Commons talk:Project scope

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2

Advertising or self-promotion

This is listed among "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose." Many files uploaded for the purposes of advertising or self-promotion definitely have no educational value and need to be deleted. However, some are useful. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marketing M Lhuillier and existing discussions at Commons talk:What Commons is not#Advertising and Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Limits to G10: advertising. (I've been running around this site from thread to thread to address this issue.) If for example businesses want to upload photos of buildings, and those photos are duly licensed, don't we do the free flow of information harm by deleting them out of an overzealous crusade against advertisers? Do we need to clarify this here, as some long-time users believe that intent to advertise should result in automatic deletion of files, no matter what? What language would make it clear that advertising and self-promotion are usually reasons to delete but not always? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There are articles about advertising, too. Should they be left without any sort of illustration? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. There are also articles about specific companies and products. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And we are not serving only Wikipedia. We would like to be able to show e.g. how the advertising by IBM has developed over time. Wikipedia would use only a few images, while we would like to have as complete a collection as possible. Likewise, we would like to be able to show advertising across countries, across industries and target groups, across media used, across decennia and so on, with large enough samples. What is out of scope is low-quality photos of advertisements (unless something extraordinary and unique) and redundant media on less important subjects (we don't need to cover every garage band, or every attempt to advertise through Wikipedia). –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One aspect that IK mentioned elsewhere, is that advertisements are more or less the only way to get legal images of some products, such as those covered with advanced artwork. Thus the photo or drawing might be in scope even if it isn't as advertisement. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I came here via Commons:Deletion requests/File:IRENA Group.jpg. It’s clear to me that if a company is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then their logo is in scope. The reason it was uploaded is irrelevant. Yet the nominator continued to mention the advertising issue after the Wikipedia article was mentioned. Brianjd (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Don't we need to have some consistent standards about the scope of useful logos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is Wikimedia Commons limited to educational media in the first place?

Not to sound critical, but I genuinely wonder why a site billing itself as a "free media repository" would only allow media if it serves some educational purpose. 2001:4453:56C:4100:F9DD:9306:6FD5:C3C6 07:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What other purpose or purposes would you have uploaded media serve?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the IP but there is personal media. Obviously the answer to that is because of the financial cost. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WMF (or WMDE?) has started picsome (that at the moment gets its files from commons) and is meant as an universal free license stock foto service. Either commons scope needs to be changed to "everything" or picsome has to be undone together with WMF and WMDE. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? Firstly that's a strange description of Picsome's purpose. But "a photo service drawn from Commons" is going to inherit Commons' scope. That might limit what's available a bit (not by much though, in practice) but is that really such a problem? Who would care, and are their wishes really important to the goals of the WMF? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons is a "free media repository" in the sense of free images, free to use, i.e. for consumers, but it's emphatically not a "free media repository" in the sense of somewhere to store your own content. So within that as a goal, "educational" is a pretty broad scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This question sparked my interest and I started reading the first versions of Commons:Project Scope - an interesting and educational read ;) --Kritzolina (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Are unused personal images by substantial contributors allowed?

(To be clear, ‘personal’ implies ‘not in scope for any other reason’.)

Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project says: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. (emphasis added) And File in use on Commons only says: … by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed. (emphasis added) This policy clearly implies that unused personal images are not allowed.

As far as I can remember, unused personal images are normally deleted. As an extreme example, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last night in Sweden.jpg, L. Beck and A.Savin claimed that a personal image, added to the uploader’s user page after being nominated for deletion, should be deleted even though it was used on the uploader’s user page. (Pinging @C.Suthorn, Red-tailed hawk, Tuvalkin as other users involved in that discussion.)

But admin King of Hearts seems to think that it’s fine to keep unused personal images. When I questioned this, they said to start a discussion here.

Pinging @Ikan Kekek as a user who often comments on scope issues. Brianjd (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I interpret that clause as being: If you are an active contributor, then you may upload personal images for the purpose of being usable on your userpage. Also, note that she did in fact use the image for a while in 2021; I don't see the need to purge the image just because she is no longer using it. It is useful to be able to see what an old revision looked like, and there is no benefit to deleting the image since she is not abusing the allowance at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• There is no requirement for someone to be a "substantial" contributor. They're required to be "active".

What is the benefit to deleting unused images? This is vanishingly small, if anything. If someone is an active contributor, then I see no problem in allowing multiple images: plenty of editors swap them around, or might use them seasonally, and there's no drawback to allowing that.

The problem is spam, spam accounts, and the enablement of spam images. Those are really the only ones we need to worry about.

We've also seen images deleted in the past when an editor was deceased. That sort of pettiness is all too typical here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley The standard word used in practice seems to be substantial. That would be in the spirit of Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7#Policy on user page photos. Brianjd (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Where is "substantial" used or defined? en:WP:AUTOCONFIRM and en:WP:XCON are 4/10 and 30/500, yet that thread is talking about "several hundred". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @El Grafo, Yann, Jeff G., Dronebogus, Davey2010, Belbury, P199, Enyavar, Pere prlpz, Kritzolina as other users involved in Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7#Policy on user page photos. Brianjd (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Brianjd: If the user is here on any WMF project to contribute to that project's aims, I am fine with them having some not-otherwise-educational uploads. If not (NOTHERE), such uploads don't need to be here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Although I'm against that as a rule for "really substantial" contributors. We can all reel off a list of prolific ex-editors and ex-admins who've now been declared NOTHERE and (rightly or wrongly) cast into Outer Darkness. Using this as a reason to break the user pages of such editors is just an excuse for yet more grave-dancing, and no-one needs that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult to find the term ‘substantial’ used by others, though I am sure I would not have made it up. I did find Commons:Deletion requests/File:Анатолій.jpg, closed as: Deleted, probably a user photo of somebody with no substantial contributions. Brianjd (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Andy Dingley, Thuresson. Brianjd (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not ping me about this kind of stuff: I voted to keep in this discussion because the file was in use (while not raising any copyright concerns), as per crystal clear policy. Period.

Want to change that policy? I didn’t think so. Otherwise, if I am going to revisit the matter, it will be only to support sanctioning User:L. Beck for the distasteful show of bad faith (at 09:47) against uploader User:C.Suthorn («he just wants to avoid the justified deletion request»), and the squabble that followed.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like to present my point of view. I really like the rule that a used photo should not be deleted, even if it can only be found on the user page. But every rule has exceptions and is not universally applicable. I still don't think it's okay what the uploader did. At the time I filed the deletion request, the image had already been on Commons for several years. It was not in use at the time, not even on the user page. Miraculously, it was found with detailed text on the user page a few hours after the deletion request was created. And that should now suffice as a reason to keep this picture? For me it is more than obvious that the user has added the image to his user page to be able to put forward a good reason against the deletion. I think this is a bad habit and it shocks me that such behavior can prevent such a deletion request. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No hard rule is needed. If the image is used in a user page (and the user page is allowed by the project where it is), the image is to be kept. Otherwise, if somebody is bothered by the image, they can start a deletion request, where the uploader can give a convincing reason to keep the image (e.g. "I plan to use my image in a bath suit in my user page but only in summer months") or can actually start using the image, or the image gets deleted as unused personal image.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Pere prlpz. I don't believe this is a policy that needs to be interpreted overly strict. As long as the images are indeed showing the users themselves and could be useful on a user page, they should not be deleted, as long as there are no other reasons for deletion. If people start to fight over such issues, it's usually not because the policy is the problem. --Kritzolina (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We have no policy that user page images should be of the user and I would strongly oppose starting one. The meaning of the image is up to its user. Even for the bad quality "last night in Sweden" one. We also used to have AGF as a policy.

My view is that users become "active" somewhere on at least one project (or Commons, or Meta, or Wikidata or anywhere). Then they're permitted some reasonable number of personal use images. This applies to all projects. This doesn't expire (or at least, not for editors with "substantial" contributions, beyond our merely active). We don't require INUSE. We don't require them to have ever been INUSE. We avoid as much content-based judgment as we possibly can: active editors are trusted to act reasonably. Just about the only content filters we need are pr0n, spam and free-licensing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not having articulated my concern here clearly - it is not about images that are not showing the user, but about images that might show people who are in no way in the public sphere and have not consented to having their image on a public website. If users decide to upload other images that could be considered not in scope (e.g. their signature, a drawing done by them), this is fine with me. But I would object to images showing for example "my girl/boyfriend" if we are not sure that person gave consent. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kritzolina I would object to images showing for example "my girl/boyfriend" if we are not sure that person gave consent As far as consent is concerned, these images should be subject to the same rules as any other images on this site. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My sense is that we simply grant a lot of latitude to active/significant contributors (I'd probably avoid "active" in policy language because people's activity levels regularly increase and decrease, even if "significant" or the like is also hard to define) to upload pictures that don't have a lot of public-facing educational value. Photos of Wikimedia events are another example of this -- at some point long ago we decided they're simply considered in scope, even if it's mostly photos of non-notable people, etc. I tend to think exceptions to this rule should be taken on a case-by-case basis, like if we see that someone is an active contributor but likes to upload hundreds of low quality selfies or something. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather store a lot of bad selfies than create a policy that encourages quality-based deletion. That's going to cause far more trouble, with its potential for abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• My thoughts are the same as KoH - Personal images/selfies have only ever been allowed to stay if the contributor is active/significant, Images from spammy users or vandals tend to get deleted (in this instance I remove the file from their userpage/draft and state this in the DR),

Creating rules etc is all pointless as say for instance we restrict selfies to accounts who have made x amount of edits - that would require someone to manually check that users contribs, There are veteran editors who are more than happy to include a selfie on their userpage (such as Cullen328 and Bluerasberry so why should veteran editors potentially be disallowed to upload a selfie?

Anyway there's no easy option here other than to allow them or ban them in which case given a vote I'd say allow. –Davey2010^Talk 15:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In a previous discussion, there was some consensus that "active contributor" means at least 300 useful edits accross all Wikimedia projects. This seems reasonable to me. This status should be permanent. A user should be allowed to retain some personal images even if no longer active. Of course, the number of personal images should be reasonable. I wouldn't accept hundreds of personal images if the user has barely made 300 useful contributions. Yann (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I've been summoned here for some reason: I'd suggest everyone to relax a bit. As I see it, the spirit of our rule for personal images is that people who make valuable contributions to the Wikimedia projects can get away with having a couple of personal files that would otherwise violate COM:SCOPE. This is a treat we as a community give to ourselves. It already is a permission to break the rules, so let's not over-regulate this. We don't need to define how much "a few" are, we do not need to set a minimum amount of edits for someone to be considered an "active participant", and we shouldn't get too hung up on that little word "use". If something looks unused, one can politely ask "Hey, do you still need this?" (on the user's talk page or in a formal DR). I the answer is "yes", just move on. No one needs to be offended here. If someone seems to be grossly abusing this privilege, that's a different matter, but it's a waste of everyone's time and energy to have this kind of discussion being triggered by a single image. El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much what several others have said: no point to getting formal & legalistic about this. This is about giving some slack on this front to people who make (or have made) significant contributions to Commons or other WMF wikis. Trying to be precise about slack is silly. As long as someone's personal images represent a very small portion of their activity here, then that's fine. Even if they are a little over the line, not worth concerning ourselves. It's going to be contentious every time we want to delete on this basis, so don't do it unless it is worth contending. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Files in use by sockpuppets

WITHDRAWN BY POSTER:

Centralising discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So a popular objection found in this deletion discussion (and its related ones) is COM:INUSE. Unfortunately, this is a tautology in this case. See the sockpuppet investigations for background; this is a user who forces his image into articles cross-wiki, at the same time forcing out the work of good-faith contributors. It also seems that our friend has stacked the nominations and votes for COM:QI and COM:Featured pictures designations.

So it seems that you can reap benefits by gaming the system by exploiting COM:INUSE and ensuring your photos are in great demand and deemed "irreplaceable!!!". This also ensures that good-faith contributors are effaced from dozens of projects, and their work will no longer be COM:INUSE, and perhaps we could delete theirs instead. Elizium23 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple separate issues. One is the "forcing" of files, which is entirely outside the scope of Commons. Any sockpuppet edits should be reverted on enwp, for example. On those other projects, if another user in good standing adds one of Livio's files, however, that's entirely allowed. The only question for here is whether we should keep files that are in scope and have a compatible license (and even in use) because they were uploaded by a sockpuppet (certainly any uploads from Livio's main account should be out of consideration). It's a tough call on Commons, because there are people who are banned for reasons associated with the files they upload (copyright, etc.) and people who are banned for other reasons. The abuse in question is circumventing a ban in order to share more educational content that may be of use to various projects. Someone who was banned for reasons unrelated to the quality of their images (AFAIK), but who keeps wanting to share those files even if their edits themselves are reverted sits in a weird gray area. I don't anticipate the Commons community supporting a rule that involves deleting useful content unless the content itself violates our policies, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

circumventing a ban in order to share more educational content that may be of use to various projects seems to ignore what I said about removing good-faith high-quality work from other contributors, don't you think? Elizium23 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This feels to me like forum-shopping. There was a strong consensus to keep. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep what? Good-faith contributions? Don't get me wrong, I believe in letting the best man win, and having a free and open repository for high quality images. Elizium23 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia has lots of projects, all with their own user community, rules and preferences. Those projects trust Commons with looking after their files, especially regarding copyright issues. It does not follow that it should play a role in policing the projects themselves. Dutch Wiktionary is quite capable of protecting its good-faith contributors by itself. That, for instance, is the reason I object to removing pictures that our users have selected as illustrations. MarcoSwart (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• We keep coming across this, we want to keep punishing the uploader, but we have no more punishment in our arsenal, so we try to punish the images themselves. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the original punishment, and allow a fresh start. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  Uploaders like @Jastrow and @Lalupa do not deserve to be punished, Richard. Orlando is being rewarded for his disruption. Every contribution by Orlando represents the punishment of another contributor, a good-faith contributor who produces high-quality work chosen by the community. Supposedly the other projects are capable of defending those good-faith contributions, but I find cross-wiki cleanup to be an arduous process. I am sorry, there is a greater good than "best image quality", especially when that "best quality" was chosen and promoted by Orlando. It is not about punishing the images, or punishing the sockpuppets, but removing his incentives to return and abuse us. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Elizium23's widespread crusade could be treated as disrupting behavior. My bottle of AGF is nearly empty. Leave me a note if anyone starts a block request against them. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Why was the uploader originally punished, and why across all projects in the Wikiverse? Their images appear to me to be well crafted, and time consuming for them to upload and curate, so why are we continuing to punish them? If Twitter can have a general amnesty, we should also consider it. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • It is unfortunate that sockpuppet ban discussions seldom reference the discussion where the original user was blocked. If they would, RAN wouldn't need to ask that question, and all of us could just check what user we are dealing with. Now all we can judge (without doing some arduous detective work) is their files and some of their edits.
    I don't like them gaming INUSE, and where it concerns smaller projects, I am sympathetic to a less strict interpretation of the policy for that reason. However, where a user in good standing has added their image, or when the image has been in use for a long time in a big project, like en-wp, I don't see why we should disregard the principle of letting the projects choose files for themselves.
    I also don't see why there are several discussions about this single user and their images. I missed the RFC, but I got alerted about two RFDs regarding files in use and noticed this discussion through my watchlist.
    –LPfi (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Elizium23: Could you point to where this canvassing happened? This page is on my watchlist (as as likely for Jmabel). Are you just assuming canvassing? Anyone watching any of the talk pages where any of these files are in use would see a bot notification about this DR, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Fixing ping @Elizium23: — Rhododendrites ^talk |  01:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)