This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Quite the opposite. There's a licensing section that clearly indicates that it's a copyrighted image that's used under fair use.
"Copyrighted image" is not a license, and neither is "fair use". If this fulfills the requirements, they could just write "fair use" under the mugshot.
Copyright is obviously a license.
Yes, that's one way to add a license to a photo. However, as I mentioned, nobody actually did this.
A copyright is the right of the copyright holder to decide who can publish a copyrighted work under which conditions. A license is a document written by the copyright holder that specifies those conditions, and who they apply to. So no, copyright is obviously not a license. "Fair use" is an exception in the American copyright law that allows people to publish a copyrighted work if certain conditions are met. "Copyrighted image under fair use" literally means "we have no license for this, but we believe the fair use exceptions apply".
Do you want to make a bet on how long it will stay up if I reupload the image, and state that it's fair use?
Do you want to actually do it, or to merely feel secure in your continued belief that Wikipedia maliciously deleted that picture (in a manner indistinguishable from neutral routine gruntwork)?
It would be an interesting experiment, but I'm not interested if it turns out a prompt deletion for another made up procedural reason wouldn't change anyone's mind.
And I'm assuming producing another log of innocuous-looking deletions for that same "made-up" procedural reason will not change your mind either? Do you believe organisations are unlikely to have procedural reasons that don't serve political agendas contrary to yours?
Literally why would it? Also, why are you criticizing me for not changing my mind, when I'm proposing a test that would falsify my belief, and you're just looking for excuses to never change yours?
It's not about "contrary to mine", and yes I believe it's rare for organizations to neutrally apply their procedural rules, unless they have a healthy balance of worldviews, political agendas, and values, in their decision-making positions.
If you begin with the premise that Wikipedia has a habit of deleting pictures politically under made-up pretenses, then sure, it wouldn't. You would reject any procedure they have and any amount of work they do that ostensibly furthers that procedure in non-political cases as just covering it up.
I expect someone who's seeking the truth to attempt to falsify their belief first, especially if they're well aware the test they proposed is onerous. What you're doing, on the other hand, is the equivalent of a flat earther who smugly offers their interlocutor to go to space and see for themselves. It's a strategy for winning pedant arguments, not truth-seeking.
I'm putting the onus on you because I believe my case is more plausible. When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras, and if you're convinced a malicious agent has replaced your random sample with 100% zebras, I expect you to present something in favor of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The point of the "Licensing" section is to lay out why the image is allowed for use on Wikipedia/Commons. This can be if the image is freely licensed, or (on Wikipedia) if it's copyrighted but still usable under free use. If there is no "Licensing" section, then the image is subject to deletion. I am not sure what the point of confusion is here.
If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.
By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.
You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures. We're claiming that the photo was removed because the Wikipedia editors don't want it to be published on Wikipedia, and are using any procedural rule as an excuse. A way to disprove my belief would be to reupload the photo and address the issues from the previous removal. What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?
Maybe? This doesn't explicitly say anything about what could have happened to the image.
It's crazy that you would say this considering that I acknowledged that there are plenty of rules that can be bent to make things happen. My actual claim is that there isn't evidence that the photo was removed for this reason, and that the actual reason the photo was removed is actually quite unambiguous.
If you upload the photo to Wikipedia with licensing info and it gets removed, I'll agree that the licensing rule is also abused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So what's the problem? The mugshot would be "copyright Waukesha Sheriff's dept" (assuming that it's copyrightable, as you suggest) and the rationale some variation on 'fair use'.
The problem is that it did not include that, and thus it did not have a license attached. Hence, removed for not having a license.
Riiight...
I don't understand why you find this hard to believe considering that's plainly the justification written for the deletion. This is not one of the (many) rules that can be bent for fun and profit, this one really is just that simple.
Because they can write whatever they want. If someone reversed what's written under which photo, and it remained unquestinedd by other editors, would you be able to tell something is amiss?
There is literally no license for the Charlottesville photo.
I don't understand the question. If there's no license for a photo, it can be deleted per the stated policy. This is a simple, binary question - does the photo include license information?
edit: Now that I look at it, you cannot upload copyrighted images to Commons at all, even if they are fair use (I did mention I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy). The mugshot was on Commons, so even if it did have a licensing section, it would have been deleted since it's probably non-free. It would need to have been on Wikipedia, which does allow non-freely licensed images, provided, again, that the TPS report is fully filled out.
There is licensing information, hence the section entitled "Licensing" in large print, which is the requirement (see policy linked above).
If someone deleted the Charlottesville photo, and kept the mugshot, would you be able to tell that the policy was misapplied? If not, how can you tell that it was applied correctly here?
And you have evidence no one bothered writing such a section for the mugshot?
Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.
Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link