This page is within the scope of WikiProject Images and Media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Images and MediaWikipedia:WikiProject Images and MediaTemplate:WikiProject Images and MediaImages and Media articles
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
I have observed a recent spate of editors adding collages to infoboxes for military conflict articles. These might consist of four, six and sometimes more images. In my view, these are too noisy. If they do not significantly increase the footprint of the infobox, they are too small to be viewable. Furthermore, detailed captions add to and bloat the infobox. Infobox size is a particular issue for mobile devices. It is my view that collages as a lead image are generally inappropriate and contrary to P&G on several points.
Per WP:COLLAGE, collages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. Such collages do not satisfy image use policy. The rationale for use appears to be largely decorative.
Per MOS:PERTINENCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. This is consistent with WP:IMGCONTENT (policy): The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central [emphasis added].
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would tell us (in essence) not to try to write the article in the infobox and that, [t]he less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... Collages would appear to be inconsistent with this.
Cognative theory and good presentation practice would tell us that too much visual information in one place is counterproductive (ie a sensory overload) and hence, my view that such images are too noisy.
Editors adding such collages would apply a justification of other stuff. However, this is only a reasonable justification if it represents best practice represented by our best quality articles. Very few (if any) of our best quality articles use collages for a lead image.
My reading of P&G and best practice is that the use of collages as lead images/in infoboxes generally and for military conflicts more specifically, should be exceptional.
On one hand, I understand that you can't cover the breadth and scope of many wars with a single image, let alone massive conflicts like World War II. On the other, I agree that generally you see very little in most montages and that many don't feel effectively chosen for their significance versus the "niceness" of the image itself or the decoration they provide (to use the WWII example, the atomic bombing of Japan makes innate sense to me as a major element of the end of the war, or a shot of Stalingrad for its considered role as the "turning point" of the war. Images of tank or aircraft make some sense in terms of the mechanization of war but the choices seem overall random, and the entire collage doesn't do a great job illustrating the global nature of the conflict, its civilian toll, etc. Some of this feels like it wouldn't be as much of an issue if people didn't want an infobox over all else (I've got a collage image as the lead for Art Deco architecture of New York City to demonstrate the different styles the form took in the city across the boroughs it's prominent in, but it's allowed to be more than 30% larger by virtue of not being in an infobox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk13:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases I've seen in these infobox collage discussions where the topic couldn't be covered with a single image, it couldn't really be covered by 3-6 images either. The exact same problem is faced. There are probably some topics out there which are very well summarised with 3-6 images, but perhaps by that very nature they don't lend themselves to extended disputes about image inclusions. CMD (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They are awful and should be banned. Otherwise the number of them will inexorably grow, as they are (like over-loaded infoboxes) another thing that editors who can't or won't add text love to do. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are good clean examples of info ox collages like in most city articles. But this is generally based on using images that have strong contrast and clear features like city skylines and key buildings or infrastructure, so that as a thumbnail it's still easy to read. Pictures from WWII aren't going to have the same contrast or clarity at small sizes so, a collage doesn't make sense here. Masem (t) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collages have long been controversial. There are some editors who wish that our policies and guidelines did more to restrict their use, but to say that the present language of PAG restricts them is a major stretch/overstatement. Please don't conflate an argument with what you'd like them to say with interpretation of what they presently say. Sdkbtalk14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some policy based arguments to be made against certain collages, but I don't think current policy prohibits them. Certainly poor contrast collages and those that poorly illustrate the subject are bad, and probably a poor choice according to policy. Infoboxes are poor at handling complexity (this isn't just related to images), but that is because they are meant to show simplified information. Dispersing images through out article is a better way to illustrate the subject, but that doesn't mean all collages should go. It certainly seems as if some collages are being added because they are collages, and that doesn't look like careful consideration of the subject or the articles needs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collages and galleries are an accessibility nightmare on many levels... Be it fragmented images, mini images or scrolling nightmare before reaching pros text (most readers only scroll a few times then go somewhere else)... should really only be used for comparisons in my view. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#ImagesMoxy🍁 02:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cinderella and infobox collages should be strongly discouraged, and certainly not expanded. One good image is better than 6 postage stamps; Actual Studies done by real UI / usability types show that users like Big Images. A collage can be acceptable (if not encouraged) for truly gigantic conflicts where only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction (World War II the canonical example here), which is unfortunate because WW2 is probably the most viewed war article, but it should be the exception, not the rule. That being said, I think that the old hesitance regarding galleries in some policies was misplaced, so I'm fine with the laudable goal of moving more images into articles - just create a gallery section to throw them into, and since the current gallery defaults are still unfortunately postage-stamp size, throw in a custom widths & heights parameters so that they're legibile. Galleries also display nicely on the mobile app, which is how a lot of readers see Wikipedia. On mobile, they can easily be scrolled through, or scrolled past if a reader isn't interested, unlike an infobox collage. SnowFire (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is specifically about "military conflicts", and I think this (i.e., "only showing a single image might provoke a nationalist reaction") is the key difficulty: you can't put up an image from "one side" and claim that inherently biased choice will "illustrate [the] point in an encyclopedic way". Multiple images could, however, be an "important illustrative aid to understanding" – by illustrating that there isn't just one, single important thing to know here. It is perhaps a literal case of the medium is the message: Giving multiple images shows that there are multiple viewpoints.
Strongly concur with Cinderella157, on every point. Infoboxes are for ultra-concisely convenying the key-facts gist, and absoltely do not serve an image-gallery function. WP even discourage (per MOS:GALLERIES) image galleries at all (in the body) unless there are one or more prescribed good reasons for adding one. It's completely inappropriate to make what amounts to one in an infobox, where doing it is also a serious accessiblity problem for anyone without amazing eyesight. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 09:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)`[reply]
I usually enjoy these collages in articles about cities. With military conflicts, it is different: to give an example, the infoboxes of the Coalition Wars all look essentially the same to me: First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh: some paintings of battles, sometimes involving ships. The twelve infobox images in the Sixth Coalition article might be better placed in the sections discussing these battles. —Kusma (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have question. Is there any policy that protect a person's photo privacy (found in the article/page)? I.e. Elizabeth is a former actress that worked within adult industry. On her article, the infobox has an image showing cleavage. Elizabeth is however no longer works within the adult industry and regret doing so, and find the image inappropriate, considering many users everyday is reading her wiki page and she believe it's a breach of her privacy. She wants to replace with another picture or without any picture. Is there any Wikipedia policy/guidelines that allows to replace the image and protects her rights? 2A00:23EE:10B0:7735:A55E:46DC:804A:949F (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Not censored; WP:Outing would be relevant. Wikipedia is timeless, so if something is of encyclopedic interest then it remains so. But if a better image is available then that could be the lead image. Images can only be used if appropriate permission was supplied, and that means that the right to "privacy" is forgone. Some rights may be retained by the law, eg right not to be used in an advertisement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donald J. Harris is the father of Kamala Harris. Pictures of him seem hard to find. There is one proposed in this discussion] on his article's talk page.
It is from the Stanford Economics Department. I'm guessing Stanford has the copyright. How does one verify this? If it is copyrighted, what are our options? How long can fair use be employed? Any help with these questions or with finding a public domain image of Donald Harris will be greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page on which that image appears has a Stanford University copyright notice, so lacking any other information we assume that to apply to the image - you could certainly ask them directly to verify, or check whether the image has been published elsewhere with other details. Generally speaking, fair use wouldn't be possible for an image of a living person since (in theory) a free image could be created at any time. (Given that his daughter is a US federal officeholder, possibly he appeared at an event where he might have been photographed by a federal employee?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this great reply Nikkimaria. Sadly, I don't think father and daughter are close. They might even be estranged. He seems to have a low public profile, even though he was a Stanford University professor. But maybe if she triumphs in November, they'll make up and the possibilities thereafter will skyrocket. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS I take back some of what I said above. Donald J. Harris has written a warm family memoir here, which has more recent family pictures, but sadly all copyrighted. Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lab is federally funded but is not a federal agency. The photo is copyrighted and the credit specifically indicates a copyright held by the university regents. Whpq (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this 2023 archived discussion about AI-generated images, but it doesn't appear to have reached a clear-cut conclusion, and it also appears to have been mainly focusing on the copyright status of such works. There are encyclopedic concerns as well, particularly when it comes to AI images of people. I occasionally come across what seem to be AI generated images of people while looking at Special:NewFiles: some recent examples are File:Bafaki Tangal.jpg, File:P. M. S. A. Pukkoya Tangal.jpg, File:Km sahib.jpeg, File:Sayyid ummar bafaqi.jpeg and File:K. Uppi Saheb 1.jpg. To be honest, I don't know for sure whether these are AI images, but they don't seem like paintings, drawings or photographs. From a copyright standpoint, these could be problems per c:COM:BASEDONPHOTO if they were created based on a old photo or something; however, even if they're 100% original, they might be too original per WP:IMAGEOR. The question I have is whether encyclopedically such images are OK to use even if their copyright is not a problem. FWIW, there is a little on AI images in WP:AI#Images and Commons and much more in c:COM:AI, but these too seem more focused on copyright related issues than encyclopedic use; of course, copyright is what Commons is more concerned with, which is why it might be a good idea for encyclopedic concerns covered a bit more locally here on Wikipedia. The two images I recently came across are of deceased persons and its possible non-free images could be used per WP:NFCCP; if, however, that could be affected if freely licensed AI-generated images are considered to be a reasonable free alternative to non-free images. Furthermore, freely licensed AI-generated images could possibly be argued to even be OK to use in BLPs, but that might cause issues with WP:BLPIMAGE. Pinging Masem and SMcCandlish since they participated in the archived discussion mentioned above, but feedback from others would be appreciated too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's trivially obvious that no AI-generated image has any encyclopedic value whatsoever. This should be enshrined in policy. Encyclopedic value is a function of human discernment in collation, preparation, and representation. AI is fundamentally incapable of such discernment; as AI is functionally a black box, humans purporting to mediate its output are also incapable of such discernment. Remsense ‥ 论01:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the scope of this post is intentionally narrower, pertaining to images of people. However, I do not see a distinction worth making here. Remsense ‥ 论01:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see some value in using AI generated images in articles about AI generated images or maybe in articles about art, but I'm not so sure there's much value in using them in biographies, except perhaps as an example of someone's art or perhaps in cases where the image is controversial and the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources. Given that so many biographies (not only BLPs) seem to be without at least an image for primary identification purposes, the temptation to create one using AI could be too much for some to resist. Moreover, some non-free images might be of poor quality (File:K. Uppi Saheb 1.jpg was actually overwriting File:K. Uppi Saheb.jpg and needed to be split, and File:Bafaki Tangal.jpg is another overwritten file in need of a split.) that it's tempting to replace them with "better" looking AI images. The questions is whether such a thing is good from an encyclopedic standpoint. If the consensus is that it's not, then I agree such a thing should be clearly stated in relevant policy pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have free non-generated images we should use those. If we do not, then works derived from non-free images, whether created by AI or by a human artist, are likely problematic with respect to the copyright of the images they were derived from. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't sure how to articulate this while coming off with adequate clarity as to my position, but it's clearly reasonable to use AI-generated images as primary illustrations of the generation itself. Remsense ‥ 论01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero allowance for AI generated images that are meant to depict people, living or dead. Within the context where AI images would be allowed and where it is needed to show a human or more with the image, it should be clearly generic human figures that AI is known to generate, and if the image edges on recognizability, an alternative image should be saught. — Masem (t) 02:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Does it already say that somewhere in IUP or some other policy page? Is there fairly accurate way of determining whether an image is AI-generated? I'm a total newbie when it comes to them and only notice when the image seems unnatural for some reason. I'd imagine that some are quite skilled at creating such images so that they can be really hard to detect, unlike the ones I mentioned above (which really seemed odd to me). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an argument for expecting the sourcing and processing to be clearly stated on the file page for media used in articles. I've seen people point to the frequent absence of this necessary documentation on Commons as a pragmatic argument that we can't truly expect WP:V to always apply. I personally won't apologize if I'm doing GAN or peer review for an article where I have to insist on removing media with incomplete or unclear documentation. Remsense ‥ 论02:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think if we are allowing AI images (and in such cases, starting with how Commons does it), it should be where the uploader has otherwise been in control of the image generation route so we know what the prompts were, what AI engine was used, etc.
But again, that's for sufficiently generic images. When it comes to any AI image that tries to produce images of known persons, that should be an area we avoid with a ten-foot pole due to the potential issues with accuracy, representation, etc. Masem (t) 03:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in concurrence with all of the concerns raised above about use of AI-generated (or significantly AI-altered) images of people, outside the context of encyclopedic coverage of what AI imagery is and what controversies surround it. If we're using AI fakery to represent biographcial subjects, then we are making a mistake. As for identifying them, there are sites now that analyze images and can identify AI-generated ones with a 95%+ accuracy rate, so I'm told, though this is not something I have looked at closely. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone uploading an image like that needs one warning and then an indefinite block. At the moment, the couple of samples I've seen are hideous (example from above). However, even if that problem were overcome, the idea that faked photos could be used because someone thinks they are ok shows a clear WP:CIR problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what makes me confident that expecting clear documentation for images used in articles is adequate to address this problem on the article front at least: or, at least addressing it as well as we address copyvio in prose. Editors who do this are almost always inexperienced or incompetent, and scandals where a regular contributor in good standing is found to be fabricating this documentation are likely to be exceedingly rare.. Remsense ‥ 论06:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CSD § F8 and keep local. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
