Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 May 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Decision: Keep by consensus. --Aarktica 14:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Internet map 1024.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Matt Britt (notify | contribs).

• Arbitrarily incomplete "map" of the internet. While the source data is vaguely referenced, the algorithms for deciding what to include (or not), how the nodes are laid out spatially, and the mechanism for the measurement of the "delay" between nodes is not disclosed. The result is effectively original research, since significant unverifiable translation of the original data has occurred. There's no useful, discernible information in the image (eg, where's my work's network? Where's Wikipedia? How far betewen?)), and this makes it unencyclopedic. While interesting and pretty, Wikipedia is not an abstract art gallery. — Mikeblas 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Er... The image description makes it absolutely clear that this is a partial map of the internet from late-2005 data. It's "arbitrarily incomplete" because the sheer enormity of mapping routes out to every one of the several hundred million accessible internet nodes is far too daunting for me to accomplish in my spare time (not to mention the fact that a lot of these routes change on a minute-to-minute, even packet-to-packet basis). The map is already pretty large with only 40,000 nodes... Any hypothetical rendering of the full internet using this method would easily result in an image occupying several billion bytes of data. Wonderful geek value, but not exactly something you'll be loading in your browser window.

  In any case, the exact methodology used to collect this data is detailed on the page where I got the data from, which is also summarized and clearly linked from the image page. I created this image largely for aesthetic value, not to be a utilitarian representation of a snapshot of routes on the internet (such a thing would be useless anyway due to router load balancing, etc). Few seemed to take issue with this image's quality, origins, or encyclopedic value when it was featured, and I wish you had taken up your concerns with me before inconveniencing others with a vote for deletion. -- mattb 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I did; See the talk page of the picture. And I asked those questions immediately when I saw the image on the front page.

  Your answers then aren't much different as the ones you gave here now. The image shows nothing of value; we don't know what data is included, or what data is excluded. (You don't, either: you couldn't explain what it specifically does or doesn't include when asked on the talk page for the image.) The scale isn't noted, and the source of the data isn't specifically cited. I'm not saying it needs to be complete; I'm saying that it's not at all useful as it stands. There's no scale given for node distance; is it linear or logarithmic, anyway? Indeed, the routes change all the time as the network adjusts itself -- further demonstrating that such an image has no practical use.

  To me, it's obvious that this image isn't encyclopedic and you admit yourself that it's largely for aesthetic value. -- Mikeblas 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You stopped discussing the issue on the image talk page, leading me to assume you had dropped it. I would've appreciated it if you had continued to discuss it rather than show up several weeks later informing me of a deletion proposal. I'm not offended or anything, but I am slightly annoyed that you jumped forward without any indication to me that you felt this seriously about it.

  Anyway, it's not that I couldn't explain what data is included, it's that I didn't take the time to fish through it to figure out whether it was. I don't know offhand what all the Wikimedia server addresses are now, there are many. I definitely don't know what the addresses were back in 2005, DNS records can and frequently do change (as I'm sure you're well aware). Each node on the map is an IP address, so answering the question of "is Wikipedia on this map" is more difficult than just comparing the current DNS information of Wikipedia's load balancers to the list of IPs used on the map. I certainly could have if I wanted to, but the map was designed for a high-level visualization, not to be a reference by which you could manually trace whatever path you choose. In fact, you yourself can answer this question with a bit of research just by following the link provided on the image talk to the source of the data.

  I find your core criticism pedantic, and your lesser critiques unmeritous of a deletion proposal (nominating it for featured picture review is one thing, but deletion?). There's no rule that I can find against using images that are aesthetic visualizations of a nebulous concept. By that logic perhaps we should remove visualization of the Calabi-Yau manifold from the string theory article since it's obviously impossible to represent a roughly six-dimensional geometry in two dimensions and, as the argument goes, must be unencyclopedic to take artistic license in representing a difficult concept. I have never tried to represent this image as more than it is. Nobody is claiming "this is the internet", just that it is one possible rendering of internet routes. I've tried to provide a visualization of the rather abstract concept of routing in an easy-to-digest format for the lay man. The information the reader is intended to glean is merely the manner by which nodes on the internet are connected and data gets from point to point. This image is not intended to show the reader how google.com in particular is connected to their computer.

  However, I do encourage you to create your own, more useful and encyclopedic, map of the internet since you seem to have a very clear vision of how one should be represented. I wait in eager anticipation. -- mattb 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The rules against aesthetic visualizations are original research and verifiability. Where did verifiable facts give way to arbitrary visualization? Where did referencable sources give way to inclusion or exclusion?

  People elsewhere in this debate say that the image includes useful information. I don't think it does, for the reasons I've given above. Let's stipulate, though, that it is useful. How would we verify that it is correct, now that we've put it up on Wikipedia, copied it to all sorts of other sites, pages, dumps, and given out a very lenient license that it be copied and reused even more?

  Meanwhile, we're not talking about the Calabi-Yau manifold diagram; we're discussing Image:Internet map 1024.jpg. Because we can't fix every article or image at a time, couter-examples are very much irrelevant. -- Mikeblas 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've spoken my peace. It still perplexes me that you'd nominate this image for deletion, but you're entitled to your opinion. Designing a certain rendering of data obtained elsewhere is not original research. If you really want to know more details about how I arrived at this image, feel free to ask me sometime. -- mattb 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Featured image. Appears on dozens of Wikipedia pages. Frankly I don't understand why this was proposed at all. The uploader has provided information about how the image was produced. Presumably the delays between nodes are measured using a tool such as traceroute. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely such a tool, though slightly modified for speed. -- mattb 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The image makes a good illustration of the complexity of the network. There is also information in the coloring of the links. - u9 80.198.126.178 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Of course it is incomplete.. crawlers can't cover everything, and there is only so much you can present in any one image when dealing with something so large, distributed, abstract, and complex as the internet... Overall this is the best visualization I have seen so far which illustrates both the chaotic complexity and large scale structures of the net, as well as the reach of different domains. Kudos to MattB for his work in producing this! Danski14^(talk) 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously A SINGLE IMAGE CAN NOT represent the whole NET as we know it today. This would mean including more than 3 BILLION trends, IP addresses, lines, etc etc. DUDE keep it as its the SIMPLEST and BEST image describing the internet. VERY good image and whoever wants it deleted has A BIASED none logical NOT under stable point of view, idiot to some point even!
• Keep. Featured pictures shouldn't be nominated for deletion without a very good reason (bad copyright status, for instance); there's no evidence of any such insurmountable problems here. We shouldn't delete a good image simply because it isn't perfect. *** Crotalus *** 11:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Look at the number of pages that link to this image. SWTPC6800 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The objective of an encyclopedia article is to convey to the readers the general idea of what the Internet is like. No need for it to be a perfect map -- making a perfect map is not practical, moreover, a perfect map would still not be useful even if it existed. The Internet is in flux all the time... btw, wonderful image, mattb! --朝彦 (Asahiko) 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; overzealous image deletion crusading. --Tom (talk - email) 22:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I haven't a clue why this image was proposed for deletion, but it is a handy one and it is rather complete, considering the mass of the internet. The Wikipedians said this was a featured image; obliviously it deserves to stay. Thekittybomb 00:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Looks like a map that gives a general idea of how the internet maps. Obviously, with the huge number of networks and hosts, a perfect map is extremely difficult, if not impossible. A good idea for a layman to have a vague understanding of the huge huge neural network that the internet is.
• Keep Shouldn't a featured image go through some kind of defeaturization review before being nominated for deletion? —pfahlstrom 23:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted. Sorry, but this is a classic case of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Custodiet_ipsos_custodes (notify | contribs).

• non-notable unfree image from news agency. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I respectfully submit that this image not be deleted. It illustrates an important point. It should also qualify under fair used.Custodiet ipsos custodes 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I also forgot one other thing. This picture is of the injury of Tsvangirai. He got badly beaten up by the Zimbabwean government. He has since healed after he was in the hospital. The point of the photo was to illustrate the barbaric and illegal nature of the beatings. A photo of him in the future like this will not be possible. Additionaly people in zimbabwe are very very poor. Its almost certain that no-one has a non copyrighted pic of him in this bad state. I know the zimbabwean government tried to supress all photos of him in this state for politcal purposes. To understand more please read the end of history of zimbabwe.
• Comment: This image is from AFP and it's not notable by itself. It's a news item. It could be speedied under G12. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• see this court case: [1] This is a case of fair use. It is not current news any more. Its history and it for scholarly use. The photo illustrates a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 09:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• May I also note that the incident in question happened on March 12, 2007. If this is current news how long has to pass before it is not?
• Weak keep. I think in this case it may be acceptable. The event it depicts was highly notable, and it is unlikely that a free alternative exists. Mangojuice^talk 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Contest: No free equivalent is just the first of our 10 Unfree Content Criteria. This nomination, for instance, has nothing to do with it. It deals with item #2: 'Respect for commercial opportunities. The fact that few images of this event exists only increases the value this image has to it's copyright holder, the global news agency Agence France-Presse. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I see your point. Hence, "weak." The image is valuable, and this does have a non-zero impact on that value, but the impact is still very small. I imagine the typical sale here would be for a news agency to pay to license the photo so they can illustrate a relevant article. Our use of the image here doesn't make such an article need illustration any less, so I would think they'd still pay for it, and they would probably pay just as much for it (no news organization would link to Wikipedia to avoid paying a license fee for a press photo). That said, if an image could be found that wasn't from a press agency, I would rather use that one. Mangojuice^talk 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we follow the argument of making money from the reprint then reprinting an article from a newspaper without permission should not be allowed because the newspaper could make money from the reprint. Once the original day has passed the loss to the newspaper is considered minimal. However the US court of appeals I believe allowed this. In a separate case The Second Circuit Appeals Court allowed the unauthorized and unpaid use of seven Grateful Dead concert poster reproductions used in a coffee table book. Again the rights holders could have made money. I quote from the judgement "The court looks to not only the market harm caused by the particular infringement, but also to whether, if the challenged use becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. This analysis requires a balancing of the benefit the public will derive if the use is permitted and the personal gain the copyright owner will receive if the use is denied. In the instant case, the parties agree that DK’s use of the images did not impact BGA’s primary market for the sale of the poster images....We have noted, however, that “were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissible impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder.” The court allowed it. I also think that this case is stronger. Wikipedia is a not for profit organization. The level of detail of the article in question is far beyond nay other encyclopedia. I know that because I spent a long time researching the article. Thirdly there is a public good in having scholarly information available to all where otherwise there would be a major lack of it. Finally unless it is a slam dunk obvious violation of copyright law which this case is certainly not, this pic should not be on a speedy deletion list.

'Comment: Mangojuice, there's no reason for AFP not to think Wikipedia itself as a potential client, and our use would be direct lost revenue. Arguing that, as Wikipedia never pays for images, they are not loosing revenue would be wrong. It's like I saying that, as I have a personal policy of never buying a DVD, I can freely download copyrighted movies from the Internet without worrying about causing any loss to the movie's copyright holder.

And I don't fully agree with your statement that "our use of the image here doesn't make such an article need illustration any less.". A news agency like BBC may prefer to pay for images that make their articles more distinguished. And the most one image is freely used by blogs or user-created webpages, the less it distinguishes the BBC/CNN article illustrated by them. That's the whole point of a valuable news image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, fair use, photo of very important incident. Unlike some others, this I can't see writing to the subject and asking him to reproduce for us ... :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that Abu badali's makes two errors in reasoning. Firstly that the value of a picture as history is the same as that as a current news story. AFP, AP and the BBC are interested in providing current news stories. Months or years later, the fact that their pictures are less exclusive no longer matters. This applies even more today then ever, where we live in a 24 hour news cycle. Yesterdays new is simply old.

The second error Abu badali makes is in reference to potential lost revenue. No-one is saying that "I have a personal policy of never buying a DVD, I can freely download copyrighted movies from the Internet without worrying about causing any loss to the movie's copyright holder". Rather what is being looked at here is the federal guidelines for fair use. What is being said is that one of the conditions of fair use looks at the potential revenue loss for the copyright holder. Thus it is appropriate to consider that Wikipdeia is not a competing primary news source and having a photo from a press agency does not make it less valuable as a consequence. Secondly the use of the photo is secondary use and not primary use. This is a distinction the courts have noted. (Note: All fair use legitimate situations use copyrighted material and do not reimburse the rights holder. The concept of fair use thus implies that sometimes denying some amount of revenue to the rights holder is ok. Here is a quote from the US court of appeals second circuit.

"“were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair us factor would always favor the copyright holder.”

This is not the only condition. So just because the loss may be minimal does not justify fair use alone without satisfying the other criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This image is not fair use; it's plainly copyvio. -- Mikeblas 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't said why. Its using a photo to illustrate an article where a free one is not available. The event shown is not reproducible. Proclaiming it as a copyright violation does not make it one.Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also invite you to look here [2] for evidence of what exactly the US courts call fair use. This image should be kept under fair use. Custodiet ipsos custodes 23:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and here is why: The picture is of Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the MDC (the opposition movement in Zimbabwe), showing his appalling injuries after he was tortured very badly by the Zimbabwean government. This obviously is not reproducible at any later point. The issue is a big one both politically and in the human rights community. The government there often denies doing this kind of thing and this photo is one of the few times that it can be proven wrong. This has caused a big international uproar. See here [3], [4], [5], [6] Thus it is very notable and qualifies under fair use. Please, before you judge this, learn about the recent history of Zimbabwe and see the photo in its proper context.Custodiet ipsos custodes 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: All these articles you've linked are about the incident (that is notable) and not about the image (that is not notable). By the way, isn't it interesting that these articles managed to comment on the incident without the need of using this image? This is what I mean when I say this image is not necessary.

  By the way, how many times do you intend to vote keep? --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You are quite wrong! Here is the original photo or similar image used in context around the world: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] I showed the articles above for historical context so that people can understand the historic nature of what went on. Here is another article and under the caption reads "Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world" - see here [12], [13]. How often does an article itself pronounce the importance of a specific image??? I don't know why you are so adamantly against the use of this image. You seem to oppose all images of people who are alive no matter what the context. I don't understand your dogged opposition to the legal concept of fair use. Each case must be decided on its merits. This case has a lot of merit.Custodiet ipsos custodes 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Custodiet ipsos custodes. (Who should vote only once, no matter how good his argument is.) —pfahlstrom 23:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted. If permission is granted, contact me to restore this photo. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John_Paul_II_and_Benedict_XVI.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Scrittore (notify | contribs).

• unnecessary non-notable unfree image, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confident "L'Osservatore Romano" would release it under a free license if we just asked... --euyyn 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who should contact them in order to do it? May I serve, or some administrator would be needed? What form should the permission have? A note on their web page? --euyyn 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COPYREQ for instructions on what to do (and what not to do) when asking such permissions. Contact me if you have any doubts. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.