Gallery policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Gallery policy

Steve Bennett-8
Hi all,
  Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of touch.

Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevage&action=edit&section=236
)

The key parts of the policy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries) are:

* "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are
discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of
images."
-- it's not clear whether this includes articles that currently lack
text (as opposed to articles that could never be much more than a
gallery)
* "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a
tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of
an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should
generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or
moved to Wikimedia Commons."
-- It's not clear what "moving...a gallery...to Wikimedia Commons"
means. It sounds like this was intended for cases where the images
existed only in Wikipedia itself, rather than being linked from
Commons.

On the other hand:
* "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value
and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a
gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both
to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery"


So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
problem.)
2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
200.
3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
features.
4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
under ("on the other hand") above.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
subject to debate and change?

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

Fred Bauder-2
"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with
as many or as few images as appropriate." seems right.

Fred

> Hi all,
>   Do content policies still get discussed on this list? I'm a bit out of
> touch.
>
> Anyway, I seem to keep running afoul of the "image use policy".
> Several galleries that I've added to articles have been removed. (And
> see this response to my second attempt to gallerise one article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevage&action=edit&section=236
> )
>
> The key parts of the policy
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IG#Image_galleries) are:
>
> * "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are
> discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of
> images."
> -- it's not clear whether this includes articles that currently lack
> text (as opposed to articles that could never be much more than a
> gallery)
> * "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a
> tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of
> an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should
> generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or
> moved to Wikimedia Commons."
> -- It's not clear what "moving...a gallery...to Wikimedia Commons"
> means. It sounds like this was intended for cases where the images
> existed only in Wikipedia itself, rather than being linked from
> Commons.
>
> On the other hand:
> * "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value
> and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a
> gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both
> to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery"
>
>
> So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
> 1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
> logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
> few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
> problem.)
> 2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
> average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
> ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
> doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
> 200.
> 3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
> matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
> the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
> the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
> features.
> 4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
> likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
> under ("on the other hand") above.
>
> Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
> subject to debate and change?
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

Carcharoth
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 2/18/13, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
> subject to debate and change?

It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work
with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I
do think that galleries that are large and purely illustrative are not
really suitable for Wikipedia. Commons *categories* are not the
equivalent of Wikipedia galleries, but you can create *pages* on
Commons that you can arrange into galleries and divide into sections
and annotate as needed. I do think that a section or article paragraph
on (say) waterfalls in a National Park known for having many
waterfalls could have a limited gallery of a few waterfalls, but
something showing *all* of them would either have to be part of a
standalone article, or a wikibook on the topic, or a Commons page, and
you should be able to link all three directly from the article
section, rather than hiding the link away down the bottom of the
article. It is mainly a question of layout and placement and context,
and can sometimes require creative thinking. The key is always to make
the reader *aware* that image-rich resources are available, but not to
shove the images in their faces. Give the reader options, but don't
force-feed them. It is also a progression from summaries to the more
detailed. If you are at the overview level, don't overwhelm things
with images. But make sure that the reader can, if they want, easily
drill down to the more detailed levels where more pictures are used
(even if those levels are on other sites).

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

Steve Bennett-8
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Carcharoth
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work
> with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I

Yeah, I wonder if there is equally a pro-text/anti-image bias amongst
some editors?

(Me, I love images for skim reading - get a quick impression of a
subject without having to read every word.)

> do think that galleries that are large and purely illustrative are not
> really suitable for Wikipedia.

Honest question: what does "illustrative" mean in this context? Any
image is "illustrating" something. Are you distinguishing between
decoration (say, lots of pretty pictures of similar things) and adding
information?

>Commons *categories* are not the
> equivalent of Wikipedia galleries, but you can create *pages* on
> Commons that you can arrange into galleries and divide into sections
> and annotate as needed.

True, but putting effort into crafting such galleries on Commons
seems...misplaced. I care about the encyclopaedia. And no one has ever
heard of Commons. And no one ever goes there to find out more about a
subject. Ever.

> I do think that a section or article paragraph
> on (say) waterfalls in a National Park known for having many
> waterfalls could have a limited gallery of a few waterfalls, but
> something showing *all* of them would either have to be part of a
> standalone article, or a wikibook on the topic, or a Commons page, and
> you should be able to link all three directly from the article
> section, rather than hiding the link away down the bottom of the
> article.

Well I think there's only half a dozen or so in that national park.
And there are only photos of two. (And excellent photos at that.)

> It is mainly a question of layout and placement and context,
> and can sometimes require creative thinking. The key is always to make
> the reader *aware* that image-rich resources are available, but not to
> shove the images in their faces. Give the reader options, but don't
> force-feed them.

Yep. Wish there were better tools for this. An expanding box with one
or two images shown as a teaser would be great.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

Fred Bauder-2
lots of pretty pictures of similar things

No

Fred

> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Carcharoth
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work
>> with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I
>
> Yeah, I wonder if there is equally a pro-text/anti-image bias amongst
> some editors?
>
> (Me, I love images for skim reading - get a quick impression of a
> subject without having to read every word.)
>
>> do think that galleries that are large and purely illustrative are not
>> really suitable for Wikipedia.
>
> Honest question: what does "illustrative" mean in this context? Any
> image is "illustrating" something. Are you distinguishing between
> decoration (say, lots of pretty pictures of similar things) and adding
> information?
>
>>Commons *categories* are not the
>> equivalent of Wikipedia galleries, but you can create *pages* on
>> Commons that you can arrange into galleries and divide into sections
>> and annotate as needed.
>
> True, but putting effort into crafting such galleries on Commons
> seems...misplaced. I care about the encyclopaedia. And no one has ever
> heard of Commons. And no one ever goes there to find out more about a
> subject. Ever.
>
>> I do think that a section or article paragraph
>> on (say) waterfalls in a National Park known for having many
>> waterfalls could have a limited gallery of a few waterfalls, but
>> something showing *all* of them would either have to be part of a
>> standalone article, or a wikibook on the topic, or a Commons page, and
>> you should be able to link all three directly from the article
>> section, rather than hiding the link away down the bottom of the
>> article.
>
> Well I think there's only half a dozen or so in that national park.
> And there are only photos of two. (And excellent photos at that.)
>
>> It is mainly a question of layout and placement and context,
>> and can sometimes require creative thinking. The key is always to make
>> the reader *aware* that image-rich resources are available, but not to
>> shove the images in their faces. Give the reader options, but don't
>> force-feed them.
>
> Yep. Wish there were better tools for this. An expanding box with one
> or two images shown as a teaser would be great.
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

geni
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-8
On 18 February 2013 23:24, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So, here's my thinking in response to the above:
> 1) "Wikipedia is not for images, Commons is for images" is just bad
> logic. Commons is a dumping ground for *all* images. Wikipedia is an
> encyclopaedia, and should illustrate its articles with as many or as
> few images as appropriate. (It's not like duplicated storage is a
> problem.)

However the overall format in the article is considered when
considering what is appropriate. Image galleries create large breaks
in the text and messy formatting due to issues with screen resolution.
As a result there are best limited to where there is a solid need for
such things. The other problem with image galleries is that they are
often use to keep poor quality images in the article. Certainly when
I've expanded articles with image galleries I've often killed of the
images in the galleries entirely rather than using them in the article
proper.

> 2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
> average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
> ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
> doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
> 200.

Not relevant.

> 3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
> matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
> the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
> the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
> features.

We could but if they were that important it should be possible to
include enough text for the image to sit next to the. We also have
extensive articles on flora, fauna, and geological features that
people can go and look at if they want images of those things.

> 4) An image of captioned animals under a section entitled "fauna" (and
> likewise for flora etc) seems perfectly in keeping with the guideline
> under ("on the other hand") above.

Not really. Again we generally have articles on specific animals so
links pointing to the article on that animal will general suffice.

> Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still
> subject to debate and change?

You can try but you are unlikely to get very far.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gallery policy

Steve Bennett-8
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However the overall format in the article is considered when
> considering what is appropriate. Image galleries create large breaks
> in the text and messy formatting due to issues with screen resolution.
> As a result there are best limited to where there is a solid need for
> such things. The other problem with image galleries is that they are
> often use to keep poor quality images in the article. Certainly when
> I've expanded articles with image galleries I've often killed of the
> images in the galleries entirely rather than using them in the article
> proper.

Good points - although it's annoying that the weakness of our layout
engine affects the content we can display.


>> 2) The Commons links are incredibly obscure, and I don't think the
>> average punter ever sees or visits them. It's like telling someone to
>> ring the hotline for more information - they just don't. The link
>> doesn't give any indication whether there are 2 images on Commons on
>> 200.
>
> Not relevant.

We're not serving our readers well by putting images behind a link
that they won't see or use.

>> 3) Galleries let you illustrate a much wider range of the subject
>> matter than by simply placing images in the margins. For example, in
>> the contentious [[Lamington National Park]], we could illustrate all
>> the waterfalls, most of the important flora, fauna, and geological
>> features.
>
> We could but if they were that important it should be possible to
> include enough text for the image to sit next to the. We also have
> extensive articles on flora, fauna, and geological features that
> people can go and look at if they want images of those things.

Indeed - it *is* possible to include enough text. Should the current
absence of such text preclude images? (A genuine question: is it ok
for an article to be unbalanced in the short term?)

> You can try but you are unlikely to get very far.

Yeah, figured.

Steve

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l