Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-22/Discussion report

← Back to Discussion report

Discuss this story

Hi Svampesky, interesting story! One minor correction: The sentence "Wikipedia hosts its servers in the United States, placing it under US jurisdiction." expresses a widely-held, but actually incorrect belief about how internet law works. First, the server location is entirely irrelevant under internet law, and second, Wikipedia's servers are located around the globe (including the Netherlands, France, Singapore, and Brazil). My suggestion would be to say, "To protect the assets of the Wikimedia Foundation in the United States, the Wikipedia community adheres to US copyright law.", or something along these lines. --Gnom (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Partially implemented. I fixed the wording by essentially paraphrasing what's written in the link. Thanks. Svampesky (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We started a conversation about this in the Newsroom but it wasn't quite figured out in time for publication. Glad a knowledgeable reader helped clarify this. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump raised-fist photographs was created by Levivich, not Hallucegenia. Hallucegenia's version, initially at Photograph of Donald Trump after shooting, [1] was quickly redirected. Levivich independently created Trump raised fist photographs nearly ten hours later, and then, seeing an article had already been attempted, effectively history-merged Hallucegenia's attempt into his own. [2] The reason the two versions appear similar is that they both reused content from the main Attempted assassination of Donald Trump article. —Cryptic 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done – please clarify. The page about the photo was created by Hallucegenia, as the report says. Levivich created theirs ten hours after Hallucegenia, as you have confirmed in your comment. This is not about any page title, it's about the actual page which was created first by Hallucegenia. Svampesky (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Cryptic, and different observers may of course come to different conclusions, but I disagree with the article saying that The prevailing sentiment leant towards deletion, reflecting a rigorous adherence to NFCC and fair use guidelines. Yes, "delete" was in the lead for the first few hours, but it wasn't a huge margin (I think at most, it was in the lead by 6 votes). Within 5 hours, it was tied. "Keep" took the lead after 7 hours and then maintained it for the remaining 5 days. And the keeps would certainly say their votes reflected "a rigorous adherence to NFCC and fair use guidelines".

I also disagree with The debate significantly shifted when an article specifically about the photograph was created by Hallucegenia. When an article was first created about 11 hours into the discussion, the "keeps" were ahead by 39-26 and that didn't change. The debate did not shift significantly after the creation of the article.

(My source for vote counts, which isn't 100% accurate, is the vote history tool: [3].) Levivich (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you, per On Wikipedia, decisions are made through consensus and the quality of arguments, not by vote count., per Comments not supported by policy were to be given less weight, per Recent Trump-related debates on Wikipedia have seen significant participation from new accounts, with some politically-influenced votes, and per based their rationales on political views rather than Wikipedia policies. The report is gives more weight to policy-based arguments because the policy-based arguments were given more weight by the closer; I'm assuming in line with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTAVOTE, and the 'Note to newcomers' box at the top of the discussion. Svampesky (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh? When you wrote, "The prevailing sentiment leant towards deletion", how are you measuring "prevailing sentiment"? Are you saying the arguments for deletion were stronger? That is your right to write, but that would turn this piece from news to opinion, and it should be marked as such (the Discussion Report is news, not opinion, right?). And when you wrote, "The debate significantly shifted", what are you referring to? What shifted, and from what to what? Levivich (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I measured "prevailing sentiment" against the 'Note to newcomers' box placed by Ca reading This is not a discussion on how significant or iconic the photo is, but rather how it satisfies NFCC. Comments unsupported by policy will be given less weight by the closer of this discussion. Me saying "The debate significantly shifted" is based on the discussion shifting significantly after the article about the photo was created. The report is a thousand-word summary, it's not meant to be a detailed account; I'd be way past my word count, if it was! Svampesky (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On And when you wrote, "The debate significantly shifted", what are you referring to? What shifted, and from what to what?, the paragraph in question starts with The prevailing sentiment leant towards deletion, and the final sentence of that same paragraph starts with The debate significantly shifted. This suggests that the debate shifted away from leaning to deletion. Svampesky (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that's factually untrue. The debate did not shift from delete to keep after the article was created; that happened before the article was created. Also, as pointed out by Cryptic, when the article was created, it was immediately turned into a redirect. What you wrote is just not borne out by the facts. Levivich (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion you should have with the closer, Soni, where they said in their closing argument Since the discussion started, Trump raised fist photographs was made (and kept in AFD), for which NFCC#1 would also be true. Multiple !votes were later changed to that effect. As such, the image now meets all criteria for being kept, but only for the photographs article. There is consensus against also using it in the main article.; not someone who is writing a thousand-word summary of it. Svampesky (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I do see what you mean. As a result, I have now added more details to the report. Svampesky (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, I've now changed it to The prevailing sentiment of comments based on image policy favoured deletion. I'll note that this was probably unnecessary as it's made clear throughout the report that non-policy comments were given less weight by the closer. Svampesky (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please add a note at previous removal from Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues about how the Commons' policy differs from that of the English Wikipedia insofar as that project categorically rejects fair use (as required by the Wikimedia Foundation). This is why the Commons file was deleted: It was a file for which no valid license can be provided and that's the end of it, there's no fair use discussion to be had there. An average reader will not understand the difference between the Commons and the English Wikipedia, and will probably be curious as to why one project deleted when another did not (the answer is pretty banal, and as such, it should be demystified). Regards—Alalch E. 02:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I think it's more informative now. I'll note that I also use writing these reports to teach myself policy, and I didn't even know Commons had a different policy! Svampesky (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)