because of his involvement in the history of the image placeholder which I thought he/she might bring some light on. Neither of my messages were canvassing. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>By the way, I introduced the proposals section in order to broaden the discussion and help shape it, not to shut it down early. When I introduced the proposals in this edit, the discussion had been open for 48 hours, and there had already been significant debate on points #1 and #2 above, but the discussion at that point was limited to a small group of editors. I wanted to get it jumping again so that we could get a broader consensus. I had a feeling that many editors didn't feel they had much to say on the discussion points, since the archived discussion had been so thorough and the main points for and against are summarized effectively in Pete & Kleinzach's question statement. I thought a broad group of editors would still like a chance to weigh in & I thought a series of clear action statements might do the trick. Since that time, I feel the discusssion in the sections above as well as the statements in the proposals section have been productive in moving us toward a consensus.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth" "I wanted to get it jumping again" you position appears to be internally inconsistent.Genisock2 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, there really wasn't an opportunity for Geni to object to the straw poll section. It was introduced, and started getting used, very quickly. (This is not to say NW1 did anything "wrong," leading a discussion like this is a complex business, and sometimes it's necessary to be bold.) I think Geni's concerns have some merit (although I don't think the early introduction of voting negates this entire process.) In response to his concerns, last night I simply removed my !vote. I'd encourage others to do the same, in the interests of a respectful discussion. If a straw poll is called later, with more consensus that it's an appropriate time, you can always re-add your !vote, which may have changed by then. -Pete (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Pete, I am not really sure if there is much more to discuss (at the moment anyway)... The only thing left to do is wait for others to read what has been said and for them to decide for themselves. As for canvasing, I don't see any evidence of that. I personally put several extremely neutral adds in high profile places such as the Community Portal to draw people's attention here. They simply stated what the discussion was about and said "all opinions welcome". Nrswanson (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the discussion seems to have reached its logical course (except on the image modification section, in which case it might even be too early for that if we decide we don't want any image placeholders). The statement question is so thorough that it really doesn't leave us much to debate except to circle around the same issues. Hence, my proposals. But I have hidden them -- or attempted to hide them -- so that they do not become a distraction as we go forward. There is something wrong with my coding on the template... if anybody knows how to make those work, please help.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've hijacked the discussion at hand, Northwesterner1 by archiving the discussion. We had the discussion, some people didn't like it so it's been hidden, then what? Forget that the discussion took place? Out of bounds, man. Please. --AStanhope (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an unfair accusation Astanhope. I was not part of the previous conversation but I actually went back and read it. There is a link to the archive at the very top of the page. You can't miss it! And I felt that Kleinzach did a great job summarizing the points made in that discussion for those who weren't as consciencetious as me. I personally found the debate through reading the community portal. I don't think anyone hijacked anything. Perhaps voting occured to soon but all and all I think things have been fairer than most debates I've seen.Broadweighbabe (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Astanhope, sorry for the offense. Which action are you objecting to? Broadweighbabe seems to think you're referring to this archived discussion. If that's the case, then there's no cause for concern, because the archived discussion occured on a different page than this one. It was a procedural discussion about whether to open a full discussion at a central location, which we're now doing. Now that we've opened the full discussion, the procedural move has been appropriately archived (and not by me). I'm assuming you're referring instead to my use of the hide template (not an archive) to hide the straw poll in this edit. Perhaps that was a premature step. I felt moderately justified in taking it since I introduced the straw poll in the first place, but I'll undo it. (Done.) Geni has a concern that the straw poll was premature. Pete suggests we all voluntarily remove our !votes, which seems a bit messy to me. I thought a reasonable step would be to use the hide template to hide the poll, and let the discussion above proceed. If the hide template is properly coded, it would have let us see the straw poll with a simple click of the "show" button. But I couldn't get the coding right. I'll step back now, and you all can decide what's best.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been at great pains to make the process transparent, keep access to the debate simple and to involve the maximum number of people. There's been less interest in debating the big issues than we expected (perhaps we did that enough of that in the first discussion?) For example Question 4, which seemed a major part of the initial discussion, has attracted little interest here.

Northwesterner1's three proposals caught the mood of the discussion perfectly IMO - otherwise there wouldn't have been so many participants. It's clear that most people here want to go straight to the consensus-building stage rather than get sidetracked by predictable side-discussions, or the usual, all-too-prevalent, pettifogging Wikilawyering.

Let's keep going and work towards consensus and resolution! --Kleinzach (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you seem to have gotten voting and consensus building confused. Throwing out a set of proposals, having people line up saying agree or disagree and then do a head count has nothing to do with consensus building, it's a vote plain and simple, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus building is precicely about disussing things thouroughly untill a general agreement or compromise starts to emerge, not trying to force people to choose between 3 pre-written options or nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherool (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 April 2008
Hmm. We need to remember there have been around 50 people involved here and not refer to WP policies out of context. This page is very long to read but if you do look at it you will see how the discussion developed. It may be untidy but it followed the wishes of the majority of participants who preferred to go directly to the proposals after the initial discussion of the issues. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comments 4[edit]

I just wanted to touch on what one of the agreers said that really rings true, and is my main reason for hating them since day one. Yes, they're an eyesore, they're annoying, they don't need to exist, etc. Those aren't my reasons for hating this, rather my reason is the idea of copyright violations. I'd much rather someone upload a replaceable fair use image that we can easily find and delete without issue then someone upload a copyvio that sits there forever, not being looked at, even though some are rather obvious. People say 25-odd images (or however many it was) were uploaded thanks to this, which sounds nice, but for every one of those, I met there's at least 5 copyvios that were caught and deleted, and another 2 or 3 that slipped through the cracks and still exists. The risks far outweight the benefits or using this entire system. Wizardman 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders/Proposal_1&oldid=1140135604"