Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?

According to the figures provided here earlier, there are 50,789 articles that contain the placeholder. Apparently the placing has resulted in over 460 uploaded images (some presumably usable, some unusable - but that's another issue). Taking 460 as the figure, that gives us a success rate of about 0.9 of one percent.

This invites two questions:

1. Is it really worth the effort involved in inserting the placeholder in so many pages when there is so little to be gained? and
2. Is it reasonable to display a distracting graphic on 100 pages for the sake of (perhaps) getting a picture on only one of them?

--Kleinzach (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. How do you get to that 450? Is that including all the images already moved to Commons? Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask a few questions on the statistics. First, is there a way to get statistics on how many photos are copywrite violations and do they include photos uploaded by editors who have placing this particular image tag? If so on the latter, than those photos should be thrown out of the count.Nrswanson (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The 450 is post filtering so few copyvios you are free to go looking for copyvios. Does not include images moved to commons and does not images uploaded by people placeing the images since they are going to tend to use the standard upload system. Number comes from 438 in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders 18 in Category:Reviewed images replacing placeholders and 6 in Category:Reviewed images of buildings replacing placeholders.Genisock2 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that many of those 450 are unusable for articles. I did a random sample of 30 images. None in that sample were obvious copyvios (looks like those have been successfully filtered out). But 8/30 were very low quality and were not being used in any articles (example). Another 6/30 were what I would describe as moderately low quality; they were being used in articles, but in my opinion it would be better to have no photo at all (example). That leaves 16 out of the 30 in my sample that were a genuine improvement to the article (example).Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dan Graham image is improveable through messing with gammer and contrast.Genisock2 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which none of the editors watching the "reviewed images" category has done in the two months since the image has been added to the article. (See also: Steven Erlanger, Doug Stanhope.) Back to my point: In my view, if you put the placeholder box up there, you should be responsible for making sure the resulting image actually improves the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the Steven Erlanger image wouldn't be acceptable on any other encyclopedia. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a better image? Image:LoveHurts-128.jpg isn't so great either. Regular upload system there (ignore the obvious copyright problem for a second). You want to work on improving existing uploads be my guest.Genisock2 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In my judgment, having a Steven Erlanger article with no image is better than an article with the image that is being used. Like any editor, I could just go to the article and delete it. However, the placeholder box makes me look like a jerk then. Am I supposed to restore the placeholder box to an article after a new user has already contributed an image?Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any examples of good, normally publishable quality placeholder-uploaded photos (sharp, well-saturated, taken in good light etc.)?--Kleinzach (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Genisock2 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So please tell me where they are.--Kleinzach (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are loads of them in the categories posted above. Not Featured Picture Candidates, perhaps, but certainly usable. --Cherry blossom tree 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Maybe. I think it's too soon to tell how well they will work in the long run. It's likely that yes, they will be successful in soliciting some pictures. However, so far the success ratio does not outweigh the negatives. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I would like to see editors refrain from using AWB and other automated procedures to put placeholder images in a systematic way on a large number of articles. This should be a case-by-case judgment if it is used at all. An editor should have to stop, think, and read an article all the way through before judging whether a placeholder image is likely to be successful.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But this is the Wikipedia way. We also get a lot of "amateurish" writing, text copyright violations, etc. We deal with it because, in the long run, the encyclopedia is improving through encouraging ordinary people to contribute. There are many who think this will not work and that's fine, work on nupedia or whatever Larry Sanger is doing now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question(s). Regarding the 450 or so uploaded images, exactly how do we know that they were uploaded because of the placeholder? How do we know that they wouldn't have been uploaded anyway? Of the hundreds of thousands (guessing) of free images currently in use on Wikipedia, how many were solicited by the use of a placeholder? PC78 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. Because they overwhelmingly come from new users and because they were uploaded through the upload backend built into the image.Genisock2 (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not an answer, as both points are irrelevant. I don't see why it matters that images were uploaded by new users. Had the placeholder not been there, the images could just have easily been uploaded via the normal means. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If new users chose to upload a way that can only be triggered by clicking on an image don't you think it might just be posible that the image had something to do with their decision to upload? If it didn't I would expect to see upload via other means. As for the claim "just have easily been uploaded via the normal means". Well no.Genisock2 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If the placeholder hadn't been there, they would have had no choice. But it's there, so it's used. That doesn't mean that it's in any way necessary. You also haven't addressed my other question. Since Wikipedia already has an abundance of free images, doesn't that suggest that we're doing just fine without a placeholder? PC78 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an abundance of free images? Hmm how many UK MPs do we have pic of? Do you really want to try and mentian that claim? Do you have any evidence for your initial assertion?Genisock2 (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut Genisock some slack PC78. There is absolutely no way that he can prove or disprove whetehr someone would have uploaded or not uploaded a photo. That line of thinking is like playing the what if game and you can what if forever and not get anywhere. I think it just best to look at the data we have and look at its success at solicitating photos without trying to make comparisons with older methods which is frankly impossible to do.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Every attempt at statistics seems to have ignored the issue of time. It may be that 0.1% of these templates have produced an image, but that's 0.1% over a certain period of time. Before we can make any meaningful decisions based on our knowledge we need to know what that period is. 450 images per decade is very different tp 450 images per year or 450 images per month. This will probably be difficult to work out since I presume that the templates weren't all added at the same time but until something is at least estimated then talk of numbers seems unproductive. --Cherry blossom tree 09:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Stats are short by a lot of those image requests being added rather recenty and older images getting moved to commons.23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion: Yes. I would think this would be a no brainer question to answer. I think that this will help to bring photos to wikipedia articles, particularly from readers who don't normally contribute to wikipedia. However, I do take to heart those concerned about particular articles never receiving photos and having permanent image tags, and those who dislike on mass placement of such tags. I would say that image tags should be dated and then removed after a certain period of time.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Probably No: the placeholder image currently functions like a cleanup tag--it implies that there's something wrong with the article that needs to be fixed. Let's go with the 1% figure (though it might be lower). If only 1% of "wrong" articles are fixed, it implies for me that the cleanup tag isn't doing its job and should be more targeted (for instance, only on articles of major public figures where one would expect many people to have pictures of). If only 1% of stubs ever got out of stub status, I would agree with getting rid of the stub template. Put another way: 99% of all articles with these images will have them marring the top of the page for the foreseeable future. That to me is an unacceptable number. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way: with all the anti-image placeholder comments I've made, I think I do owe the pro-side the applause thanking them for trying to get more images on Wikipedia. I think it's a great goal, and I think that the text greeting someone upon clicking the image is extremely clear. I think that the Upload File tools are still inadequate and can certainly be improved based on some of the ideas raised here. My objection to the current means is not an objection to the ends.
    • I second this applause. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (I also might be in the tiniest of all minorities in believing that WP should use its dominant position on the internet to use selected advertisements in order to raise enough money to purchase the license of high-quality photographs/drawings/etc. of important subjects currently lacking encyclopedia quality images (or sound or movie clips). But this is a complete aside.) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The cost of buying complete rights to such photos tends to be rather high. Assume one million revinue from advertiseing you would be lokking at maybe 5000 pics top probably a lot less. In terms of cost benifit buying images is probably less effective per image than buying wikipedians with high quality cameras tickets for second division football matches or paying for them to attend political events with multiple politicians present Small scale pop concerts would still be worthwhile but getting a decent pic under those conditions is hard.Geni 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that low profile people are the ones we need help on. High profile a visit to Flikr or pokeing some wikipedians in the right area will generaly yield a result (Ian Thorpe excluded).Geni 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Most readers would not be able or willing to help; the box detracts from the article for the vast majority of readers, while being useful for only a very few. Rather than disturb the manual numbering of sections, supra, I'm inserting this material here, "out of order"; if anyone prefers to put it in its "correct" place, feel free to make adjustments as necessary. As one still rather wet behind the ears, I agree completely with this proposition. I’d add a further point: if these placeholders are to be a routine part of a basic article, they become just one more “WikiComplexity” the beginning editor (yup, like me!) must master on the road to making “satisfactory” contributions, i.e., contributions that don’t immediately draw massive, and rather dispiriting, cleanup intervention from other editors and a phalanx of dutiful bots. While I think everyone recognizes that mastering basic skills—setting up headings, links, and references, for example—is necessary up to a point, we should avoid throwing needless distractions at those who simply want to make a positive contribution with a minimum of fuss. Again speaking personally, I have no clue how to append an image, placeholder or otherwise, to an article, and I’ve never needed to know. I really have no desire to sink time into learning how just so that I can equip each stub I create with an image announcing that there’s no image for this article (rather the graphical equivalent of “this page intentionally left blank”). Nor do I consider it a good use of resources for others, who could be writing substantive articles, to spend their days sticking such images into articles that already exist.

Now, all that said, I gather that the placeholder images link to a streamlined process for submitting pictures. That does strike me as a useful feature, and I’d fully support a template that one could add to the bottom of an article, in text only, pointing to that routine and reading along the lines of “If you have a copyright-free image pertinent to this article, you can add it by clicking ((here)).” Drhoehl (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Drhoehl has a point. Something less obtrusive might be better, but they do seem to serve a useful function. That function might be even better fulfilled if there were a WikiProject for people to try to acquire images (either by taking photos themselves or by acquiring rights.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a fantasticidea Jmabel. Would you be interested in starting one? I would totally join.Broadweighbabe (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little too busy these days to work on starting another WikiProject, but I'll gladly join and participate if someone else starts this one. - Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Readers are not idiots. They do not need an image telling them that there is no image. If I have a free image and am interested in using it for Wikipedia, I will upload it if I see that the article lacks an image, not because a grey sillhouette told me to. Fishal (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We know that rather a lot of our readers don't realise they can edit. I don't think it would occur to them to upload.Genisock2 (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. I work the "photosubmission" queue at OTRS, which is where photos sent in via Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission (the "here" in "If you do not have a Wikipedia login and wish to provide a picture of yourself or someone you represent, please go here"). I have currently on my hard drive 90 photos or so, many of which are people. Not all of them came from the "replace this image" graphic, but certainly some have, because I've personally replaced those. I've been working this queue approximately two months or so, so that averages about 1.5 pictures per day thanks to these placeholder images. If I knew we were supposed to be categorizing the photos, I would have done that. howcheng {chat} 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unable to determine. The placeholders have been linked to the upload mechanism for a while. There may be 450 or so images in the reviewed category now, but we cannot really determine how many have been moved to commons, nor how many would have been uploaded anyway without the placeholder. Gimmetrow 04:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• We don't know. It seems that statistics have not been collected effectively, so we simply don't how many images are being uploaded through this system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It’s obvious that some pictures have been uploaded using this system, but there’s no way of knowing if it is successful (measuring success is too objective), how it compares to other methods or whether those same images wouldn’t have been uploaded by other methods if the placeholders weren’t there. Geni implies that the system is successful (per the 450 pics), but I doubt that they are worth 50,000 less-than-pretty solicitations. Geni has said that a lot of our readers don’t realise they can edit Wikipedia, yet this system expects them to distinguish a free image (“I didn’t pay for it – I paid nothing when I downloaded it from a website”) from a free image (“I understand copyright law and I’m relinquishing my exclusive rights to this picture that I took myself”). I think that if someone doesn’t realize that Wikipedia is editable we have no business tricking them into giving away their legal rights. In other words, if “edit this page” goes over your head, how are you going to understand the complicated issues of image licensing? – jaksmata 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What, so we shouldn't bother trying to educate them? howcheng {chat} 04:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone not noticing a small bit of text and not being able to understand a concept when it is explained to them. --Cherry blossom tree 09:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another concern: genuineness of images

I am not sure where to put this comment so I will make it here. How do we know that the images being uploaded are actually of the subjects that the uploaders say they are? Checking the accuracy of photos is much more difficult than checking the factual accuracy of written information. Of course this is a potential problem on wikipedia already, but by advertising for photos aren't we just inviting vandalism? And vandalism much more difficult to catch at that for individuals with not much media exposure. Many of the people I have written articles on don't even have images available in media sources on-line and they now have image placeholders on them.Nrswanson (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this concern is overstated. Wikipedia loves to invite vandalism -- we put featured articles on the main page every day just to watch them get boxed around -- and I think that's a good thing. And the steps involved in uploading a fake photo to an article are a little more complex than the steps involved in writing "poo." But I take your point that errors in an article are hard to catch when other editors don't have fact-checking eyeballs on them. This is another reason why I don't believe the placeholders should be uploaded to 50,000 articles by a few editors, unless those editors plan to dedicate themselves to having 50,000 articles on their watchlists, checking the results. When I put a "citation needed" tag on an article, I do it deliberately and judiciously, and then I watch that article to see how it is addressed. The same should apply to editors who feel that a photo is needed.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I review every uploaded image so that covers the watching part. So far there have been about 2 images uploaded with false claims of who they were of.Genisock2 (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And do you know that for sure? Do you know the real physical appearance of every other person that has had a picture uploaded? And can you realistically monitor 50,000 plus articles? I didn't think so.Nrswanson (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can realistically monitor every image uploaded through the system. Now can you say the same about our regular uploads? Upload patrol of regular uploads missed say Image:Alexis bledel.jpg Do you want those turned off as well? Frankly if you want to upload problematical images then regular upload is a far better option. Just watch Special:NewImages go by for a while. Fromowner is not a major problem.Genisock2 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of one editor being solely responsible for something like that. If this system is really viable it should have several sets of eyes.Nrswanson (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can monitor and clean-out Category:Images of people replacing placeholders DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that vandalism will occur but that is part of the nature of wikipedia. I don't really think that the possibility for vandalism is a good arguement against image placeholders.Broadweighbabe (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to actual prove that those placeholder images are soley responsible for those 450 image uploads? Is that above the norm for the usual amount of uploads? Did image uploads in general increase during the time? Etc etc. Collectonian (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The uploads came through the system built into the images and almost all came from new users. We know that new users find wikipedia's standard upload system very hard to use.Genisock2 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the upload system is unduly complex, and is in desperate need of a redesign. This upload form is a big improvement, but perhaps it could still be improved upon. Maybe we should have a section of this discussion specifically about the upload form and how it works; it would be good to see the form incorporated into the image upload system in other ways, or maybe even replace present system, after some discussion. -Pete (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't be because the general upload system has less control over how people get there and has do do a wider range of things (I worked on both systems there is a reason they are so different).Genisock2 (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Too bad I like the system genisock invented for uploading photos. Thank you by the way. It is much more user friendly.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Genisock2, for your work on both systems. My opinion is that both are very good, but could use significant improvement. In broad strokes, I think the main system could be improved by asking questions in a different order, to simplify the end-user's experience. I don't think this is the right forum to do a detailed critique of the system, but I'd love to participate in a revamp in the future. -Pete (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this point have to do with the placeholders? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - this seems to be less of a concern for these placeholders than it would be for images at large. --Cherry blossom tree 09:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Another concern: legality of images

Looking through Category:Images of people replacing placeholders it seems that a very large number of these uploaded images have no source listed or are tagged as possible copyright violations. The professional, almost tabloid quality of many of these images ([1][2][3][4]) suggests to me that many people are simply replacing the placeholder image with pictures they’ve copied from other websites. Do the placeholder images encourage people to upload unfree images without first learning Wikipedia image policies? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been covered. Every image uploaded through this process is checked for copyright (note that all the examples you linked to (other than the one that's been deleted, which I can't comment on) were tagged on the day they were uploaded and are currently going through the deletion process.) If you want to discuss whether making it easier for people to upload images makes it easier for them to upload copyvios then the answer is obviously yes, but this is an inherent problem with making your website editable. In the context of copyvios throughout Wikipedia this is nothing. --Cherry blossom tree 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has this been discussed already? No, I believe the problem is the ambiguity of the words “free” and "own" in an internet couture where copyrighted music is regarded as “free.” Perhaps if these images are kept they should be made much more explicitly clear. People who come here frankly don’t know what they’re doing. Also those five images had copyright tags because I intentional chose tagged images. There are hundreds of other untagged vios there. --S.dedalus (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah not hundreds total 250 in that cat of which most are either drifting towards deletion (particularly the more obvious vios) or follow up is being done on. But either way not to significant. See you see the system allows for filtering and the post filtered images can be found at Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders.Genisock2 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This gets to what I consider the big issue. In the biographies I watch, when an image replaces a placeholder, it's usually a copyvio. Indeed, I routinely find that whenever some helpful editor comes by and adds a placeholder, there's a copyvio replacing it in a matter of hours. Which means it must be removed and tagged, possibly a WP:PUI discussion started, and the image eventually deleted. Yes, we get some free images out of this process, but I personally find the cost in editor and admin time outweighs this value. Gimmetrow 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow is right in highlighting this issue. The placeholder system is misconceived. It is aimed at the wrong people. It achieves the wrong results: a mixture of potential copy violations and poor quality fan pictures.

Someone recently working on Plácido Domingo wrote to the tenor's PR people explaining the copyright situation on WP and asking for help. They gave him two (excellent) free images - because it was also in their interests to have a decent image on the high-profile WP page. I don't think I've ever seen any other PR-released free images on WP. Why is this? --Kleinzach (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on two counts and agree on one. The placeholder system is aimed at people who would not normally think to contribute images. These are not the 'wrong people'. Also, in among the potential copyright violations and poor quality images (which we also got via the bucketload before this system) are some perfectly acceptable images which we would not otherwise have received. I agree that it would be great if we could get more PR companies to release images under free licences, though it's not really relevant to this discussion. I'll say more on your talk page. --Cherry blossom tree 09:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be genuinely interested in what you consider 'perfectly acceptable images'. Can you give me some examples? --Kleinzach (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are loads of examples in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders. Image:AnnaleighAshfordFeb2008.JPG, Image:IvanLewisMP.JPG and Image:Graham Watson MEP.JPG are broadly representative. They won't be making featured picture status any time soon, but they illustrate their articles perfectly well. --Cherry blossom tree 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach what is the exact wording of the permission on Image:DomingoJ1.jpg?Genisock2 (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is aimed at the right people -- potential uploaders of free images -- but it hits a lot of innocent bystanders -- non-editor readers and editors without free images -- in the process. While I like the idea of getting some more images for a few hundred articles, I think that that's outweighed by the price of defacing tens of thousands of articles where no image will be submitted. TJRC (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Zz9pzza (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Just wanted to add that the change encoraged me to find two extra pictures I had taken and add them with the right copyright so it does help, the image upload is not that hard if I can do it after three glasses of wine.

Move to subpage?

The main page is now back to 166k long and it's difficult to navigate - especially for newcomers. Would it be acceptable to move this ('Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?') to its own subpage? The page would of course still be open - it would not be an archive. This would have another advantage - we could keep the subpage on our watchlists to monitor it separately. Thanks.--Kleinzach (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think i would be beneficial to have subpages for each of the questions and one subpage for the proposals.Nrswanson (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)