User:J_Milburn, you're joking, right? This is seriously not retaliation, since you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. Since I found you actually had deleted non-free images from Channel 4 and BSkyB, I applauded you at least for putting your money where your mouth was (don't know if y'all use that phrase or not). But if you're seriously going to espouse a deletionist view on non-free content, you can't possibly defend this photo, where the exact description of its placement and text are included in the body of the article. Especially in light of the subject of the article being an ephemeral hoax. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I disagree (and I do not consider myself a "deletionist", but I'm not offended or anything), though your argument is a good one. The reason the hoax was successful was because of the air of legitimacy the image had; it looked like it could be real. That's not something we can necessarily convey in text. This is an article about an image; if the image (an image, as an aside, which hasn't a chance in hell of failing NFCC#2, due to its viral nature, unknown author and complete lack of commercial value) is not usable here, I have no idea when a non-free image could be usable. I'm assuming your main objection to this image is on NFCC#1 grounds, as you consider the image to have been replaced by free text. I disagree, as the full impact of the picture cannot be shown in mere text. We can report that the picture did evoke certain responses, but without showing the image, and allowing the viewer to make up their own mind, we cannot fully reveal how it evoked such responses. Equally (if you'll excuse comparing this crass nonsense to something more high-brow) we can fully describe what is shown on Campbell's Soup Cans, as well as describing responses to it, but an article on the painting would be utterly incomplete without an image of the painting itself. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well, in a crazy "meta" question, is it the medium or is it the message? At best, I believe it's a gray (grey) area. (I put "grey" in so you would wouldn't have to consult an American English dictionary :>) ). What would happen, for instance, if the Twitterverse and the rest of the world, after looking at the pictures more critically, discovered that the hoaxsters actually took 2 pictures (or 111 pictures, to extend the analogy), all identifiably different, but substantially the same in content. Perhaps different people on Twitter and later, viewed different pictures. Under this scenario, is this particular *picture* critical to the story? (And "critical" is a word which has been thrown at me, although when pressed, folks back down to the actual word, "significant".)
- What if we find that the hoaxsters actually taped copies of their fake notice at 15 other fast-food restaurants in their community (not just at the alleged KFC), and pictures of those circulate into the wider world. Now, is it the medium or the message? What if each copy is on different color paper, or printed with a different font? Then what happens? But as I said at first, all too "meta" for me.
- The real question is, does this image meet NFCC? You're not allowed to cite the image in Campbell's Soup Cans, as its speculative removal would upset many, many people and would bring negative attention to Wikipedia, to the deletionist camp (a term I discovered mere days ago...it seems like a lifetime now), and to individual deletionists. Whoops, I must have misspoken there. You're never allowed to cite Campbell's here "just because".
- Anyway, under NFCC:1: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" Yes, it could. Probably not as well as the picture itself, but that's beside the point. Your problem is that you described the notice and its placement so well in text. If you had done a more careless job with that, maybe your image would be OK. FAIL.
- Under NFCC:8: "...only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding...its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Again, the text is the problem. When I read that, and pictured it in my mind's eye, the picture looked nearly identical to how I imagined it. FAIL.
- Realize that my personal belief is that images can be important pieces of information in an article, sometimes equal, sometimes lesser or sometimes greater in meaning than any textual information in the same article. I don't believe they necessarily are dependent on text, rather sometimes they stand on their own.
- But I'm just trying to enforce this peculiar interpretation of policy evenly, as I have been invited to do.
- Come to the dark side, Luuuuke. I mean, J Milburn.
- All that aside, I like this article, but really do believe it's rather ephemeral. It probably belongs in McDonald's, or McDonald's hoaxes, which I think you link to, or Fast food hoaxes, or Silly people using a Saturday afternoon doing nothing more productive than hassling a major trans-national corporation. OK, in McDonald's hoaxes, with a redirect from the current name... With that, I'm out! Thanks for playing. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I take your point about method versus message, but note that it was the picture that went viral; it wasn't a news story about a racist policy or something. As for the question of multiple photos; that wouldn't really change things, as it would still be this photo that was famous. For instance, regardless of whether Joe Rosenthal took many other pictures at the same time, there is one which is famous. As I understand it, this is an article about a photograph. An article on a photograph is always going to be enhanced by the inclusion of that photograph with regards to NFCC#8; I would go so far as to say that including a photograph in an article on said photograph is one of the best examples of usages which unambiguously meet the criteria. Regarding the issue of replaceability by free text; there is more to the photograph than merely what it shows. Upon reading what is shown, we may well ask how the image became at all successful, given the "utter implausibility of such a policy", and this naturally calls for seeing the image. To repeat, we can say what the image shows, and we can report reactions, but we have no way of saying "this is what is evoked by the picture"; that is why we need the image, and that is the element that is irreplaceable by text. J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you're going to have an article about an image, then show the image. What seeing the image adds for the reader is an appreciation of the extent to which the hoax successfully appropriated the look and feel of what might be a genuine McDonald's communication, in a setting that might be a genuine McDonald's environment. That is something genuinely additional to the understanding conveyed just by the text. Jheald (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
