Talk:Barbara Blackburn (typist)

Barbara Blackburn is not culturally significant enough to have a Wikipedia page

Her entire claim is a complete lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maCHHSussS4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Record contested

Karl Jobst (speed running expert) just posted this video where he contests the Speed Typing record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maCHHSussS4 The sources needs to be looked over. Blockhaj (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I second this; to be specific on the issue, the video shows a letter that Blackburn wrote claiming that she had attained the "212 WPM" speed in a typing program over one sentence, not over an extended period of time. The video demonstrates why this is an issue: the current record holder of the fastest WPM can easily achieve a 400+ WPM over one sentence, which is double that of Blackburn's alleged speed and calls into question the accuracy of the 212 WPM statistic. Tali64^2 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The video is from YouTube. This is not a reliable source. Contest this with something that isn't self-published. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we can so quickly rule out the possibility the video isn't usable. There are certain exceptions to the rule again self-published sources, and one could argue that Karl Jobst is enough of a subject matter expert that it's usable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we use the video as a reference in the article, but as a reason to look over the articles sources. The creator has a professional career in investigative journalism and has done his research, specifically pointed out errors on Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maxxhiato Sources are for new statements. The video itself doesn’t have any problems and the only new statement is his investigation and not the results (save for the aforementioned one sentence email). The problem pointed out is that the sources we already use (or maybe just the first one and the Guinness one) are not reliable. Plus, YouTube is only unreliable as it’s self-published, not anything else, so one might argue that Karl, an investigative journalist, is a subject matter expert. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Contest this with something that isn't self-published. -- While it's a good idea to only use sources that aren't self-published, the YouTube video isn't the only such source that the article heavily relies upon. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that there are currently 11 instances of the ^{[self-published source]} tag in the article, which should be dealt with individually, or the unsourced claims should be removed. Renerpho (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait a second for some other sources to come out, pal. Gam3rEncyclopedia (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait a second for some other sources to come out -- We'll see. Jobst appears to think that's not going to happen ("Watch the mainstream media bury this story and not even cover it."[1]), but of course that may turn out to be wrong. Renerpho (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see so many Karl Jobst fans here, lol. Yeah, this article definitely needs to be reworked. Skyshifter ^talk 01:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It probably does. However, we cannot use Jobst as a source. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

True, but we could probably use the sources from Jobst's video if we found where they came from (one of the most important is a snippet of the letter mentioned in my reply above, shown at 11:07), but Jobst never gave any links to any of the sources, so that's easier said than done. Tali64^2 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just watching it now, logically we'd need to look at the Guinness World Record book from 1976 (page 485) to verify that the 212WPM figure isn't there. The last appearance was 1985 but no page number on the video.

The rest of the video is trying to find the original source for 212WPM, which we don't really need to know unless someone wants to add more info via a Controversy section? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We don’t need a controversy section unless this video sparks public and media outrage. Otherwise, we should just sparkle it in the entire article, bunching a particular not-covered detail in one section is undue weight.

In the 1985 edition the record is on page 467. The Internet archive has a copy here. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We could include it attributed, much like how the Guinness claim is now attributed ("According to Karl Jobst..."). Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as it’s only about the email where it mentions the “on a single sentence” part I’m fine with that. I don’t see any other part that needs to be cited to Karl. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating this statement and expecting people to simply agree with you instead of taking seriously Karl's clearly very well-sourced and well-researched investigation. It seems the the books published that contain the 212 WPM claim are themselves poorly-reseaeched and a victim of circularly reporting. 67.245.150.14 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't care if people agree with me or not. I will also not attest to the quality of his material, as it should be entirely irrelevant to the veracity of the page. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

People aren't saying to use this YouTuber as a source, they're saying to review the sources already on this page and ensure they're accurate. --Aabicus (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The statements "The video demonstrates why this is an issue." and "'According to Karl Jobst...'" are invoking him on this subject. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I adjusted the article a bit so that it doesn't state in WP:Wikivoice that she is the world's fastest typist, but rather that Guinness considered her to be the world's fastest typist, bringing it more in line with the cited source. This should assuage concern about the claim being presented as fact, while also not relying on a YouTube video as a source of anything. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no need to consider citing the YouTube video, just look at the source used for the 212 WPM claim, the 1985 Guiness book of world records. The figure is not there. So the claim is unsourced and should be removed, unless a reliable one can be found. El Pharao (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is the better approach rather than using Jobst. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody wants to use Jobst, what you said is what we’re saying Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  You were. "Plus, YouTube is only unreliable as it’s self-published, not anything else, so one might argue that Karl, an investigative journalist, is a subject matter expert. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)" He is not a subject matter expert, btw. 174.193.120.59 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I said "one might argue". I'm not sure what fields investigative journalists may cover as subject matter experts, which is why I said "one might argue" instead of arguing it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  This thread started with someone mentioning Jobst. Various people have argued that he could be used as an expert from an investigative journalist's perspective, which you even said. People knowingly or unknowingly wish to use him as a source of disputed information. To be clear, however, I am not saying that I disagree with the conclusion, nor am I saying that the information shouldn't be disputed. Just that Jobst should probably be kept out as a source. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  All we can get from the video is the letter really, the rest we can just attribute to the direct sources. The letter would be complicated though, we'd need to find it covered somewhere else or maybe wait for a reliable news source's coverage of it. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Even if the YouTube video itself is technically unreliable, The underlying sources the video cites certainly are usable. The video obviously highlights what are serious issues with circular reporting regarding this alleged record. There's no reason do doubt the claims made in the video. We should use common sense and not propagate erroneous claims just because they are reported as fact in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: I'd say the most compelling evidence would be the letter allegedly sent to one of Jobst's interviewees. The problem is that it isn't published anywhere and only reported on in the video at the moment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are the 1976 and 1985 editions of Guinness Book of World Records found at Internet Archive, neither edition says "212 wpm". If the page number links won't work, you can check the book out if you have an account (I had to check them out to view the page) She's not listed in the 1975 edition. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Internet Archive: Guinness 1976 Book Of World Records
• Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Lee's Summit, Missouri, has sustained speeds of 170 w.p.m. using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (D.S.K.) system, page 485
• Internet Archive: Guinness 1985 Book Of World Records
• Typing, Fastest: page 467, Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Everett, Wash can maintain 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attains a speed of 170 wpm using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system.

Sources

• Her record is maintaining 150 words a minute for 50 minutes (37,500 strokes). (Los Angeles Times January 10, 1985)
• According to the Guinness Book of World Records 1985 edition, Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Ore., could crank out 150 words per minute for 50 minutes at a stretch, which works out to 37,500 keystrokes. (The Patriot - News; Harrisburg, Pa. March 18, 2008, page B2) found at ProQuest
• 1976 Guinness Book of Records, 170 wpm (St. Louis Post-Dispatch September 28, 1977, page 20A) found at Newspapers.com

Here is the oldest source I could find, from 1972, before the Guinness Book even got involved. And the Post-Dispatch article makes it clear that Guinness never contacted her or monitored her typing speed. Her name got in the book after Phillip Davis wrote a letter to the editors of Guinness. It appears the 212 wpm claim can only be attributed to her, and the claims in the Guinness Books can only be attributed to Phillip Davis, a Dvorak advocate.

• Parkinson, Bob (1972). "How to Increase Your Typing Productivity". Technical Communication. 19 (4). Society for Technical Communication: 9–11. ISSN 0049-3155.

"Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Kansas City also uses the DSK. She switched over from the standard keyboard because she was making so many errors on the old keyboard. On the DSK, she now types between 150 and 160 words per minute". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

She was also mentioned in passing in a BBC article about Dvorak, which does cite the 212 wpm - but also specifically states that her record in the Guinness book was 150wpm for 50 min. - nathanielcwm (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Karl Jobst's statement that Mythical Rocket holds the current record seems to be corroborated by Tom's Hardware.- nathanielcwm (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The Letterman episode is also mentioned in this BuzzfeedNews article.- nathanielcwm (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources mention the 212 wpm, our question was where did it come from? It appears it is a claim she made in 1985, and then was repeated over and over in sources until it basically was just reported as a fact, rather than a claim she made. The article now reflects it was a self-claim from her. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And the claim that she held any record at all was not verified by Guinness, but came from a letter that a Dvorak spokesman sent to Guinness, who accepted it as fact.(Source discussed here) She didn't even know about it, as she stated herself. Anything published by Guinness about her should be taken as unreliable (fabricated). Renerpho (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That is also from the Karl Jobst video. Unless the letter is reprinted in some other reliable news source or someone successfully argues that Jobst is a subject matter expert, we can't use it. Unless you can find where she and Guinness stated it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: It's already in the article, as the source currently used in Note a (St.Louis Post-Dispatch, 26 June 1977). Renerpho (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, nice one. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: To quote page 20A: "A Guinness editor said the book accepted information sent in by an official organisation - in this case the Dvorak advocate. If Mrs. Blackburn writes to the editors, they will send her a certificate acknowledging her records". Renerpho (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) That whole article is worth reading. It's basically a refutation of Guinness World Records. Renerpho (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the article, I'm thanking whoever put the note in for putting the note in. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As am I. I didn't think you were contesting it. If you thought so then you misunderstood me. Renerpho (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The {{self-published source}} tag was buried in the reference section, making it harder to identify the individual statements that aren't properly sourced. While it looks ugly, I have moved it into the main text, so it can be dealt with more easily. Renerpho (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see Template:Self-published source/doc. This template needs to be used inside the ref tag, to outline blocks of text only sourced by self published sources you should use Template:Self-published inline. That doesn't mean it should be appended at every place that uses the ref either. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that it should. The point of tags is to alert readers to potentially unreliable information. Since the article so heavily relies on that one source, and for many different facts, that's a use case here. Aesthetics, as I said in my previous comment, should not be considered. Renerpho (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Whenever readers mouse over the citation they'll see it, and it's visible by default in the references appendix. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I guess the "disputed" template at the top is enough of a warning. Renerpho (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Disputed" box

Hello PK-WIKI, I understand you disagree with the {{disputed}} box at the top of the article.[2] Would you agree with adding a {{Disputed section}} box to the "Typing" section? Most of the problems that remain are about that section specifically, including some inconsistencies with the article lead. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Problematic are all statements that come from reference #10 (the self-published source), the part tagged as dubious, and the places that have other maintenance tags. Renerpho (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't especially like the idea of {{Disputed section}} because the main disputed issue (Guinness supposedly reporting 212wpm) has already been fixed in the article and section. And the dubious tag already calls out the claim about her introduction to Guinness. Are there even any other "disputed" statements remaining?

It seems like we should instead just fix the remaining issues and delete the self-published source...

PK-WIKI (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI: The main disputed issue is whether she has any right to be called a speed typist, at all. "By 1984, she had achieved 170 WPM on minute tests" is an example that doesn't use the self-published source. It appears this is based on something she said on the Letterman show? I'm not sure because I can't find the relevant place in the 18-minute video that's linked as the source. By the way, do we really want to use a source that (blatantly? apparently?) violates the copyright of someone who is known for caring about that, and for having videos like that taken down? Apart from that, about half the section is based on the self-published source, which could make removing/replacing it difficult. Renerpho (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"The main disputed issue is whether she has any right to be called a speed typist, at all."

This is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and the disputed tag should definitely be removed if what you are actually disputing is if her speeds were good or official enough to be included in the Guinness Book of World Records. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not at all disputing whether her speeds were good enough for Guinness World Records. They obviously were. I am disputing that Guinness World Records can be relied upon as a source. That's not original research; the problems with GWR are apparent, starting from the 1977 article (reference #1). That said, with your most recent edits, the article now properly attributes most (if not all) claims made by Guinness, so I don't think the tag is necessary anymore. Citing Guinness is fine, as long as it's clear who is claiming what. Hopefully that should cover your point about WP:OR. Renerpho (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Guinness books are only cited here as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to establish the actual records Blackburn held according to Guinness (and thus to prove that Guinness never pegged her at 212). We can avoid directly discussing the reliability or problems with Guinness at all in this article... the secondary sources just discuss the fact that Blackburn's speeds were records according to Guinness. (The article speed typing though could be expanded...) PK-WIKI (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like we should instead just fix the remaining issues and delete the self-published source... I have removed some of the claims that appear to only come from the self-published source. We are now down from 11 to just 5 4 places in the article where that source is used. This also got rid of some of the other maintenance tags. Renerpho (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The self-published sources should be removed entirely, we don't need them. And the two sub-sections below the "Typing" section should be eliminated, and just incorporate all that text under one section. Her self-claimed speed of 212 wpm is sufficient in the lead. If reliable sources ever pick up on this controversy, we can re-visit the issue then. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Her speed of 212 wpm is widely reported in reliable sources and is an important part of the article. The section will identify the source of the various Guinness+ speed claims and call out / correct the circular reporting attributing the 212 wpm speed to the Guinness book. The section doesn't need to reference the Jobst video at all or even refer to it as a "controversy", which it isn't. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

But there is only one sentence in that sub-section about her so called 212 wpm, that's not worthy of an entire sub-section. Honestly, we've got a wide variety of sources that claim her speed is anywhere from 150 wpm to 212 wpm, it should all just be incorporated into prose in one section under "Typing speeds". Isaidnoway (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Karl Jobst, SME?

Is Karl Jobst a reliable subject-matter expert for the purposes of this article? Yes or no? Fieari (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(Previous phrasing of RfC): Is Karl Jobst a subject-matter expert in the areas and on the specific subjects where he has performed investigative journalism, and thus a reliable source for those topics?

I'm bothered that there's been so much going back and forth on this in the comments above, so let's settle this formally. Fieari (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment - the scope of your question is too broad. We can't determine here on this talk page, by local consensus, if he is a "subject matter expert" on a broad range of topics, like you appear to be asking. As far as this article is concerned, we don't need him as a source, we have attributed the 212 wpm claim to her from using WP:RS. It's not that uncommon for self-published sources and WP:CIRCULAR claims to get spread on the internet and picked up by RS. Look at the electric toaster hoax that went on for more than a decade. Google still returns results that say Alan MacMasters was the inventor. I guess we should thank Karl though for bringing this to the attention of our editors, so we could fix the issue here on our end. Thank you Karl. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fair point. I'll narrow the scope to this article... I'll admit to being a little ambitious with the initial phrasing. Fieari (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I second what Isaidnoway said (including the thank-you). I think we don't need Jobst's video as a reference. What we could (and maybe should) do is add it as an external link, because it does provide useful additional information for anyone who wants all the details. If we determine Jobst to be a subject matter expert - and I think he is - then there should be no problem with linking the video. Renerpho (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the comments above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• No WP:USINGSPS defines an acceptable expert source as one whose "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Not linked to by reliable sources, but published by them. Jobst's self-published videos that are occasionally linked to / summarized by reliable sources would not seem to qualify. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  The results of Jobst's prior investigations have been published by reliable sources. This is true even outside of his main field (video game speed running). [3] is an example, resulting in [4]. Naturally, Jobst will publish the investigations themselves on his YouTube channel, and any mention of them in third-party publications, even if with Jobst's direct participation, will ultimately rely on them. Summaries in reliable sources are the most we can reasonably expect. Renerpho (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Those examples don't count as Jobst being published by a reliable source. His name would have to be in the story's byline at a minimum. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Lean no What's the specific sourced content under discussion? ~ HAL333 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• A more formal comment: no, we shouldn't cite Jobst in the article. His bread & butter is in video game speedruns, and the video about Blackburn was something that is completely new. Is he an SPS? For speedruns, possibly, but not here. SWinxy (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Following the guidelines, Jobst at the time of writing is not valid as a direct citation for the subject. However his background in professional speedrunning journalism does lend him valid credibility in broader world record journalism, etc.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

We cannot cite Jobst's video because it is a copyright violation of various video game soundtracks (4:34 uses a song from Mass Effect 3 and 12:13 uses a song from Celeste, for example), so linking to it would run afoul of WP:COPYLINK. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so. By this standard, we couldn't cite the Letterman episode in the "Late Night with David Letterman" section. It is possibly a copyright violation, too, but we currently heavily rely on it. Where do we draw the line? Renerpho (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Letterman video can certainly be cited. Most cited newspapers and books are under copyright too. The URL parameter containing a link to the episode on a non-official YouTube channel is a different matter. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, it was the direct link to the video that I meant when I said that we couldn't "cite" it. --Renerpho (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a right interpretation of COPYLINK. That section reads to be about pure unauthorized copies of copyrighted works (e.g. linking to lyrics, Internet Archive). I don't think that having unlicensed music in the background excludes the video from being cited. There are lots of other reasons why we can decide to not cite it! SWinxy (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

There has been no new input for about three weeks. Am I right in concluding that this discussion has reached a consensus of sorts, that we don't need to cite Jobst's video, making the question of whether he is a SME irrelevant? Fieari? Renerpho (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am ending the RfC, assuming that there is agreement that discussion has stopped. Renerpho (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi protect request

this thing is getting vandalized because of Karl Jobst's newest video so someone should protect it Sebbog13 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Two edits from the same IP are no reason to semi-protect (yet). Renerpho (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Renerpho, as most of the people going to Wikipedia after watching the video can see that it has already been amended. ItzLarz (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

okay then you can close this request now then Sebbog13 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Synchonising elsewhere

Whatever conclusion is reached here (i.e. the way the peak typing speed is described, and what sources are used to support it) should also be reflected on pages like Typing and others where this info is presented for consistency. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I believe a consensus has been reached (the article has settled into a new state, and discussion has died down; see RFC above), so I think you're safe adopting that approach for other articles. Renerpho (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Using Late Night with David Letterman freeze frame as an image

Would it be suitable to a freeze frame of Barbara on the Late Night with David Letterman episode as an image for the infobox? I'm trying to understand how Wikipedia works, and I'm not sure if it would be violating the copyright guidelines or would be fair use. EnbyPie08 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@EnbyPie08: Thanks for asking. Wikipedia purposefully uses a stricter version of fair use, known as "non-free content". See WP:NFC for details about the policy. In particular, while still images from a tv episode can be used for critical commentary and discussion of the work in question, it can not be used outside of that narrow context. The policy page gives the example of the photo of a baseball card to illustrate what would be unacceptable use, quote: A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. The use may be appropriate to illustrate a passage on the card itself. For the Barbara Blackburn article, this means that a freeze frame from the Late Night episode may be appropriate for the Late Night with David Letterman section, but not for the infobox. Renerpho (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What about something like a news article? EnbyPie08 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@EnbyPie08: No, the same rule applies. If there is a section about that particular news article in the Wikipedia article then the image may be appropriate to illustrate that section. It may not be used for the infobox. In general it is very tricky (impossible?) to find a non-free photo of a person that is appropriate for the infobox of that person's Wikipedia article. Renerpho (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you plan to upload a freeze frame from the Late Night episode, the usual rules for fair use content apply. In particular, only upload it at a resolution that is actually necessary for the article (not higher). Usually that's something like 300x200 pixels. While your original idea to use it for the infobox doesn't work, such a photo may still be a reasonable addition to the article. Apart from that, you already have the link to the Non-free content criteria (from your question at Teahouse), which are a good guideline. Rule #8 is what also deals with the problem I have described above. By the way, welcome (back?) to Wikipedia. Renerpho (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! EnbyPie08 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)