The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

Changing the world

The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

It isn't easy to predict accurately how content inserted into Wikipedia is going to be used. Over here at Signpost I have read articles about how Oxford found Wikipedia content good enough to claim as its own. But while these are examples I understood, they were third party and distant; the experience of actually being part of the process was still alien. Then this happened...

I consciously licensed an image (Image 1) I had taken into the public domain (officially CCO here). I placed this image in a timely manner into the infobox of the concerned article. Within a few weeks the image had been used by news magazines, think-tanks, university blogs and a number of other websites. Was I surprised? Yes.

Image 1

Usage of Image 1: The Yale Globalist, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Mashable India, Outlook India (& Outlook Hindi), Observer Research Foundation, National Herald, Times Now online, Medium, OpIndia, News Nation, NewsX, Deccan Chronicle, Punjab Kesari, The Quint, Global Voices, Bhaskar, Qaumi Awaz, And more. Columbia University Library (CUL) blogs, borgenproject.org, thepolisproject.com, clarionindia.net, citizenmatters.in, Sanatan Prabhat, The Kochi Post, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), The Logical Indian, TFI Post...

When I realized what happened with Image 1, I went to another image (Image 2) I had placed in the infobox of a related article. This had also been used to an extent which surprised me. Other images from these two articles had also been used, but to a much lesser extent.

Image 2

Usage of Image 2 and others: Columbia Political Review, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, National University of Singapore ISAS, University of Oslo, The Muslim News, Penn Libraries News, New Humanist, Economic and Political Weekly, The Siasat Daily, Youth Ki Awaaz, News18, CounterPunch, Daily Excelsior, Businessworld, The Hans India, Eurasian Times, Sciencenorway.no, Newsclick...

Image 2 was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and most of the websites did not follow the license requirements in relation to attribution, but that is not the point I want to raise. Going by the above two examples, this should mean that the infobox images of protest articles are hotspots, at least potential hotspots for further usage. Currently the 2021 Myanmar protests are going on. A quick google image search for the infobox images shows the same usage by websites around the world.

Generalizing this even more, infobox images for most articles are potential hotspots, provided that the article itself is viewed often enough. Take for example usage of the infobox image of Berlin Wall. This process can be likened to retweet and share buttons on social media.

The best infobox/lede image ever?

A wrapped, unopened Valentines Day gift with heart-shaped helium balloons attached sits discarded in a dumpster.

While there are fantastic featured images, there are images which aren't featured but are still amazing. One of the best placed intro images is the one on unrequited love. When I told the uploader My Name is Madness about this she replied, "Thank you! I knew when I first stumbled onto it it was perfect for... something... took a moment to figure out what."

In this issue

25 April 2021 (all comments)

From the editor

Disinformation report

In the media

Opinion

Op-Ed

Changing the world

Recent research

Traffic report

News from Wiki Education

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

That is indeed a fantastic image for unrequited love. I've also had protest images I took appear widely in the media; it's cool because it's a much more direct way to see the impact of Wikipedia editing than you generally get editing text. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to get images I've taken used in the media. I've taken a few pictures of campaign rallies - no notable protests yet, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No picture of mine is so poignant or seems to have become wonderfully prominent, but dozens have been published in books, magazines, and Websites. Unsung Hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 23:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a matter of fact, this is what is wrong with WP images. How do we know that the photographer didn't set up the photo himself or herself? We don't, and I am really suspicious about the reality of this claim. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that in any way specific to images on Wikipedia? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Image 2 was licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and most of the websites did not follow the license requirements in relation to attribution, but that is not the point I want to raise." This is an issue that should be raised, perhaps in a separate column, because it is at the core of what both Wikipedia and the free-culture movement at large are all about. It baffles me how professional journalists, who are no doubt educated in copyright to some degree, simply can't get one simple line right: "Photo: 'JMI students and locals protesting against CAA NRC' by DiplomatTesterMan, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0." Publishers should stop treating free content simply as a gratis resource and start valuing it as an important manifestation of how reporting has been democratized. It has already changed how journalism works, for the better, and it is high time to show some appreciation. We're in this together. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's disappointing to see. At least with American sources, it's rare for a recognizable publication to just omit attribution altogether, but many will do something like "by Wikimedia Commons" or the like. If it's a particularly well-known source doing that, I might tweet at them or something (Psychology Today and Business Insider come to mind) but there's just too much to try to police (assuming that's something one really wants to do in the first place). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing this. I did a little lightning talk for Wikipedia Day NYC a few years ago on the same subject (the reach/value of protest photos contributed to Commons/Wikipedia). I'd been documenting protests in the NYC area and saw they just kept getting used in various media (big and small, from across the political spectrum). Many of those photos are still finding new use, and probably will continue to do so as long as the issues remain relevant to the news. I find this argument -- the wide use of photos if they're used on Wikipedia -- one of the most persuasive when trying to convince people to donate theirs. You can also use tools like Glamorous and Glamorgan to see how many of your uploads are being used on Wikimedia projects and how many pageviews those articles receive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Shouldn't My Name is Madness be referred to with 'she' pronoun? I got confused when User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender userscript shows the user's desired pronoun to be 'she' when the article is referring to her as 'he' in the article. A stroll through her userpage also affirms that the user wants to be referred to with 'she' pronoun. – robertsky (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing this up. I've made the correction. Please note that this is the editor-in-chief;\'s mistake, not the author's. It's something as EIC that I'm specifically supposed to check. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?

Home

About