 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Today's featured article could be on practically any notable topic. It might be about a politician one day, a bird species the next, and a comic book the day after that.
Ideally, each blurb would be accompanied by an image that illustrates the subject or a significant element thereof. Unfortunately, that isn't always feasible, as non-free material is ineligible for use on the main page.
Sometimes, however, a free alternative is available. That's when it's important to answer a simple question: is this image sufficiently relevant, or is it so tangential that it crosses the Scooby-Doo threshold?
On 12 April 2007, the subject of Wikipedia's featured article was Scooby-Doo, a fictional series featuring an animated Great Dane. No image of Scooby or any related character is free, so someone decided to substitute a photograph of an actual Great Dane. Did the dog in question resemble Scooby-Doo? Well, sort of – to the extent that any flesh-and-blood canine could. But the featured article was about the cartoon character Scooby-Doo, not Great Danes in general (or any nonfictional animal).
.jpg)
Just as a photograph of a mouse isn't a suitable illustration of Mickey Mouse, a photograph of a dog does nothing to enhance readers' understanding of Scooby-Doo. If anything, it actually misleads them; that isn't what Scooby-Doo (or Mickey Mouse) looks like.
But what if someone or something does resemble the article's subject? For example, Paul Prudhomme (a well known chef) was often mistaken for Dom DeLuise (a well known comedian). So is it okay to use a photo of Paul Prudhomme to depict Dom DeLuise's appearance? No, because Paul Prudhomme was not Dom DeLuise. They may have looked a great deal alike, but they weren't the same person. At best, readers will wonder why we're showing them Paul Prudhomme. At worst, they'll mistake him for Dom DeLuise.
Of course, when a free image does relate directly to the article's subject or a significant element thereof, it might be a perfectly appropriate illustration. Mickey Mouse is commonly represented by a simple shape denoting a silhouette of his head, which is believed to fall outside of any copyright. Alternatively, we might select a photograph of Walt Disney (Mickey's co-creator and original voice performer), with whom the character is strongly associated.
In determining whether an image's use crosses the Scooby-Doo threshold, it's helpful to consider the following:
1. Will the image's fundamental nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb? In other words, are they likely to recognize the image's subject, comprehend its connection to the article, and not mistake it for something materially different?
2. If no other image (free or non-free) were available, would we include this one in the article's infobox?
If the answer to both questions is "no", the image probably isn't suitable.
Also consider how an image pertains to the article's subject. If its focus isn't an exact match, something narrower in scope generally adds more value than something broader would. For example, if the featured article is about a film, a photograph of its director is a contextually meaningful illustration. Conversely, a photograph of random people entering a cinema – even one that happened to be screening the relevant movie – merely illustrates the concept of filmgoing, an aspect far too peripheral to highlight.
But isn't some image better than nothing? Not when it works to the detriment of its intended purpose – providing an accurate and informative illustration. While not ideal, displaying no image at all is preferable to including one for the sake of including one. The image is a means to an end – enlightening readers – not an end in and of itself.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Today's featured article could be on practically any notable topic. It might be about a politician one day, a bird species the next, and a comic book the day after that.
Ideally, each blurb would be accompanied by an image that illustrates the subject or a significant element thereof. Unfortunately, that isn't always feasible, as non-free material is ineligible for use on the main page.
Sometimes, however, a free alternative is available. That's when it's important to answer a simple question: is this image sufficiently relevant, or is it so tangential that it crosses the Scooby-Doo threshold?
On 12 April 2007, the subject of Wikipedia's featured article was Scooby-Doo, a fictional series featuring an animated Great Dane. No image of Scooby or any related character is free, so someone decided to substitute a photograph of an actual Great Dane. Did the dog in question resemble Scooby-Doo? Well, sort of – to the extent that any flesh-and-blood canine could. But the featured article was about the cartoon character Scooby-Doo, not Great Danes in general (or any nonfictional animal).
Just as a photograph of a mouse isn't a suitable illustration of Mickey Mouse, a photograph of a dog does nothing to enhance readers' understanding of Scooby-Doo. If anything, it actually misleads them; that isn't what Scooby-Doo (or Mickey Mouse) looks like.
But what if someone or something does resemble the article's subject? For example, Paul Prudhomme (a well known chef) was often mistaken for Dom DeLuise (a well known comedian). So is it okay to use a photo of Paul Prudhomme to depict Dom DeLuise's appearance? No, because Paul Prudhomme was not Dom DeLuise. They may have looked a great deal alike, but they weren't the same person. At best, readers will wonder why we're showing them Paul Prudhomme. At worst, they'll mistake him for Dom DeLuise.
Of course, when a free image does relate directly to the article's subject or a significant element thereof, it might be a perfectly appropriate illustration. Mickey Mouse is commonly represented by a simple shape denoting a silhouette of his head, which is believed to fall outside of any copyright. Alternatively, we might select a photograph of Walt Disney (Mickey's co-creator and original voice performer), with whom the character is strongly associated.
In determining whether an image's use crosses the Scooby-Doo threshold, it's helpful to consider the following:
1. Will the image's fundamental nature be readily apparent to most readers seeing the blurb? In other words, are they likely to recognize the image's subject, comprehend its connection to the article, and not mistake it for something materially different?
2. If no other image (free or non-free) were available, would we include this one in the article's infobox?
If the answer to both questions is "no", the image probably isn't suitable.
Also consider how an image pertains to the article's subject. If its focus isn't an exact match, something narrower in scope generally adds more value than something broader would. For example, if the featured article is about a film, a photograph of its director is a contextually meaningful illustration. Conversely, a photograph of random people entering a cinema – even one that happened to be screening the relevant movie – merely illustrates the concept of filmgoing, an aspect far too peripheral to highlight.
But isn't some image better than nothing? Not when it works to the detriment of its intended purpose – providing an accurate and informative illustration. While not ideal, displaying no image at all is preferable to including one for the sake of including one. The image is a means to an end – enlightening readers – not an end in and of itself.