The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


In the media

Alright Wikipedia, I'm ready for my closeup

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Milowent
Editors responded quickly to Gene Weingarten's call to replace this image on his article.
Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten recently lamented the unflattering photo which had accompanied his Wikipedia article for the last year. Friends compared the photo of Mr. Weingarten in a yellow t-shirt (pictured) to the infamous post capture photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pictured). (Mohammed, despite being "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks", and having spent the last 10 years at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, has a much more flattering picture of himself on his Wikipedia article.)

Weingarten says he made numerous attempts to get rid of the offending photo by himself - removing it from the article seven times, but was rebuffed. A review of the article history suggests he or someone else actually attempted to remove it 10 times since August 2014. The photo itself was first uploaded and inserted by GRuban in mid-August 2014. An IP editor first removed it a few weeks later, but that only lasted for four minutes. The next IP attempt a few days later lasted for five days before reversion. A third attempt also failed. A fourth attempt in October 2014 did meet some success, however, lasting for almost sixteen months before being caught and restored once again.

At this point, attempts five, six, seven, eight, and nine in February and March 2016 were all swiftly reverted. Some discussion with Weingarten also occurred, who revealed himself as the IP editor, and it was suggested that he could upload an alternate picture since no other photo could be found. Weingarten had suggested that many other public domain photos were out there, but that was not actually true.

Not Gene Weingarten.

On July 16, the photo was removed for the tenth time with the comment "this was a picture maliciously placed here. editor, please replace with any one other than this one. or leave it photoless." After 40 days of bliss for Gene, it reappeared on August 23 with the comment "Restore image; it's the only one we have, and fairly depicts the subject." It was again suggested that Weingarten provide another photo if he wished, but it appears the latest restoration cut Gene "don't call me Khalid" Weingarten to the bone, as the next thing he did was write his column, which appeared on September 29.

After Weingarten's plea went out, editors quickly found a new photo already existing on flickr, though it first got put up for deletion until the photographer agreed to amend the license to allow its use on Wikipedia.

The new Gene.

Weingarten is a long time fan of Wikipedia. We even used the offending photo earlier this year on the Signpost when mentioning Weingarten's column about using the "random article" feature. We promise this is the last time we will use the photo, Gene. Though this episode could all be blamed as bad karma for his 2007 self-vandalism of his article, it is a reminder that despite the great need and desire for photographs on BLPs, the use of discretion in deciding whether to use a photograph--and not just because it exists--would be wise. Certainly there are formal channels that Weingarten did not pursue to try to solve the problem, but the average reader and subject rarely understands those processes, and should also be able to rely on editors to avoid bad photos.

Despite Weingarten's distress over the photo, however, it may be conceded that perhaps few editors thought it was that bad a photo. The original uploader GRuban agreed, noting for the Signpost that he wouldn't have uploaded it in the first place if he thought it was an "attack picture". GRuban is glad to see the issue has been resolved: "I hope he likes (the new photo) better, we're not here to make people sad, as someone once said." And Gene also likes the new photo too, calling it "me at my HOTTEST". And its not even a selfie!

Reached for comment via Twitter by the Signpost, Weingarten noted: "What I hope is apparent is that I am completely technically incompetent. Anything I did that was violating the norms and protocols and etiquette of Wiki wasn't done maliciously, it was done ignorantly." This is no doubt the case for much of our readership, and should be kept in mind. But he is thankful it has finally been resolved. "I am really impressed and grateful that Wiki Nation jumped on this. If 'Wiki Nation' is not a term already, it should be."

In brief

One of the top 10 pictures representing Pakistan in the Wiki Loves Monuments competition this year.
  • Creative Commons newsletter: In our last edition, we missed the latest Keeping Up with the Commons newsletter, which covers open educational efforts around the world; a reflection on the value of non-commercial licenses by Creative Commons CEO Ryan Merkley; digital skills for researchers; European Union copyright law; and much more. (September 16)
  • Work on indigenous peoples coverage: An Indigenous Peoples’ Day edit-a-thon scheduled for WikiConference North America was highlighted by Smithsonian magazine. (September 30)
  • Article tags' deeper meaning: OZY Media highlighted the "Wikipedia Dispute Index" recently created by a group of researchers at the University of Heidelberg. The index is fairly straightforward and derived from determining how many articles linked to from a country's page have been tagged for a neutrality dispute. Thus, for example, the ranking for Georgia rose in 2008 during its conflict with Russia. See more at disputeindex.org. (Sept. 30)
  • Indian edit war: An edit war over a death claim on the page of Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu state in India, broke out on September 30 as reported in The News Minute. Jayalalithaa apparently remains in uncertain health, but the edit war was quashed when semi-protection was applied to the article, though nothing about her current health seems to be addressed at all. (October 1)
  • The BBC Does Hoaxes The BBC ran one of those regularly seen "top Wikipedia hoaxes" articles; this one, however, is fairly well written and its British focus brings up some less well-known yet still intriguing ones, such as statements in the article of composer Maurice Jarre that made it into obituaries after his death in 2009. (October 3) (See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-11/In the news)
  • But can you trust newspapers?: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review answers the reader question "Can you trust in Wikipedia?", as the reader's daughter has been instructed to use it for a school project. The paper concedes Wikipedia has value but directs the reader to tell his daughter's teacher to use the peer-reviewed Scholarpedia. I see that site's main page has only been edited twice in the past four years, and doesn't even have a page on Donald Trump (which may or may not be a bad thing). Maybe they will by 2050. We'll see what grade the daughter gets. (October 8).
  • Where's the "future history" tab?: The Huffington Post imagined what Donald Trump's Wikipedia article will look like in 2050, documenting a crushing loss in the presidential election fueled in part by the release of the 2005 audio tapes that are now in the news. No doubt this trope has been used before, but it also assumes that Wikipedia will be around in 2050, which is nice. I can't imagine what it will look like if editors in 2050 cite internal disputes from the 2010s and Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia includes 30+ year old hoaxes that some teenager is only creating as I type this. (October 10).
  • Another Wikipedia alternative: Breitbart News reports on the founding of "Infogalactic", "branding itself as a censorship free alternative to Wikipedia without 'bias or thought police' ". Instead of Wikipedia's "five pillars" it has "seven canons", which include "no griefing". The site went live in early October, but unlike Scholarpedia it already has an entry on Milo Yiannopoulos. Members of the Wikimedia-L email list critiqued the launch; one list participant, Coren / Marc, mused: "Why is it people unfailingly mistake 'no bias' with 'biases that match mine'?" (October 10)
  • Pakistan loves monuments: Pakistani newsites noted Pakistan's contributions to this year's Wiki Loves Monuments competition. (October 10–11)
  • Poynter on Wikipedia and fact-checking: The Poynter Institute covered collaborative efforts between journalists and Wikipedians. (October 12)
  • Edit-a-thons hosted by the U.S. National Archives: The Weekly Standard covers a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons to celebrate the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Bill of Rights. (October 13)



Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.
← Previous "In the media"
Next "In the media" →
S
In this issue
14 October 2016 (all comments)
  • News and notes
  • Discussion report
  • In the media
  • Technology report
  • Featured content
  • Traffic report
  • Recent research
    • + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
    • As a thought exercise, it would be interesting to know what Special:PredictFuture returns when you put in a question (how does one format it?) about future Wikipedia events. Pity that the software does not exist yet, it sure would make RfA and other processes somewhat easier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Gene Weingarten, anyone working at a major newspaper can get a professionally taken photo (new, done as a favour) up on WP in about 15 minutes. Once a better photo is up, it will stay there. But then you have to find something else to write your column about.... My favourite dreadful photo willfully allowed to remain at the top of the article for years by a subject in the media is the great Greg Dyke, former Director-General of the BBC (article versions up to about 2011). But then afaik he never moaned about it, and the student-wolfman-at-breakfast remains lower down. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      ...where it will be deleted as a copyright violation, because the photo was taken by someone else and we'd have no evidence that a free license or work for hire apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. And then the subject either a) gets to devote personal time to a self-taught crash course in copyright law and Wikipedia policies in hopes of eventually getting their desired picture up b) keeps reverting/reuploading, eventually being told off and/or blocked, wasting their and others' time and leaving them with a bad impression, or c) just gives up. What y'all need to realize is the average person doesn't know the first thing about copyright law, and assumes everything online is a free-for-all. After all, Facebook doesn't care what license your images are under. When the article says "Weingarten had suggested that many other public domain photos were out there", I'm virtually certain that what he meant was there are lots of photos of him online, because this is what most people think "public domain" means. If you don't believe me, ask some random people. While you're at it, ask them if something needs a visible copyright notice to be copyrighted. The average person doesn't pay close attention to most things, especially if they're things they perceive as not personally important, a category I think Wikipedia policy gobbledygook falls under for most. I think I can confidently say those long template messages left on talk pages go unread by most recipients. Something I think might be helpful is a chat widget like the ones found on many online stores. Even my bank's website has one. Integrate it with the existing IRC help channels. Put it on project-space pages (i.e., not articles). Half the time, one of the issues for non-editors is they don't know where to go for help. A prominent thing that says "Click here for assistance" reduces the cognitive load involved in finding help. Also I think living persons should be allowed to veto use of an image of them. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a picture can easily create a bad impression for readers. I'm a little surprised no one has tried to smear someone they don't like by getting unflattering pictures of them into Wikipedia. (Or maybe they have, and no one has figured it out yet!) If they don't have an image in their article, all you need to do is obtain and upload your desired image, taking care of course to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s in the file and licensing information. If it isn't an image you took, just lie. You'll only not get away with it if the actual photographer finds out and cares enough to send a takedown request. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What nonsense! Obviously the photographer has to upload it. We are not talking about "average people" here, but media professionals. Trust me, newspaper photographers have perfectly adequate understanding of copyright law for this, at least as it relates to their own work. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they also know that this applies to Wikipedia? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they will. And the notices, fiddly though they are, all make this at least entirely clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This supposes the photographer is kept in the loop about the intended use of the photo and the copyright requirements. Certainly possible, but I suspect a much more common scenario is the subject just asking the photographer to take a picture and give it to them. I also wonder whether internal policies would cause headaches. The company probably doesn't want random employees using their staff photographers as free labor on demand, so it's quite possible the person wanting the photograph might need to submit paperwork. And they might require a formal copyright release, and possibly approval from a higher-up to release the photo under a CC license, because they of course don't want their photographers to make a habit of releasing all their work under free licenses. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I said as a favour. Of course staff photographers photos in worktime are (typically) all supposed to belong to the employer, but there's always the lunch hour. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an interesting point that so-called professionals might not be really that professional. Perhaps we should organise some Wikipedia/Copyright sessions as continuing professional development.Leutha (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg Dyke eating breakfast at the University of York, 1975!?! Johnbod, that's hilarious! Well, I think it's a decent picture, but given the article's topic, it's amazing! And Leutha, your CE idea isn't bad at all. I say kick that idea upstairs and get it done! — Geekdiva (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it seems to me, both the "old" and the "new" photo are quite good. I've never heard of Gene Weingarten before (I'm from Switzerland), these are the first photos of him I've ever seen (I think), and I can't really understand why the first one would seem particularly unflattering. Because he's wearing a t-shirt? Because the photo's crop is not very good? Because of the way he looks into the camera? Both photos may have advantages and disadvantages. But actually, isn't the second one less suited as a portrait? There are elements that may be seen as distracting from this purpose (the microphone, the man in the background). But it's certainly an acceptable photo as well, and if he's happier with it, no need for a big fuss, yes. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Gene Weingarten's entry, it wasn't just the picture that was problematic. After seeing this kerfuffle in the news article he wrote and on Twitter, I worked on some basic scrubbing of his Wikipedia page -- which still could use some TLC / better citations. I even reached out to Weingarten via Twitter and email and I think he was relieved to have the assistance. The Wikipedia article is now in better shape for all of this, but it shouldn't need to be like this. The underlying chronic issue is about better outreach and education about Wikipedia, which seems to be a common problem that goes largely unaddressed until someone publicly whinges. Not good for anyone, especially Wikipedia. I believe the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia could do a lot more to fix this problem, because OTRS is obviously not cutting the mustard. Yes, I suggested a solution here. OTRS is not transparent, and more concerning, doesn't involve a very wide swath of editors. I understand people who do OTRS are doing a hard job, and I applaud their efforts, but it is not seeming to be solving the problems very well. As usual, the burden seems to be on too few, and old practices might need to be reassessed for effectiveness. So I think this ongoing issue could be addressed better, but hopefully this issue for Weingarten's page is stabilized and addressed for now. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm guessing that stories like Weingarten's are happening all the time. Maybe we could/should include a section about how a BLP subject might provide or nominate a better photograph of themselves in WP:BLPHELP? Chuntuk (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think the old picture is terrible. True, I'm used to seeing a cartoonish illustration online. I've been reading his column for years dating back to when The Charlotte Observer ran him. Then I had to read in the Post at a library. Then the library where I have time quit subscribing, though if the section with his column was missing I had to go online anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I would not wish to censor the use of pictures of living biographical subjects, I feel they should be distinctive enough to differentiate them from people who could be confused with them and do sufficient justice to their natural appearance; I am still waiting to see a more suitable picture of Sir Peter Bottomley at the infobox on his article rather than the present one of him in a cycle helmet, which obscures his hair and makes him look too like Sir Tony Robinson, a politically antithetical person to the British Conservative MP. (I did make suggestion in the article's Talk page.)Cloptonson (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if the reader is using the beta Hovercards: "...to the infamous post capture photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pictured). (Mohammed...has a much more flattering picture of himself on his Wikipedia article.)" I'm enjoying using Hovercards a lot. It helps me verify that I'm linking to the correct article in an edit preview, for example. However, it does ignore the first image on a page if that image is in a template—say, Template:Infobox. So hovering over the link to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed pulled up the infamous photo (the next one down the page outside of a template) and not the "more flattering picture" at the top. FYI! — Geekdiva (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Geekdiva, the reason Hovercards doesn't return the image in the infobox of that article is because the image is not a 'free' image. After a long discussion it was decided that the software (API) Hovercards uses should only return free images. I hope that helps explain the occasional non-sensical image appearing in Hovercards. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CKoerner (WMF) In this case, the image in question is free, though. Is the cause not the infobox issue that Geekdiva suggests? -Pete (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Peteforsyth Whoops, I should have been more clear. I was referencing the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed article Geekdiva mentioned. Sorry for the confusion. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the mistake was mine -- I misread the initial comment. Thanks for clarifying, though. -Pete (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.

















    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-10-14/In_the_media