Performance art on Wikipedia, Wikipedians proved to be fools Options

[Peter Damian]

More details here http://rhizome.org/editorial/2011/feb/18/s...an-state-beach/ and here http://media.rhizome.org/blog/7949/Public-Access-PDF.pdf . A sort of performance art that ends with Wikipedians looking stupid. SPI is here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...ghtidea/Archive

The guy is an artist and a photographer, and to my mind the pictures are excellent - he is attempting to give a sense of scale and contrast by incorporating the human figure into his landscapes, in the manner of Caspar David, who he self-consciously evokes. Sadly, his contributions were aggressively removed (by Ryulong, with stupid comments such as those below).

Not only were the Wikipedia edits removed, but the photos were taken off Commons. So, it's OK to upload a poor photo of a penis. But if a genuine artist uploads their artwork, they get deleted because 'poor quality'. Ha ha.

The comments of the Wikipedians (with the exception of Antandrus) are idiotic and embarrassing. E.g.

"It seems harmless enough. If DC is concerned,the best bet might be to take it to a discussion page on Commons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:30, 20 January 2011

I dunno, I would have offset the man a bit more to give prominence to the horizon but IMO it looks kinda nice. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(Update to cropped image | Cleaned up using AutoEd) (undo) (cur | prev) 00:03, 16 January 2011 Gavia immer (talk | contribs)

Without intending to be insulting to the uploader, File:26 pelican.JPG is one of a series of not very good images of a man on a beach and I would not use it to illustrate any subject. The file was uploaded to Commons today. Geographically unrelated IPs have been adding the
image to various articles, which seems, well, odd. The IPs that I've noted so far are 75.212.88.129 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 75.87.252.190 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 80.178.14.162 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and 205.143.67.250 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). If anyone wants to do some digging, the image is also used on the French-, German-, and Spanish-language Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the quality of the photo that was at issue, and which could be discussed
at commons. While it's true there's a guy in the photo, I downloaded it and blew it up and he's not identifiable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know that they are breaking any rules, per se, but the addition of the same poor quality image to many articles runs contrary to the guidance of WP:IMAGE. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(Undid revision 408921436 by Newdonorside (talk) removing poorly placed, underexposed image) (undo)

Regarding the images themselves: they are often excellent, and I like the idea of using them but with the person cropped out. Antandrus (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The following photographs were cropped by a Wikipedia user. My body was removed from the photograph, and it was re-uploaded:


Reverted by Ryulong "Image spamming across project"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

"Crap photo of dubious sourcing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=409318946

"Crap photo of dubious sourcing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=409112786

"Image spamming across project"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=409123541

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th February 2011, 2:51pm

[thekohser]

Wikipedia governance, despite the "WikiLove" claims, is driven mostly by hate, envy, and revenge.

[lilburne]

On a similar theme:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366/

Most have a very narrow outlook, even when they are trying not to.

[Zoloft]

Your work, freely given to Wikipedia, is like a sand castle on the beach. It will be wiped out by some kid coming up, kicking it, snorting through his nose, and running off.

Then you can take a picture of yourself looking pensively out to sea.

I wouldn't upload that shot to Wikipedia right now, though.

[carbuncle]

I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just proud that this made it into the publication that accompanies the show.

[Peter Damian]

Ah and here is the famous 26Pelican 'crap' picture

Without intending to be insulting to the uploader, File:26 pelican.JPG is one of a series of not very good images of a man on a beach and I would not use it to illustrate any subject.

http://media.rhizome.org/blog/7949/Wikipedia-Detail_4.jpg

Compare http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8tEPwOHNv0o/TVjk...d-friedrich.jpg

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 24th February 2011, 6:34pm

[gomi]

I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just proud that this made it into the publication that accompanies the show.

Carbuncle, in reading your commentary throughout there, I must say that I had not realized that you were such a officious moron on Wikipedia. You and Gavia immer (T-C-L-K-R-D) act like complete Wikipidiot dicks here, and only Baseball Bugs comes through with a shred of common sense.

[Peter Damian]

I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just proud that this made it into the publication that accompanies the show.

Carbuncle, in reading your commentary throughout there, I must say that I had not realized that you were such a officious moron on Wikipedia. You and Gavia immer (T-C-L-K-R-D) act like complete Wikipidiot dicks here, and only Baseball Bugs comes through with a shred of common sense.

Linky http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...can_State_beach

[Jon Awbrey]

Wait — amateurs are bad now?

Who can keep up anymore?

There goes everybody —

Going, going, gone …

Jon

[carbuncle]

I don't think we need someone using sockpuppets to spam Wikipedia with their amateur photos - I mean, we've got Shankbone for that... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just proud that this made it into the publication that accompanies the show.

Carbuncle, in reading your commentary throughout there, I must say that I had not realized that you were such a officious moron on Wikipedia. You and Gavia immer (T-C-L-K-R-D) act like complete Wikipidiot dicks here, and only Baseball Bugs comes through with a shred of common sense.

I am tempted to feign offence, but I won't since I have to cop to being an officious moron. I am a little hurt that I could compare poorly to Baseball Bugs, though.

[Peter Damian]

It really is astonishingly stupid. Here is the original of silver strand beach

http://www.logicmuseum.com/pictures/Silver...State-Beach.jpg

Note the elegant way that the distant figure engages with the headland.

and then some idiot crops it, so as to remove the figure

http://www.logicmuseum.com/pictures/Croppe...State-Beach.jpg

But then it is a picture of absolutely nothing - worse than the worse family holiday snap. The whole point was to have the figure against a plain and otherwise uninteresting background.

Wait — amateurs are bad now?

Seems so.

[lilburne]

Wait — amateurs are bad now?

Nope. Amateur critics are still tops.

The real amazement though is that any one could make bugs look good.

[Zoloft]

Delicious Carbuncle returns the frying pan to the fire.

[gomi]

Delicious Carbuncle returns the frying pan to the fire.

Remember this exciting ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach? See this item from Flavorpill and this editorial. I'm considering a lawsuit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So why didn't he get blocked for "making legal threats". That is at least a Wikipidiot policy, which is more than the excuse for deleting the photos in question.

Seriously:

1) Guy uploads photos of various locations to Wikipedia;
2) Said photos being no worse, and to many eyes better, than the usual dross and porn that graces Wikipedia;
3) Wikipidiots delete photos with strident claims that someone was "subvert[ing]" Wikipedia, or conspiring to do something dire;
4) Guy 0wnz said Wikipidiots by publicizing the dust-up;
5) Wikipidiots, incapable of saying "We over-reacted and were stupid", continue to make overreacting and stupid statements.

Wikipedia: lather, rinse, repeat.

[EricBarbour]

This looks like it would have been a win-win for this guy if the photos were kept or deleted. If they were kept, he'd be able to say "Look at these crappy photos I put Wikipedia and they're too stupid to get rid of them". But instead my critiques of his shit attempt to subvert this site get immortalized in an art installation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the biggest shit of all, Ryulong.

[Peter Damian]

This looks like it would have been a win-win for this guy if the photos were kept or deleted. If they were kept, he'd be able to say "Look at these crappy photos I put Wikipedia and they're too stupid to get rid of them". But instead my critiques of his shit attempt to subvert this site get immortalized in an art installation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the biggest shit of all, Ryulong.

There is no doubt the guy is an accomplished artist. http://lightandwiregallery.com/2008/david-horvitz-artist

And how is it like David Shankbone (as Carbuncle says)? Shankbone was a crap photographer, and his work was simply advertisement for other work that wasn't featured in Wikipedia. Horvitz is giving his work to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia deletes it. Like, if Wikipedia had existed in the 19th century and Whistler had uploaded a picture of fireworks, and Wikipedia had deleted his work, for 'flinging a pot of paint at the public'.

Also looks like he has done this before

http://printedmatter.org/catalogue/search....df&search_type=

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 25th February 2011, 10:01am

[Somey]

And how is it like David Shankbone (as Carbuncle says)? Shankbone was a crap photographer, and his work was simply advertisement for other work that wasn't featured in Wikipedia. Horvitz is giving his work to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia deletes it.

Well... Shankers would find articles about various things, some of which were quite mundane, that didn't have photos or any sort of illustration/image at all, and go find examples of those things and take photos of them specifically for WP. True, they weren't very good photos, though to be fair, they got better the longer he kept at it. By doing that (he uploaded hundreds upon hundreds of these) he attempted to make himself indispensable, so that when he started in on his other agendas (such as trying to break into entertainment journalism via Wikinews, and promoting a certain producer/director's hardcore gay pr0n movies), he would be difficult to stop - as he would have plenty of supporters among the WP'ers who were grateful that he'd illustrated all those articles, some of which they had a vested interest in themselves.

(Mind you, I'm not completely convinced that Shankers meant to pursue this strategy from the beginning, in a premeditated fashion. But whether he planned it that way or not, once he realized what he was in position to do, he capitalized on that position. I'm not even sure I blame him for that; I might well have done the same thing under the circumstances, though I'd like to think I would have been a bit less obnoxious about it.)

In effect, Shankers may have spoiled things for other photographers, regardless of their talent level - and by extension, spoiled things for Wikipedia in general. Someone who drives up the Pacific coast taking photos of beaches for not-yet-illustrated WP articles about those beaches should be welcomed with open arms, even if he did insist on putting himself (from a distance) in many of the photos in question. But because of Shankers, he's treated with suspicion, like he's trying to "spam" them.

IMO, they should really try to forget the whole Shankers experience, because there are very few people like Shankers out there, and there's a good chance nothing like that will ever happen again - at least not to that extent, anyway.

[Wikicrusher2]

And how is it like David Shankbone (as Carbuncle says)? Shankbone was a crap photographer, and his work was simply advertisement for other work that wasn't featured in Wikipedia. Horvitz is giving his work to Wikipedia. And Wikipedia deletes it.

Well... Shankers would find articles about various things, some of which were quite mundane, that didn't have photos or any sort of illustration/image at all, and go find examples of those things and take photos of them specifically for WP. True, they weren't very good photos, though to be fair, they got better the longer he kept at it. By doing that (he uploaded hundreds upon hundreds of these) he attempted to make himself indispensable, so that when he started in on his other agendas (such as trying to break into entertainment journalism via Wikinews, and promoting a certain producer/director's hardcore gay pr0n movies), he would be difficult to stop - as he would have plenty of supporters among the WP'ers who were grateful that he'd illustrated all those articles, some of which they had a vested interest in themselves.

(Mind you, I'm not completely convinced that Shankers meant to pursue this strategy from the beginning, in a premeditated fashion. But whether he planned it that way or not, once he realized what he was in position to do, he capitalized on that position. I'm not even sure I blame him for that; I might well have done the same thing under the circumstances, though I'd like to think I would have been a bit less obnoxious about it.)

In effect, Shankers may have spoiled things for other photographers, regardless of their talent level - and by extension, spoiled things for Wikipedia in general. Someone who drives up the Pacific coast taking photos of beaches for not-yet-illustrated WP articles about those beaches should be welcomed with open arms, even if he did insist on putting himself (from a distance) in many of the photos in question. But because of Shankers, he's treated with suspicion, like he's trying to "spam" them.

IMO, they should really try to forget the whole Shankers experience, because there are very few people like Shankers out there, and there's a good chance nothing like that will ever happen again - at least not to that extent, anyway.

Why are you acting like he is gone? Do you think he's not up to the same tactics? He'll never change, it seems.

Nevertheless, the person in question, the photographer who is being discussed here, was inserting the same image on multiple different articles, and should have been warned about this. It recalled Shankbone's habit of inserting images that he personally shot into multiple articles, sometimes replacing existing ones with his own, hence the comparison. While the reaction was presumptuous IMO (with regards to the claim of "subverting" Wikipedia), it wasn't appropriate for the image to be inserted across a wide variety of articles like this.

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2: Fri 25th February 2011, 10:48am

[carbuncle]

If Horvitz had simply been taking decent shots of various beaches and including them in articles about those beaches it is likely that it would have gone unnoticed for the most part (though he probably would have been thanked for it eventually), but that wasn't what he was doing. Much like Shankbone, this was Horvitz doing something for Horvitz. And regardless of Peter Damien's ability to spot the accidental parallels to other works, these really are very mundane images. As is often the case in these kinds of projects that rely on repetition of elements, the individual pieces are weak. Of course, that's just my opinion and what do I know about these things?

[Peter Damian]

Of course, that's just my opinion and what do I know about these things?

Clearly very little.