Talk:Multimedia/Archive 2

Icons

To whoever wants to remove the icons: If the icons are meaningless to you, then that doesn't say much about your literacy skills. They obviously have meaning or they wouldn't have been used in all these translations of the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Oicumayberight (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't appreciate personal attacks. Second, the icons are used in the translations because they're used here, not because of any magical "educational meaning". --Carnildo (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were true you would see every article on wikipedia being translated with the exact same imagery as the English version. Just admit it, the icons don't just have meaning, but their meaning goes beyond language barriers. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If the pretty pictures have meaning, then what meaning am I supposed to be seeing in them? --Carnildo (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of tools used to capture, display or measure the elements mentioned in the text. How pretty you think they are or aren't is irrelevant. The pictures together also contrast the differences between the elements. If it weren't working, then none of those other articles would have used the same icons. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want examples of "tools used to capture, display, or measure the elements mentioned in the text", how about using actual images, rather than symbols representing the images? For example, the three-toed foot doesn't strike me as a very good representation of "interactivity". --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think most people who were OK with these icons for the past couple of years knew that was a picture of a mouse. But you could have clicked on the picture to get the name of the image. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would ask the involved editors please cease edit-warring and arguing on the talk page in order to let a consensus be formed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the RFC. However, the question as asked in the RFC "should icons be included in the article?" could be a little misleading as it becomes a question of whether or not the article is incomplete. There is a difference between "required" and "helpful." Most people would probably say that they are not required. But they are helpful in my opinion. Icons were included in the article and remained unchallenged for 2 years, and were (in fact) used by 16 foreign language translations. They were only removed recently by two users that (judging by the edit history) show no other interest in the article but to remove icons. One of the users has removed icons from several other articles based on a policy that is more about flags then generic symbols. It should be a question of if its fair to remove the icons or if the Icons help the article. Here is how it works with icons.

Also multimedia is not exclusively for the concern of science, mathematics or technology. I would hope that anyone who has an opinion would consider the visual art and communication design value as well. Oicumayberight (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no surprise that the ones who advocate removing (instead of replacing) the icons have no history of constructive editing in any graphic design or visual arts related articles. I doubt there is a single use of art through history that appealed to absolutely everyone who viewed it. It's the opinions from artists that usually legitimize good use of art. You wouldn't expect someone who is unfamiliar with physics to have final say on the accuracy of a physics theory. Not that the opinions of non-artists are not valued. We should at least have some professional artists (other than myself) weigh in here. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have a image any objections to removing the RFC? Gnevin (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We should give it the 30 days that Beeblebrox stated. Only one new user Rilak has commented since the RFC, and doesn't show any history of interest or contributions to art-related articles prior to the RFC. The image you added doesn't contrast the differences between the content formats quickly like the icons did. If someone didn't know the difference, they would have to go to each article referenced in the text links of your caption to see the contrast. That isn't much more informative than the opening paragraph. At a glance, the image is only an example of one type of content format, still images. And we still don't know if that video game includes footage. A better example would be something like the Myst series of games, that I know includes all six content formats. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is it they say about the Internet? I believe it is, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

To something more productive... since there is no clear direction as to how the icons should be replaced, for text, why not just copy and paste the text of the multimedia article into Word, print it out and take a photo of it? Rilak (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling someone a dog here? Are you making a real suggestion for how to improve the page here? I can't tell. For someone who advocates clarity, I don't think you are being very clear here. And if no insults or sarcasm was intended here, then we need some clearer explanation as to why you think your suggestions would help. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Why is there a conclusion drawn from my user page and contributions stating that I don't have any interest in art? How is this conclusion even relevant to whether icons should exist here or not? I would think that it would be rather obvious why there needs to be suggestions for which direction we should be heading in. Icons were replaced by a screen shot of a game, which turns out to be inadequate, so a suggestion is made, suggesting that a photograph of text on a piece of paper is more adequate, which would have hinted a similar approach for replacement of the other icons with images. It is a direct replacement of the icon in question, which had an abstract piece of paper with abstract text on it. Rilak (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Photos instead of icons?

A user recommended replacing the illustrated icons with photographs in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#What_is_fair_icon_and_symbol_use.3F. I'd be surprised if he could find a set of photos that are as clear and concise as the icons were. But I'm open to it as I've been wrong on occasion. If the replacement photos were as matching in style as the icons were, that would be a bonus. Either way, replacing with photos would be preferable to deletion. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where the user recommended this as I can't find it? Gnevin (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence: "I'm advocating image replacement in articles like this, not image removal." Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Gnevin (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I should clarify my position, since several assumptions seem to have been made on my behalf. It is preferable is to have quality, representative photos with good captions, but we should not "settle" for inappropriate icon images if photos are not available. Letting the prose text stand on its own is much better than the current icons. Therefore, I think the way to proceed is to get rid of the icons from this article first, then find some good images. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose?

What is the purpose of the abstract icons? Has no one noticed that text is not a few dark rectangles, that audio (sound) is not a pair of headphones, that images do not look like cameras (unless it was an image of a camera), etc.? Even though it does not show what the actual "thing" is, a better question to ask is why do we need to have an image/pictorial representation of it? Has no one ever seen text before? If you haven't, you are looking at it right now. Yes! It is incredible isn't it? I would think that we need images of things only when it is certain that the subject is not common, such as of some rare animal that lives in a cave in the furthest reaches of the Himalayas that only ten people have ever visited. In its current form, the icons serve no purpose other than decoration and perhaps to invoke the suspicion of, "Look at me, I has pretty pictures, that means I'm of high quality." Rilak (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You could say that about almost every photo on the wikipedia that is not an information graphic or graphic organizer. The purpose is visual learning, just because you may not be a visual learner, doesn't mean that there is no such thing. Have consideration for people who are, especially the young readers. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need this? Can't we just have text?

Shouldn't we get rid of wikipedia's logo based on that logic? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I consider images to be of great importance. However, that does not mean any image that is vaguely related gets to be used. What is required are images that accurately portray their subject. Abstract icons do not do that. While they are pretty, they invoke a broad idea of the subject without going into specifics, which results in it missing the point. Therefore they are used for nothing but enhancing prettiness and is not of encyclopedic value. This is an encyclopedia, not a visual communications assignment. Images should be informative, not invoking vague thoughts of a subject. Consider an article on a tropical island. Would it be better to use an abstract image of palm trees, golden beaches, blue water and pretty girls wearing coconuts or an actual image of a beach from lets say Tahiti? The first image would be appropriate in an advertisement for tropical holidays, the second would actually be informative as it is a real image of what a tropical island (a part of) looks like and thus be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. To think about it, most advertisements use real footage or images for the same reason I am advocating the superiority of the second example in an encyclopedic application - why give your customer vague ideas about what your island looks like when you can show them exactly what it looks like? It is far more powerful. By the way, the icons make Wikipedia feel like my KDE desktop and that is not a good thing. I think it is also important not to confuse the use of icons to abstract subjects and logos used for identity. If I am not mistaken, the article on Wikipedia has an image of Wikipedia's front page, which is informative as it portrays the subject, not give vague ideas about what it is. Rilak (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What photographs would you use in place of the icons? Oicumayberight (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Are photographs required? Text, images, audio, people already know what they are. But if it is so important to have a photograph, a few examples of actual multimedia would be appropriate. The interactive displays at some museums may be a good example. Rilak (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Like most wikipedia photos, they are not "required," but they help more than hurt. I'm sure half of the population couldn't tell you the format difference between animation and video. But the pictures provide some contrast. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let's have photographs, not some random icons found in /usr/share/icons. Rilak (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate, the purpose of RFC is to get new editors involved and to stop edit warring and re-hashing previous arguments. Please give it time so that every voice can be heard and consensus can be found. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear at this point. In favor of removing the icons are User:Carnildo and User:Rilak on this talkpage and User:Gnevin and User:Andrwsc on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). In favor of including the icons is User:Oicumayberight on the above pages and half-a-dozen others as well. --Carnildo (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's only been 2 days, what's the hurry? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Second that. It's not even close to clear at this point. User:Andrwsc stated "I'm advocating image replacement in articles like this, not image removal." And User:Gnevin conceded that User:Andrwsc made the more professional claim. So that would be 2 for replacement instead of removal. If you count the anonymous user who reverted your changes that would be two for keep, leaving a 3 way tie of 2 keep, 2 replace, 2 remove. If you count the 16 foreign translation articles that chose to use the same icons that would invalidate the whole reason you gave that they are meaningless. And I'm still am waiting for someone with an obvious editing interest in the subject or any other art related subject other than myself to weigh in. So give it some time like Beeblebrox said! Oicumayberight (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly likely that the anonymous user is you. --Carnildo (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A little research would reveal the I.P. addresses are 1000's of miles apart. But thanks for not assuming good faith. If it were me, I would have just reverted every time you did until you or I got banned. There's another forum for making accusations besides this one. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of order Am not sure if your saying the 2 in favour of replacement are me and User:Andrwsc but i want the icon's removed and don't care if their is a replacement Gnevin (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is in effect a vote for replacement. It's important, because if the icons were replaced with photos and then you removed them because you didn't like the photos, then that would mean you do care, contrary to what you stated. What you probably mean to say is that you don't want to wait until the imagined "better photos" are found before removing the icons, as shown by your actions. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't make an assumption about my comments, please. My !vote is for remove. If appropriate photo images can be added after that, then great, but that's also beside the point. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• More importantly there are 2,619,005 other articles that you two could be editing instead of eternally going at it here. Try the "random article" button, it works wonders at reducing the Wiki-stress. Or, your computer may be equipped with a button that allows you turn it off for a few hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many critics and not enough positive contributors

So far we have 4 users who've stated or implied that photos would be OK: User:Andrwsc, User talk:Gnevin, User:Rilak and myself. We have one other User:Carnildo lacking in patients and civility by belittling, playing dumb, and reverting. Two of the users that are open to replacement with photos don't want to wait for better photos before removing icons. Without the icons, there's no invitation for new editors to improve on what was originally intended by the icons. You can't fix what you don't know is broken. It's unclear which users would actually care about the subject of the photos and how they are being used in this article. All of this is ignorant of the fact that 16 other translators of this article obviously thought that the icons were working well enough to include them in their versions.

None of the users besides myself show interest in this article except on this issue. We need some real professional constructive contribution and criticism here. I don't want to WP:OWN this article or any article for that matter. I know that reverting and deleting other people's contributions is an easy way to contribute to wikipedia, but if those were the only ways to contribute to wikipedia, then there wouldn't be a wikipedia. If the opposition were professional artists or even wikipedia editors that show positive contributions to art-related articles, then I would be humbled. But instead I have to settle for disgust in the whole mediation process. I would take the time to find or even shoot photos to replace the icons. But at the risk of being ganged up on again and having them removed for petty personal taste reasons, it's not worth my time. To anyone who wants to contribute positively with imagery to this article, good luck. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Images can always be added to any article, at any time—as long as they are appropriate. You don't need to keep the icons as "placeholders" in the meantime. If no replacement photos are ever added to this article, then it might mean that none were ever really required to illustrate those particular points in the first place. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This just goes back to your question of what is "required." Very few images on wikipedia are "required." But some obviously "help." It doesn't occur to many people just how much pictures help until they see them. A picture is worth 1000 words. I could spend my entire time on wikipedia deleting photos and replacing them with text describing what could have been shown in less space with pictures. But since most of our brain power is devoted to processing images, it wouldn't be wise. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Or your could spend your entire time on Wikipedia removing inappropriate images that have been gratuitously placed in articles just for the sake of having something, and replacing them with quality images that are directly relevant to the topics at hand—as are the five images shown in the current revision of this article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I placed four of those five images that you are referring to and the additional icons that you call "gratuitous." I had good reason for the icons that have been thoroughly explained. The meaning of the icons were well received by the 16 other translators you've been belittling. And if you checked the history, you can see that there was thought behind the selection as I tried different solutions. The 5th image that you referred to was just Gnevin's attempt to compromise and close the rfc 28 of the 30 allotted days early while covering up some of his own lack of positivity in this mediation process, but fall far short of what was intended with the placement of the icons. The point of this section of this discussion was that I shouldn't have to be the one doing most of the image placement in this article. But at least my boldness is more positive than negative. If I were as negative as most of the commenter so far, then this article would have probably remained as it was, with just one "icon" (ironically) and no other images. I believe that it was the icons that broke down the language barriers and lead to 15 additional foreign translations linking to this articles in the spirit of that neat spherical puzzle in the wikipedia logo. So where are those better images that you advocated for when you said "not removal" before you changed your position? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My position on image suitability has never changed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was the "not removal" position that changed. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. In this discussion, I have always maintained that the icon images are inappropriate and should be removed. It is an entirely different issue whether or not something better gets added to the article after that. Your attempt to alter the keep/remove !vote tally by putting my comments (and Gnevin's) into a third "replace" category is a completely disingenuous approach of avoiding the fact that there is current consensus for removal. You alone remain the only advocate for icon image inclusion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just going by your words here "I'm advocating image replacement in articles like this, not image removal" before you changed your position. And who are the half-a-dozen others that Carnildo referred to? Is it the 16 translators that you ignore if not insult? Or is it the dozen other English version editors who didn't remove the icons for the past 2 years, including the anonymous icon re-includer that was accused of being my sock puppet by the same reverter? When are you going to face facts? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I've played referee on this thing up till now, but I'm now ready to go on the record as being opposed to the icons. The article has an adequate number of images relative to it's length already, and the icons don't seem to add any real value to the article.This debate has unfortunately been filibustered by Oicumayberight, thus-far, and that may have had a stifling effect on input here as the talk page has gotten very long with all the repetitive arguments. The point that they have been here for two years and been included in translations of the article is unconvincing. Plenty of articles have been kept around for years with much worse issues , that doesn't make it automatically ok. The argument that those who want the icons removed have not demonstrated enough previous interest in the subject shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of RFC and the way Wikipedia works. Decisions are based on consensus, which is supposed to be achieved through discussion with other editors, regardless of their previous contributions. It is the strength of the arguments presented that determines consensus, not the identities and editing histories of the users who voice their opinion. Lastly, while I have advocated patience, RFCs run a maximum of thirty days, but can be closed at any time by any user if there is a clear consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah Ha! I knew you were biased when you put the rfc out to the left-brained "science, mathematics and technology" community when we all know this is an art-related issue, and by how the rfc question was worded, as if icons weren't already included having worked for 2 years. But that's OK. Before you call that a personal attack or not WP:AGF, I'm biased too. We are all biased. All this proves is that biased left-brained computer programmers outnumber biased right-brained artists on wikipedia. No surprise since wikipedia was founded by computer programmers for the purpose of sharing computer program ideas. We have yet to hear from anyone else that resembles an artist based on the evidence of edit histories and interests mentioned in user pages. They are probably absent because of the way they get ganged up on here. So what you are saying is that I haven't convinced the anti-icon mob in "words," why pictures are better than words in this kangaroo court of a mediation process. If I sound angry, it's because I am.

What you are calling a filibuster is mere response to this mobs attempt to close this rfc early and get the last word without addressing the first rebuttal. I wouldn't have to repeat points if points weren't ignored. I wouldn't have to continuously respond if I weren't continuously being challenged here. So if the goal was to make me spend the last three days filling this page with repetitive responses and drive me to incivility for the purpose of making this ad hominem, then mission accomplished. But if the goal was to get some professional input other than my own, then there's no reason why we shouldn't give it more time. Otherwise the whole process has failed, not just because of my behavior here. Did anyone expect me to just take this laying down? Maybe you should have spoke up sooner, because you've at least logically addressed (not convincingly) more of my points in the last paragraph than everyone else has on this entire page, and I wouldn't have had to say as much. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, way to make a lot of |unfounded assumptions about who I am and what I'm doing. I am in no way, shape, or form a computer programmer. Your ranting tirades are certainly not helping your case any. You are taking this waaaay to personally. There is not an organized gang of computer nerds attacking you to advance their own goals. This is just a (rather minor) content dispute about whether or not this page is better with icons on it or without them. It's not about you or me or who we are in any way, but you keep trying to make it personal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you with that specific comment. I was talking about the mob of biased computer programmers (you said nerds, not me) that belittle contributions from artists on wikipedia. And I don't see it as personal. I could really care less of how people see me. I'm just a screen name to most of you. It's not personal, it's professional. If this was a debate on the accuracy of physics, you bet there would be more weight given to comments from physics professors. But if it's about art, well, that's all subjective anyway. Anyone's opinion is just as good as mine despite my degree and 15 years experience. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. They're pretty, but they frankly don't communicate encyclopedic information to me. Part of me kept expecting them to actually work like icons, but they don't. If you click on the 'audio' icon, you get taken to the page for the image, not to an audio form of the article. I found it distracting and undesirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (who refuses to watch this page, BTW, because the mean-spirited personal attacks made by several editors make this an unattractive addition to my daily reading)

Now there's a reasonable logical intelligent argument for removal. Thank you. Disputable, but reasonable nonetheless. The icons have already been removed, and I can't guarantee that they won't return. Sorry that I didn't include a hyperlink from the image like an image map to the articles. I didn't know that it was possible or preferable on wikipedia at the time I included them. I find it frustrating too sometimes. I don't blame you for not bookmarking the page either. Multimedia is a misnomer of terms. But it seems to be the term that most k-12 educational institutions have adopted in place of rich media, which is why I think the icons were working well for this article. I wouldn't expect to see pretty icons in an article about terrorism or quantum physics, something more older users may be interested in. But I thought it was working fine here. I'm not convinced they weren't working for the majority of the unfamiliar curious readers, but more feedback helps. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly that was exactly the argument I was making. The icons did not convey information of encyclopedic value because text are not dark rectangles, etc. Rilak (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's feigned incomprehension. That's not the same argument. And the icons were not abstractions leaving people to guess what they mean, they were alluding to what was discussed in the article. You just pretended not to get the allusion. Most people see the folded corner and know that it represents paper or a document. Most people see the bulleted lines and know that the lines represent text. And if they are not sure, the word "text" underneath the icon linking to the article helps by turning the allusion into a direct reference.

• I think that's more or less what everyone except Oicumayberight has been saying. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about WhatamIdoing expecting the icons to link to an article. That problem could easily be solved without removing the icons. "More or less," every one else was talking about something different.

I'm not angry anymore. I realized what happened here after a good night's sleep. This is what happens when consensus trumps professional knowledge, even when the consensus is mistaken. I'm usually a democratic person but, now I understand why Larry Sanger started Citizendium. The rfc to the "math, science and technology community" wasn't inviting the kind of professional criticism from the artistic wikipedians that was needed for this art-related issue. I'm not going to say that the consensus was completely wrong. I knew (probably better than all the opposition combined) what was actually problematic with the icons when I chose them. I was surprised at the international response, and probably would have taken the icons down a year later if I hadn't seen that response. Wikipedia has it's limits, especially when graphics are used alluding to concepts. A professional argument against the icons would have been something to the effect of "not everyone gets it." But to say that nobody get's it is just plain ignorant of facts.

What has happened here just shows the fine line between content disputes and incivility. Because some who were opposed to the icons resorted to belittling and feigned incomprehension to make a point and repeatedly reverted the icons, it made it difficult for me to assume good faith and lead to my less than civil tone responding to their incivility. I'll apologize for that, but not for objecting to the less than professional criticism of the icons.

Here's where the (more civil) disputes are inaccurate: To say that the icons are meaningless, ignores the fact that 16 translators found meaning in them, even if the meaning was not what was intended. To say that they only found unintended meaning is purely speculative, and insulting to the intelligence of the translators. When an individual says that it means nothing to him or herself, that is just an admission of their own lack of pictorial literacy, and not a survey representing the greater population. And to say that they are "childish" or "pretty pictures" is just a matter of personal taste if you can't explain in graphic design terms what makes them as described. So if you want to consider this case closed, based on any of the erroneous positions above, then feel free to dismiss yourself from the discussion. But to anyone who wants to continue adding constructive criticism of the icons, be prepared to either get professional (not personal) conformation or objection to your position. And if anyone is just trying to get the last word in here, at least make it a good word, or it probably won't be the last word. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• It seems an at least grudging agreement that the icons remain out of the article has been achieved. Thanks to everyone for their time and input. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case with me, but I respect the consensus despite the international response. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)