Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Files in Category:AI-generated images by David S. Soriano

[edit]

All of these files are AI-generated images created by the same user as part of a personal school project. Although some of them are being used on user pages, but the usage seems to be from one off accounts that were created purely as part of the afformed school assignment. Which at least IMO doesn't mesh with Commons:Project scope. Especially since we don't generally host user created amateur artwork to begin with. So these images should be deleted as OOS.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the majority as COM:INUSE. Although some of them are being used on user pages, but the usage seems to be from one off accounts that were created purely as part of the afformed school assignment seems incorrect, File:Cubism 2022 Machine Learning Trio.png is the only file which is only in use on a user page, all the others are in use on mainspace articles or drafts. Where are you getting the idea that there was a school project to create and use these images?
 Delete File:The Cubism Perspective.png, File:The Tin Men.png and File:Fraternal Twins Cubism.png which are not in use anywhere. Belbury (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. File:Dragon Tree 6 by David S. Soriano.png is being used on Wikitionery. It's not really clear to me what purpose it serves or how it's educational though, but whatever. From what I can tell the other files are being used on user pages and a couple of random galleries about people on Wikiquote. Again though, I seriously question how that qualifies them as "reasonably educational." Like if you look at File:Pop Art 2022 Loved You Too.png it's being used here as part of a qoute. But it looks nothing like the guy who wrote it and doesn't even have anything to do with the quote itself. So it appears to be in use for absolutely no reason what-so-ever. I'd say the same goes for the other images. Although I'm not going to list them but, but I don't think keeping an image like that simply because someone added it to a random page completely out of context on another project that it is in the spirit of COM:SCOPE. Usage isn't a free pass. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if your wondering what I was talking about when I said the usage is part of a school project, see this user page. There's a few others with the comment. Although admittedly they could have all just stumbled on the same images for no reason, but it's more likely that they are associated with David S. Soriano. It doesn't really matter either way though, because they are still one off accounts that were only using the images as part of a school project regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our place to decide on usage, COM:INUSE says A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. [...] If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope. There are clear mainspace usages, the first file on your list appears in mainspace on four languages of Wikipedia.
I assume Soriano's artwork has ended up on random wikiquote entries and user pages because it has simple filenames about cubism and pop art, so is easily found by users who don't really know what they're looking for. I've never seen a school project that's asked students to put their teacher's artwork on their user page. Belbury (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't care either way, but I think your misconstruing what the guideline says and the intent behind it. And 100% it is our place to decide on usage, We do it multiple times a day for COPYVIO and the gives other examples where the "in use" clause doesn't apply. Ones your free to disagree, but there's no bright line there and it's not my issue if you think the guideline shouldn't have exceptions. Personally, I could really care less about any given image on here. Waves come in, waves go out. Some files are deleted even if they are in use, some are kept. That's life. I trust whomever closes this will make a correct call that's respectful of the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE is policy and gives a very clear bright line. There's no exception for random galleries about people on Wikiquote, just talk pages and user pages.
I think File:Cubism 2022 Machine Learning Trio.png is the only file you've flagged here which is in use but only on a user page, is that right? It's a little unusual for not being that user's own upload, just a picture they apparently found and liked. I'd rename it since it doesn't actually seem to be an example of cubism, but don't see a strong reason to delete. Belbury (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly they contradict each other to a degree, but COM:NOTUSED says "A media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." I'd argue a file being used on a random page that it has absolutely no relation what-so-ever to isn't "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as far as Commons:Project scope. I'd love to see that part of the guideline clarified at some point, but it is what it is in the meantime and it's clearly not serving a "realistic educational purpose" by being on a random page that has no relation to the image what-so-ever. The same goes for a lot, if not all, of the other images. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any contradiction there, COM:INUSE tells us that if an image is being used outside of user/talk pages on any Wikimedia projects - even a "random page" of Wikiquote, Wikitionary or Wikibooks - it's considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, so would pass the first bullet of COM:NOTUSED. --Belbury (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it can pass the fist bullet point. Nowhere does it insinuate that's it absolute though. It's clearly saying "in use files are considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. Except in cases where a media file is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above." That's literally what the guideline says. Otherwise that whole thing would just be one four word sentence instead of multiple lines and as many paragraphs. Your just choosing to ignore the parts of it that you disagree with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading this policy, but I'll take this discussion to your talk page. Belbury (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Adamant1 was not just misreading the policy, but outright misquoting it in their above comment:
It's clearly saying "in use files are considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. Except in cases where a media file is neither: realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above." That's literally what the guideline says.
Contrary to Adamant1's claim, this is not the wording in the guideline, and Adamant1's misquote changes its meaning in an important way.
Concretely, the first sentence of Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project (= COM:INUSE) reads

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like.

We can already see here how the words at the beginning of the allegedly verbatim wording provided in Adamant1's comment were changed. But so far the meaning remains largely intact.
However, anyone can verify that the second sentence in Adamant1's "quote" ("[...] Except in cases where a media file is neither: [...]") does not occur in the policy (not even in a reworded but equivalent form). Instead, Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use begins as follows:

File not legitimately in use
A media file which is neither:
• realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor
• legitimately in use as discussed above
falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons.

Here, "legitimately in use as discussed above" refers to the preceding COM:INUSE section of the policy.
In other words, under the policy, either of the two conditions (educational / in use) suffices to make an image in scope, contrary to Adamant1's claims that the second one does not suffice under the policy.
And for context: Beyond this DR here, Adamant1 has outright misquoted this policy in other cases too - see the notes here about another DR comment where Adamant1 claimed I literally cited the guideline but COM:SCOPE did not contain the allegedly quoted text. (That was one of the various problems brought up this thread on the "User problems" noticeboard that lead to the current two-week block of Adamant1. Hopefully Adamant1 won't resume this kind of disruptive behavior once the block expires, but this pattern is worth documenting here for the purposes of this DR and in case it occurs again.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my verdict to  Keep all as COM:INUSE per JPxG's observation on use within the Indonesian Wikipedia, my mistake for taking the batch count at face value. --Belbury (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep all I personally don’t think these are very good, but I also respect INUSE. I’m also not taking the time to review every single file; please be more discriminating in the future. Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep All of these seem to be in use somewhere. File:The Tin Men.png, File:The Cubism Perspective.png and File:Fraternal Twins Cubism.png show up with no uses on the tool for some reason, but all three are in use at at the Indonesian Wikipedia. It is, extremely emphatically, not our business as Commons editors to decide what images other projects are allowed to use, and what their image use policies should be; Indonesian Wikipedia editors are grown adults and can make their own content decisions. The circumstances in which we should be overriding them are extremely limited. Basically, if they are violating copyright or breaking the law, COM:SCOPE permits us to override local projects' consensus, and neither of these things is remotely the case here -- "this image SUX!" is not a legal issue and Commons policy explicitly says so. JPxG (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this image SUX!" And that right there is exactly what I was talking about the ANU complaint. Where exactly did I say "this image SUX!" or anything else along those lines? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this about a dozen times, and each time you've ignored the entire explanation and responded with vague insults, so I don't think I can explain this to you. Definitionally, if you refuse to provide a reason for why something should be done, the only reason you're giving is that you want it to be done.JPxG (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave reasons in my original messages. It's not me if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go off about how I'm doing this because "this image SUX!" or whatever. I never said the image "SUX" in this or any other DR and it's rather insulting to repeatedly treat me like that's my position. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete all. The fact that some are randomly used means nothing; like File:Science Fiction Art Robot Narcissist.png which can be seen at the Arabic entry for Narcissism in the workplace - it serves no purpose there. As for the ones in "use" in Indonesian-language WP, they are all posted in something called a wikistory (whatever that is); I would argue that using AI-generated images to illustrate an article about an art movement (or nearly anything else) is inappropriate. I don't have the time or energy to look at all of them; they can be churned out by the millions every minute and serve no purpose whatsoever. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, being in use definitely does not mean “nothing”, “randomly” or not. It’s not our job to judge what other projects think of images unless we also contribute to those projects. Or has Commons decided to start engaging in Wiki-imperialism now? Dronebogus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:AI-generated_images_by_David_S._Soriano&oldid=898894226"