Q:Why are you destroying the hard work of editors who have sought out these images and uploaded them?
A:Wikipedia encourages everyone to contribute, however the contributors do not own the material which they have contributed. Also see
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
(policy).
Stalking
Q:You have tagged several images which I have uploaded. Are you stalking me?
A:No, when I encounter an image or comment from an editor which might indicate that they do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the use of images, I will review their contributions.
Please note that stalking can be defined as "repeated, out-of-process attempts to become involved in a victim's life" (from Meatball Wiki). As long as the review only concerns an editors contributions, and the reviewer does not act in an excessive manor which might disrupt Wikipedia, the term stalking is premature. Also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks (policy) and Wikipedia:Harassment (guideline) and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (guideline). It is always preferable that the editors in question establish a dialogue in order to avoid any potential conflict or feeling of having done anything wrong.
Method of review
Q:How do you review an image?
A:When I encounter an image which does not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines I take the following into consideration:
Missing fair use rationale: a missing fair use rationale can sometimes be fixed without involving the editor in question, it might be apparent from the article, caption or image page. Otherwise there is a template: {{
no rationale
}}.
Missing source: this template can be applied to any image regardless of license, but is isually reserved for instances where there is a need to verify the license, or that an image has been released. In this case the uploader usually needs to be contacted to resolve the issue.
Copyright violations: when I encounter a copyright violation (for instance a {{
PUI
}}.
Image quality
Q:Why is a photograph taken by an amateur photographer preferable over a photograph taken by a professional photographer? The free image in question would not be used on another encyclopedia (Britannica or Encarta)?
A:A photograph available under a free license is preferable to one which is available under a fair use license because of the need to take downstream users into consideration. With a free image there is no limitation for anyone else to redistribute this encyclopedia, even for a fee. This is also why images which are available under a non-commercial license are regarded as unfree images with regard to Wikipedia.
Also, Wikipedia is written by amateurs, so in a way it is appropriate that to a certain extent the images are also provided by amateurs. This is also one of the reasons for the creation of the Wikimedia Commons, a free image repository.
Rights
Q:Don't I have a right to edit Wikipedia?
A:Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave. (This from Wikipedia:Free speech, which is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline.)
More information
Q:Where can I learn more about the use of images on Wikipedia?
