Commons talk:Deletion policy

‎Educational use and "original research": r
← Older revision
Revision as of 17:46, 18 March 2013
Line 929:
Line 929:
 

 

 
Possibly some form of OR policy should be developed, though I realise it's fraught with problems when it comes to images, since many images are imaginative - and we don't want to be deleting paintings of ''Moses Parting the Dead Sea'' because the artist's rendition is "original research". But equally we don't want wannabe artists uploading their own drawings or paintings of any and every historical event they want to depict, or imaginary portraits of people of whom no real portraits exist, or illustrations of inventions that are not technical drawings, but imaginative. Where established artists have created such images they can be uploaded, and, of course, are. But if this closing "KEEP" is a precedent, you have no basis to delete my own personal drawing of Hitler Entering Heaven. Of course I haven't drawn it yet, but I might... Even if the current "educational use" requirement is considered to be sufficient to cover this, some clarification surely needs to be made. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul Barlow]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 
Possibly some form of OR policy should be developed, though I realise it's fraught with problems when it comes to images, since many images are imaginative - and we don't want to be deleting paintings of ''Moses Parting the Dead Sea'' because the artist's rendition is "original research". But equally we don't want wannabe artists uploading their own drawings or paintings of any and every historical event they want to depict, or imaginary portraits of people of whom no real portraits exist, or illustrations of inventions that are not technical drawings, but imaginative. Where established artists have created such images they can be uploaded, and, of course, are. But if this closing "KEEP" is a precedent, you have no basis to delete my own personal drawing of Hitler Entering Heaven. Of course I haven't drawn it yet, but I might... Even if the current "educational use" requirement is considered to be sufficient to cover this, some clarification surely needs to be made. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul Barlow]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 
+

 
+
:Why don't we want to keep things like that? They should be accurately labeled in the descriptions, of course, but "educational value" doesn't always mean "accurately represents the facts". If nothing else, images can be used as examples of artistic techniques ('Here is an example of a pencil drawing that indicates motion') or as bad examples ('Here is an example of the neo-Nazi notion that Hitler was a saint, which everyone else believes is pernicious nonsense') or even as legitimate illustrations of concepts ('Some Christians believe that God's mercy extends even to the point of allowing notorious sinners like Adolf Hitler to be forgiven and enter Heaven'). Remember, too, that Commons doesn't exist solely for Wikipedia, but also for Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and for non-WMF websites, such as blog posts about whether Hitler ought to be eligible for entry into Heaven.
 
+
:What we need is not to delete the images, but to get them properly labeled. So I think your next step should be to find that description page and write something like "One artist's personal idea of what this could have looked like. Not based on any published description of the actual object." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Deletion_policy&diff=92827989&oldid=83964004