Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
See wt:BLP#Images of signatures. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2010-07-07t07:40z
Too many "tiny guidelines". Better to be added as one sentence to WP:BLP and discussed on its talk page. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons directs people to OTRS if they want them removed, perhaps we should try to do the same to streamline the process a little bit. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that interpreting the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be a manifesto for open-ended censorship is unreasonable. I know I've seen this argument elsewhere, but to me it seems as crank an argument as anything the American militias have promulgated. The call for dignity is a call for people not to be harassed and demeaned by governmental forces - like if the TSA sent you to a special locked waiting room at the airport with no bathroom access and offered public access to the live video feed. I certainly can't see it as a ban on copying signatures. Wnt ( talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Many people collect autographs - and many books show exemplars of actual, secretarial and auto-pen autographs of living people. For such people who use such (including almost all celebrities, political figures, athletes, astronauts etc.), there is no reason not to allow the specimens in their articles. If a person produces autographs which are sold in any substantial number, they have no privacy claim on the image <g>. Otherwise, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs. No policy which ignores this legitimate use should be adopted. Collect ( talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How is "widely" defined, when you say signatures must be used "widely" in reliable secondary sources? Isn't it sufficient that a signature is simply available from these sources? Wnt ( talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is misusing the term 'primary source'. All signatures, no matter how many times they've been copied, are primary sources for what the signature looks like. It is not actually possible for a signature to become a secondary source, no matter how the source handles it.
I realize that this is a poorly understood area, and that Wikipedia has done a particularly poor job of explaining primary/secondary sources to editors in the past. You might find it helpful to read WP:Party and person. In the meantime, rather than telling editors that they might misuse "primary" sources, I suggest that you list specific examples of inappropriate sources, such as credit card receipts, court documents, etc., that they should never scan signatures from. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Having no policy or guidance for Wikipedia hosting of images of living people’s signatures seems highly unsatisfactory to me. This essay only seems to deal with linking to these sort of images, and anyway it is only an essay. If you (not notable and without a WP biography) write me a letter and I scan your signature and upload it without your knowledge I have infringed no policy or guidance and the only recourse may be for you to request deletion. Am I correct?
From an ethical point of view this seems to me to be an invasion of privacy like uploading a photograph of someone taken in a private place as discussed at Privacy rights in the Image use policy. This is without regard to any security risk. Am I right in thinking that someone's photograph taken in a private place is deleted even if the photograph is declared to be free and is widely available? I am wondering about signature images on web sites without (reliable) information about whether the subjects have given permission.
Is there any support in trying to develop this essay into a guideline which gives general advice such as at present but which also includes stronger requirements against some rather limited types of unsatisfactory use of signatures? Would it be better to seek to change at WP:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights or even WP:CSD#F11? Thincat ( talk) 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
How to link this essay, so it can be accessed from d:Property:P109? Do properties on WikiData have a way of adding "guidance" about their proper usage? -- Andrybak ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a tl:dr post here, but I have some concerns about this essay.
It provides the advice that the signature should be removed and the OTRS team notified, but it doesn't explain why the OTRS team should be notified. (The text was added by someone who has not edited recently so I cannot ask them.)
I initially guessed it was because of the OTRS role in verifying identity, thinking that we shouldn't be responding to an anonymous request to remove some information without verifying that the request actually came from the subject or their representative. However, if that guess were correct, then it would suggest contacting OTRS first, and only after receiving confirmation of identity from the subject, would the editor then remove the signature. Because it suggests removing the signature then contacting OTRS, it may be that the contact for OTRS is for some other reason.
As an active OTRS agent, I thought it would be obvious to me why OTRS is mentioned, but I haven't yet figured it out.
In the linked thread, it appears (but this is an inference) that the reason for contact was for rev del, but if you want rev del that's not the place to contact.
If the concern is identity theft, which is a very legitimate concern, the cure is removal of the image from Commons, not removal of the link to the image in the Wikipedia article. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to instruct Commons to remove an image but somebody ought to be coordinating with Commons to make sure our policies and guidelines are in sync, and if Commons agrees that deletion is warranted in these situations, this essay should be identifying how to request that deletion.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Why include a living person's signature on Wikipedia profile? This is utterly confusing and unnecessary. Classless not something I should expect from Wikipedia. NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.200.34 ( talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
See wt:BLP#Images of signatures. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2010-07-07t07:40z
Too many "tiny guidelines". Better to be added as one sentence to WP:BLP and discussed on its talk page. FT2 ( Talk | email) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons directs people to OTRS if they want them removed, perhaps we should try to do the same to streamline the process a little bit. Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that interpreting the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be a manifesto for open-ended censorship is unreasonable. I know I've seen this argument elsewhere, but to me it seems as crank an argument as anything the American militias have promulgated. The call for dignity is a call for people not to be harassed and demeaned by governmental forces - like if the TSA sent you to a special locked waiting room at the airport with no bathroom access and offered public access to the live video feed. I certainly can't see it as a ban on copying signatures. Wnt ( talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Many people collect autographs - and many books show exemplars of actual, secretarial and auto-pen autographs of living people. For such people who use such (including almost all celebrities, political figures, athletes, astronauts etc.), there is no reason not to allow the specimens in their articles. If a person produces autographs which are sold in any substantial number, they have no privacy claim on the image <g>. Otherwise, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs. No policy which ignores this legitimate use should be adopted. Collect ( talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
How is "widely" defined, when you say signatures must be used "widely" in reliable secondary sources? Isn't it sufficient that a signature is simply available from these sources? Wnt ( talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is misusing the term 'primary source'. All signatures, no matter how many times they've been copied, are primary sources for what the signature looks like. It is not actually possible for a signature to become a secondary source, no matter how the source handles it.
I realize that this is a poorly understood area, and that Wikipedia has done a particularly poor job of explaining primary/secondary sources to editors in the past. You might find it helpful to read WP:Party and person. In the meantime, rather than telling editors that they might misuse "primary" sources, I suggest that you list specific examples of inappropriate sources, such as credit card receipts, court documents, etc., that they should never scan signatures from. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Having no policy or guidance for Wikipedia hosting of images of living people’s signatures seems highly unsatisfactory to me. This essay only seems to deal with linking to these sort of images, and anyway it is only an essay. If you (not notable and without a WP biography) write me a letter and I scan your signature and upload it without your knowledge I have infringed no policy or guidance and the only recourse may be for you to request deletion. Am I correct?
From an ethical point of view this seems to me to be an invasion of privacy like uploading a photograph of someone taken in a private place as discussed at Privacy rights in the Image use policy. This is without regard to any security risk. Am I right in thinking that someone's photograph taken in a private place is deleted even if the photograph is declared to be free and is widely available? I am wondering about signature images on web sites without (reliable) information about whether the subjects have given permission.
Is there any support in trying to develop this essay into a guideline which gives general advice such as at present but which also includes stronger requirements against some rather limited types of unsatisfactory use of signatures? Would it be better to seek to change at WP:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights or even WP:CSD#F11? Thincat ( talk) 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
How to link this essay, so it can be accessed from d:Property:P109? Do properties on WikiData have a way of adding "guidance" about their proper usage? -- Andrybak ( talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a tl:dr post here, but I have some concerns about this essay.
It provides the advice that the signature should be removed and the OTRS team notified, but it doesn't explain why the OTRS team should be notified. (The text was added by someone who has not edited recently so I cannot ask them.)
I initially guessed it was because of the OTRS role in verifying identity, thinking that we shouldn't be responding to an anonymous request to remove some information without verifying that the request actually came from the subject or their representative. However, if that guess were correct, then it would suggest contacting OTRS first, and only after receiving confirmation of identity from the subject, would the editor then remove the signature. Because it suggests removing the signature then contacting OTRS, it may be that the contact for OTRS is for some other reason.
As an active OTRS agent, I thought it would be obvious to me why OTRS is mentioned, but I haven't yet figured it out.
In the linked thread, it appears (but this is an inference) that the reason for contact was for rev del, but if you want rev del that's not the place to contact.
If the concern is identity theft, which is a very legitimate concern, the cure is removal of the image from Commons, not removal of the link to the image in the Wikipedia article. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to instruct Commons to remove an image but somebody ought to be coordinating with Commons to make sure our policies and guidelines are in sync, and if Commons agrees that deletion is warranted in these situations, this essay should be identifying how to request that deletion.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Why include a living person's signature on Wikipedia profile? This is utterly confusing and unnecessary. Classless not something I should expect from Wikipedia. NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.200.34 ( talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)