5 ms·

I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation. But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet cer

I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation. But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet certain guidelines. It’s a stub article and lacked certain citations. Why not just flesh the article out? The “Notability” tag on Wikipedia has a different meaning than “notability” in the dictionary. Either way, it seems like someone already removed the tag manually with the justification “clearly notable” and uploaded a better photo. There’s still a lack of information though.

echelon 3y ago
The photo situation on Wikipedia is so weird. Editors often upload bad photos, even if better alternatives exist in the public domain or are fair use. But the thing that grates me more than anything is Wikipedia uses elderly photos of famous figures that were at the peak of their careers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The appearance of these public figures changes, and sometimes the changes are so dramatic that I have to question if these are the same person. Wikipedia should have multiple photos in the top info box, but if not, they should focus on photos of subjects when they were in their peak of public activity. Good: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore Bad: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ramis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ramis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Murray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Fisher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Fisher - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simmons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simmons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner There are far worse examples, and a lot of them. I'm having trouble finding them on the spot, though. Edit: Another super weird case of this is articles on famous child actors that didn't go on to act later in life, but their photo is of them in their 40's or substantially after their heyday. There's so much of that. They're easy examples to find: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Lloyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Lloyd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mazzello https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mazzello - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schwartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schwartz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen
- petesergeant 3y ago
  Also surely their publicists can (and should) source professional photos of them and then license them so they can be used by Wikipedia
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  Wiki has a guideline to use recent photos for living figures, and will use more hey-day pictures after the person passes. Compare the pictures for William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. I think this is a good balance - it acknowledges people change, and sets your expectations should you see the person on the news or something, and then later they're reflected as they were best known. Note that most of your good examples are deceased and most of your bad ones are living. I learned this when Elizabeth II passed, and her photo was updated very quickly to a much older portrait.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Do you have unencumbered photos for those? The last time I added a portrait photo I had to ensure license was good and I needed a model release as well. If you provide the unencumbered photos, I will attempt to contact them or their publicists for a model release if required. It will likely take months for me, though, since this isn't a top priority. But if you get me the photos, I'll take care of the rest. We can't make it the infobox because they're still living, but we can add the photo to show what they were like at the time, which is notable since that's what they're famous as.
- hayleox 3y ago
  They're still alive (most of them anyway)! Imagine looking up your own Wikipedia page and they've got a photo of you from 40 years ago. That'd be rude! It's like pretending they're already dead just because they're not in the spotlight anymore. In addition, for all the child actors except Lloyd, we don't have any free photos of them as children (and that childhood photo of Lloyd isn't very good – the one in the article is the only one we have). As for Carrie Fisher, our only 1970s photo of her sucks (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carrie_Fisher_with_Wim_Wenders.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carrie_Fisher_with_W...), and anyway she did do a lot of noteworthy acting well after Star Wars (look at her awards section). For Harold Ramis, we have pretty slim pickings: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Harold_Ramis https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Harold_Ramis
starkparker 3y ago
> But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article AnomieBot put a date on the tag, it didn't add it. The tag was added without a listed reason by an anonymous user while not logged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingston&direction=next&oldid=1060004443 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingsto...
- bluepod4 3y ago
  Ok, I see. But even though a valid reason wasn’t listed, it appears that valid reasons did exist. “Valid” based on guidelines not personal opinion. The anon user still could have done this based on personal opinion and/or ill intentions.

echelon 3y ago

The photo situation on Wikipedia is so weird. Editors often upload bad photos, even if better alternatives exist in the public domain or are fair use. But the thing that grates me more than anything is Wikipedia uses elderly photos of famous figures that were at the peak of their careers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s. The appearance of these public figures changes, and sometimes the changes are so dramatic that I have to question if these are the same person. Wikipedia should have multiple photos in the top info box, but if not, they should focus on photos of subjects when they were in their peak of public activity. Good: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Moore Bad: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ramis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ramis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Murray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Fisher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Fisher - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simmons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simmons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner There are far worse examples, and a lot of them. I'm having trouble finding them on the spot, though. Edit: Another super weird case of this is articles on famous child actors that didn't go on to act later in life, but their photo is of them in their 40's or substantially after their heyday. There's so much of that. They're easy examples to find: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Lloyd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Lloyd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mazzello https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mazzello - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schwartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Schwartz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary-Kate_and_Ashley_Olsen

petesergeant 3y ago
Also surely their publicists can (and should) source professional photos of them and then license them so they can be used by Wikipedia
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Wiki has a guideline to use recent photos for living figures, and will use more hey-day pictures after the person passes. Compare the pictures for William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. I think this is a good balance - it acknowledges people change, and sets your expectations should you see the person on the news or something, and then later they're reflected as they were best known. Note that most of your good examples are deceased and most of your bad ones are living. I learned this when Elizabeth II passed, and her photo was updated very quickly to a much older portrait.
renewiltord 3y ago
Do you have unencumbered photos for those? The last time I added a portrait photo I had to ensure license was good and I needed a model release as well. If you provide the unencumbered photos, I will attempt to contact them or their publicists for a model release if required. It will likely take months for me, though, since this isn't a top priority. But if you get me the photos, I'll take care of the rest. We can't make it the infobox because they're still living, but we can add the photo to show what they were like at the time, which is notable since that's what they're famous as.
hayleox 3y ago
They're still alive (most of them anyway)! Imagine looking up your own Wikipedia page and they've got a photo of you from 40 years ago. That'd be rude! It's like pretending they're already dead just because they're not in the spotlight anymore. In addition, for all the child actors except Lloyd, we don't have any free photos of them as children (and that childhood photo of Lloyd isn't very good – the one in the article is the only one we have). As for Carrie Fisher, our only 1970s photo of her sucks (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carrie_Fisher_with_Wim_Wenders.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carrie_Fisher_with_W...), and anyway she did do a lot of noteworthy acting well after Star Wars (look at her awards section). For Harold Ramis, we have pretty slim pickings: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Harold_Ramis https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Harold_Ramis

starkparker 3y ago

> But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article AnomieBot put a date on the tag, it didn't add it. The tag was added without a listed reason by an anonymous user while not logged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingston&direction=next&oldid=1060004443 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Livingsto...

bluepod4 3y ago
Ok, I see. But even though a valid reason wasn’t listed, it appears that valid reasons did exist. “Valid” based on guidelines not personal opinion. The anon user still could have done this based on personal opinion and/or ill intentions.