The Signpost

File:The alleged photo trump fist etc.png
JPxG
GFDL
0
0
300
Discussion report

Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

Non-free images are permitted solely for use within articles on Wikipedia, and not projectspace pages like this Signpost article. The actual image can be found here.

Shortly after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on 13 July 2024, a photograph captured by Evan Vucci rapidly spread across media platforms worldwide. It was uploaded to Wikipedia and a discussion subsequently was opened about whether the image aligns with its image use policy. This discussion was shared across multiple online platforms, encouraging broad participation; including, but not limited to, those unfamiliar with the policy.

America first

Wikipedia stores its database in servers located in the United States and is maintained in accordance with US law. US copyright law grants photographers exclusive rights to their original works upon creation. However, photographs taken by an employee within the scope of their employment are classified as 'work for hire'. In these cases, the employer, rather than the photographer, typically holds the copyright and all associated exclusive rights. Evan Vucci, employed by the Associated Press (AP) when he captured the photograph, is consistently credited alongside the AP, indicating a joint agreement. At the time, his camera was connected to a hotspot, enabling the photograph to be immediately sent to his editors. Fair use exceptions permit limited use of copyrighted photographs without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, education, and research.

The image was uploaded to Wikipedia by Bremps two hours after it was taken. Twenty-three minutes later, a discussion was opened by Di (they-them) regarding whether its inclusion on Wikipedia complied with the site's image use policy. At the time the discussion began, there was no dedicated article for the photograph. Due to the copyright restrictions on this photo, it fell under non-free content, meaning it may only be used if the article specifically discusses the photo or the latter significantly assists in depicting the event. The debate arose from the argument that the image could not be justified under fair use, as it was not essential for understanding the article on the assassination attempt and it was not discussed in it. It was also noted that fair use might be applicable if an article about the photograph itself existed.

Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy permits its use only when no free alternative is available,[NFCC1] and ensures it does not supplant the original market role of the material.[NFCC2] Usage should be minimal,[NFCC3a] involving the fewest items and only essential portions, ideally in low resolution to prevent copyright issues.[NFCC3b] Non-free content must have been previously published with permission,[NFCC4] be encyclopedic,[NFCC5] significantly enhance the article,[NFCC8] and comply with Wikipedia's media policy.[NFCC6] Non-free content must be used in at least one article,[NFCC7] and is not permitted on disambiguation pages.[NFCC9] Each use requires a detailed description page that includes the source, copyright information, an appropriate tag, and a clear rationale specific to each article.[NFCC10]

Stop the count

The discussion focused exclusively on whether the image met the NFCC requirements, not on its cultural or historical significance. Comments not supported by policy were to be given less weight by the closer of the discussion.

Within twelve minutes of the discussion being initiated, it was posted to a members-only forum thread on Wikipediocracy, a site known for discussing and criticizing Wikipedia. This prompted the placement of a banner at the top of the discussion, which is usually used to deter canvassing. On Wikipedia, decisions are made through consensus and the quality of arguments, not by vote count. Attempting to influence the outcome by notifying individuals, especially those with established opinions, is considered inappropriate and undermines the consensus process. Given the forum's varied viewpoints, it remains debatable whether canvassing occurred.

Recent Trump-related debates on Wikipedia have seen significant participation from new accounts, with some politically-influenced votes lacking detailed policy reasoning. It has also been noted that some of these new accounts appear to be highly knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. Whilst it is important to treat newcomers with respect and assume good faith, this can also suggest the possibility of sockpuppet accounts. Sockpuppetry on Wikipedia involves misusing multiple accounts to deceive or manipulate, such as by disrupting discussions or vote-stacking. Editors are generally expected to use only one account to maintain accountability and trust, though there are legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. A Google search for site:[website name] "trump" "wikipedia" after:2024/07/12 before:2024/07/16 reveals that discussions on the assassination attempt attracted attention on various websites, including 4chan,[1] Reddit, and X, further stimulating discussion.

TKTK
Photo taken by Mary Moorman after the assassination of John F. Kennedy was compared to the photo taken by Vucci. The use of this photo is allowed on Wikipedia and on The Signpost because it is in the public domain.

Supporters of the photograph's inclusion on Wikipedia cited its significant historical and educational value. It was generally agreed upon that a low resolution and cropped format mitigated potential commercial impact; Coulomb1 argued that it provided essential context for the event and the article. Supporters emphasized that the photograph's extensive media coverage and its role in enhancing understanding justify its inclusion under fair use provisions. Mhatopzz suggested that the image should remain on the site until a free alternative is available, with many proposing that a dedicated article on the photograph could support its continued use. Additionally, the photograph was later compared by an anonymous IP user to images captured at the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Some editors argued that including the image infringed copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on non-free content. They contended that the photograph served primarily as a visual aid rather than a crucial element of the article, thereby failing to meet fair use criteria. Concerns were raised about respecting the photographer's rights and the potential commercial impact. Others recommended removing the image in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and fair use standards, citing its previous removal from Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues as supporting this stance. However, it is important to note that Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use.

Editors such as Lewis Hulbert and Vivaporius advocated for retaining the photograph, emphasizing its potentially-iconic status and historical significance. Alalch E. later argued that the widespread availability of the original image and low resolution of this file support its fair use under Wikipedia's guidelines. Jason211pacem further contended that the photograph's inclusion would not adversely affect the photographer's commercial interests, given that the photographer himself posted the photograph on his own social media accounts. Lordseriouspig questioned the possibility of reaching out to the AP or Vucci to seek permission for a free licence. It was proposed that the image could warrant its own article if it achieved independent notability, which would align better with NFCC criteria.

The prevailing sentiment of comments based on image policy favoured deletion, reflecting a rigorous adherence to NFCC and fair use guidelines. Despite acknowledging the photograph's historical value, many editors emphasized compliance with copyright policies. The debate significantly shifted when an article specifically about the photograph was created by Hallucegenia, later nominated to be deleted by LilianaUwU, and the discussion being procedurally closed on the grounds that it was unlikely to be successful. The main discussion about the image was eventually closed by Soni with consensus to keep the image, stating in part:

Multiple editors preferred keeping the image but only for its own article, per NFCC#8. 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.

With the discussion comprising approximately 200,000 bytes and the image approximately 18,000 bytes, the discussion is around eleven times the size of the image. Among roughly two hundred comments, many supported retaining the content — but many lacked detailed reasoning, or based their rationales on political views rather than Wikipedia policies, resulting in their dismissal.

References

  1. ^ 4chan threads are typically auto-pruned after a few hours, so 4plebs is a better site to search on.
+ 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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-22/Discussion_report