User talk:Marcus Cyron

Dieser Benutzer verwendet weder Sockenpuppen noch editiert er unter IP-Adresse.

• Deutsch: Beiträge auf dieser Seite werden durch mich auch hier beantwortet, wenn die Diskussion bei dir begann, soll sie auch dort und nicht hier fortgesetzt werden.
• English: I’ll answer your queries here. If we started the discussion on your discussion, I answer there.
• Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to an archive

This user is a member of the Volunteer Response Team. (verify)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Wikimedia as a failure

Hi Marcus,

I enjoyed your photo for the Most Memorable Shot 2025, but noticed you said that you viewed Wikimedia as a failure. Sorry to hear that; I had to, out of curiosity, ask why. Regardless, thank you for your contributions to the site over so many years. (@Packer1028 tagging my main account, so I can follow the convo on there.) JohnSon12a (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Please give me some days. I would like to answer more than 2 sentences. Because the problems are complex. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Marcus,

I also, just read your comment:

• "2026 will most likely bring fewer rather than more new pictures from me, as I actually consider Wikimedia to have failed. Contributing further to a failed project would make little sense."'

I'm looking forward to your thoughts and observations.

Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think since a longer time about writing a more detailed text about all this - but to be honest, I can't motivate myself. So I quote myself here with two smaller contributions I made in other places:

1. (translated comment from a discussion on de:WP): Wikipedia will become [immaterial world heritag] when it successfully transforms into a different medium in the medium term. My pessimism about the future of Wikipedia should be clear by now (and I'm sure some people are already fed up with it, which I understand). I don't think Wikipedia will still exist in its current form in 10 years. Perhaps not even in 5. Of course, my predictions might not be right. For example, my prediction that we would experience a sharp decline in donations for the last Christmas campaign didn't come true. The goal was reached, and relatively early at that. Or so one might think, if one doesn't take into account that the goals were significantly reduced this time. AI will cost us readers, and thus the Wikimedia system, donations. Money that is actually needed to transform Wikipedia, to finally bring it into a modern form, instead of always being 15 years behind the times (if not more). We need to be significantly more multimedia-oriented, and the money for further development is certainly there. We have the texts on Wikipedia and Wikisource, we have dictionaries and the lexeme collection. We have a huge (poorly organized) data archive and, with Wikidata, a large, well-maintained, and well-linked collection of raw data, despite all its problems. Imagine what could be done with all of this. It all needs to be brought together under one roof; then we could finally establish a more useful news section. But nothing is happening. Nothing. The WMF continues to celebrate itself and treats volunteers as supplicants, troublemakers, and at best, as public figures for fundraising. Respect may exist among some individuals, but overall, it's nonexistent.

I spoke with User:DerHexer about all of this a few weeks ago. He rightly pointed out that anything not now, or in the foreseeable future, stored in the places used by AI systems will be irrelevant in the future. At least not unless it can generate a significant amount of attention on its own. What Google hasn't scanned yet, and what isn't already in Wikipedia and a few other major information sources, will no longer be truly consumed. I consider this danger quite valid. The democratization of knowledge that Wikipedia stood for will be reversed. There will be a monopolization of knowledge on a scale not seen since the Middle Ages. While everyone will have access to what then constitutes knowledge, it will be uniform and will develop little (I don't mean technological developments, which will certainly continue). We have nothing to counter AI. Sure, we can continue tinkering with it—but that doesn't interest the AI ​​developers. Or the people behind Google, who are already gatekeepers of information and knowledge. So far, it has been advantageous for them to showcase Wikipedia early on. But in the future, AI systems will replace it (and I remain appalled by some of the nonsense AI presents us with). This fills me with dread. Even though I believe, of course, that AI will continue to improve. But it is neither error-free nor impervious to manipulation. The political situation in the world makes all of this even more problematic.

Interestingly, the response we currently give to this is getting bogged down in the deletion hell and the ongoing debate about relevance. And for some, it's a hunt for people who might not be 100% altruistic. I recently stumbled across this [1] by chance. And once again, I was appalled. This ban is so incredibly misguided to me, so utterly incomprehensible. It's no wonder that fewer and fewer people want to contribute. I fought for 15 years with others to get academics involved in this project. And when they do contribute, in the areas where they have expertise, this is what happens. So. At this point, I can only conclude that Wikipedia has failed. Failed due to both external and internal circumstances. So many people with the best intentions in one place. With so much goodwill. But that doesn't seem to be enough. I don't regret my first edit 22 years and 10 days ago. Or what came of it. But even if I'm still alive then, I don't believe I'll still exist on Wikipedia in 22 years and 10 days. Nor do I believe there will even be a living, functioning Wikipedia. I'm happy to be proven wrong. I'd gladly be mistaken. But right now, I simply lack the faith.

2) (From here): Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you, at least in part. I've often witnessed how well-meaning academics have been practically driven away. How we courted and wooed them on the one hand, and then, when they came, drove them away again with our often incomprehensible rules and the domineering behavior of many Wikipedians. Added to this is the utter nonsense that academic professionals who contribute during their working hours are suspected of "paid editing." In the English Wikipedia, they've always been targeted; in my German Wikipedia, this veritable witch hunt has been established in recent years by a few people who are mostly incompetent themselves (without any real mandate to do so). No, it's not just the academics. The blame lies at least as much within the projects themselves. The greatest irony is that the more Wikipedia gained recognition in the academic world, the more it isolated itself from the academic world. At least, I unfortunately have to say this for the German-language version, as the original pioneer in this area (I'll mention User:Frank Schulenburg here) was.

And as third, I refer to this page. Also the discussion page here is a good read. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I'm in the process of reading the link you gave in the third and final section. Some issues I've never considered before, as someone who mostly contributes small edits to Wikipedia and pictures to Commons. Thanks for the resources. JohnSon12a (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Raubgrabung / Falsches Bild

Hallo! ich schreibe, weil ich auf einen Fall gestoßen bin, bei dem ich nicht genau weiß, wie ich weiter vorgehen soll. Bei dieser Datei handelt es sich meiner Ansicht nach um ein falsches Bild: Hethitisches Gefäß.JPG Das Objekt ist nicht hethitisch und stammt möglicherweise aus einer Raubgrabung. Ich habe den Benutzer dazu befragt. Nach meiner Einschätzung lassen die sehr ungenauen Angaben und die Verwendung typischer, aber nicht belegter Datierungen darauf schließen, dass das Objekt aus einer Raubgrabung stammt. Ich habe daher einen Löschantrag gestellt. Was weiter passiert, ist mir unklar, allerdings bezweifle ich, dass die Datei tatsächlich gelöscht wird. Kurz gesagt: Gibt es auf Wikipedia bzw. Wikimedia Commons keinen Verhaltenskodex im Umgang mit Kulturerbe? Und ist es akzeptabel, beliebige Objekte hochzuladen und zu behaupten, sie seien etwas Bestimmtes (hier: hethitisch), ohne dafür belastbare Belege vorzulegen? Meiner Meinung nach verstößt dies gegen die Wikipedia-Richtlinien, wonach Aussagen auf verlässlicher Sekundärliteratur beruhen müssen. Ich gehe davon aus, dass eine solche Zuschreibung in einem fachlichen Kontext nicht akzeptiert würde. Auch wenn ich das Bild selbst nicht löschen kann, bin ich überzeugt, dass das Objekt definitiv nicht hethitisch ist – jede fachkundige Person würde dies bestätigen. Nehemie.strupler (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hallo, meines Wissens gibt es hier keine Richtlinien. Das wäre allein deshalb schon schwer, weil das in verschiedenen Ländern durchaus sehr unterschiedlich gehandhabt wird und auf der anderen Seite mehr Wert auf den inhaltlichen Wert einer Abbildung gelegt wird, als auf solche Rechts- und Moralfragen. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hallo, danke für die Antwort, es hilft und ich habe deinen Kommentar gesehen. Ich bleibe trotzdem dabei, dass er die Rechte an dem Bild nicht hat (weil es sich um ein illegales Objekt handelt). Andernfalls müsste dies entsprechend dokumentiert werden. Die Türkei hat in der Vergangenheit bereits empfindlich auf Wikipedia reagiert (mehrjährige Sperre), daher würde ich raten, vorsichtig zu sein. (Und es ist nicht hethitisch ;-) Grüße. Nehemie.strupler (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Die Rechte an der Abbildung von Objekten ist anders, als als die Rechte an Objekten selbst. Und das ist am Ende auch gut so. Zudem wird die Türkei sicher nicht wegen so etwas Wikipedia sperren, da braucht es schon ganz andere, politische Gründe. Zumal sie sich zuvor an die WMF mit der Aufforderung der Löschung wenden könnte. Urheberrechte haben nichts mit Moral zu tun. Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Explain this rude comment

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADJM_und_SMK_2018-05-31_WK_120_100m_R%C3%BCcken_m%C3%A4nnlich_Finals_39.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=1151421547 Mjrmtg (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Explain your categorization of minors into categories that are clearly sexualized. Please explain. And do so very thoroughly. And please let's also involve the WMF's T&S team. They would certainly like to know as well.

We've been running around for years trying to take decent pictures for Wikipedia—and then you come along and ruin it with your suggestive, morally questionable categorizations. Thanks to people like you, we're now being denied accreditation again. And images are increasingly being deleted because, for understandable reasons, people don't want to be categorized this way, and parents don't want this to happen to their children.

So: explain yourself! Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Tell me what questionable categories are on the photo? Mjrmtg (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't argue with you. Again: if you really wanna dispute this, we do it in front of T&S. Marcus Cyron (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. You reverted my initial edit which added 17 categories. You can dispute it to whomever you want. If you don't like categories you are on the wrong website. Mjrmtg (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mjrmtg: Could you please confirm that you're aware of Commons:Category inclusion criteria, COM:OVERCAT and en:WP:OVERCAT among others? Frankly, I'm more on Marcus' side here. While there's not much need to bring the things into any sexualised realm (but it's still somewhat understandable), your added categories seen in Special:Diff/1151421547 look quite certainly trivial and also en:WP:NONDEFINING.

It's obvious that juvenile competitors in swimming sports are topless adolescent boys, and will wear common swimsport gear - this is trivial.

Categories like Category:Arena (brand) jammers can easily be seen as being against COM:NOT (here: advertising effect); furthermore, that kind of categorisation as in your edit may be an abuse of the category system with data that could be better placed into structured data. It's hard to imagine that e.g. "Category:Swim caps in Germany" is something that a human would need to find media for use - what's the difference in usability in swimcaps from Germany vs. swimcaps from, let's say, France, Spain, Canada or Austria?

Generally speaking, such kind of categories makes for a splintering of the display of media and an actual lack of usability when searching for images, at least per my own (son's) experience - you're often better using Google than perusing the collections directly on Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc:Since you are a talk page stalker of his then you'd obviously side with him. You're the first one to nitpick at any categories I've entered on these type of photos and I've entered these categories on many for a long time. If there are explicit guidelines for categorization than point them out and tell every user to read them. What COM:OVERCAT are you referring to? You'd rather I added category for Category:Barefoot adolescent boys and Category:Adolescent boys wearing swimwear? That would be COM:OVERCAT. If we aren't supposed to have Category:Swim caps by country then we do we have Category:Sports equipment by country etc?

Brushstrokes in Flight

Hello! I was given notice of a picture that I had taken pertaining to Roy Lichtenstein violated copyright. I don't understand why. I took the photo of the sculpture myself. FunksBrother (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. This is in this case not of importance. Works of art and science are protected - usually for 70 years post mortem of the creator. As long you don't own these rights - and I don't belive, that you own the copyright for Lichtenstein works - images are not usable. There are a few exceptions, so if Freedom of Panorama in some countries allows taking pictures of works outsite of buildings of permanently installed structures. So as for example in Germany - but not in France, where you are not allowed to publish images of the iluminated Eiffel Tower at night, even the artist is dead since 70+ years. Sculptures by Lichtenstein could be possible to be photographed outsite of Buildings in Germany, as long they are installed permanently, but not for example in France. In museums it is in general impossible. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Commons Photographers User Group: Board Elections 2026

Dear Marcus Cyron,

You are receiving this message because you are listed as a member of the Commons Photographers User Group.

The Election Committee is pleased to announce that the Board Elections 2026 have officially commenced.

Election timeline

• February 1–15: Nomination phase
• February 21–25: Community Q&A and candidate engagement
• February 26 – March 7: Voting period
• March 15: Results announced

Full details are available at: Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2026

All eligible members are encouraged to participate in the election, including standing as candidates.

If you wish to run, please add your name and candidate statement on the nomination page during the nomination period.

For questions or discussion, please use the election talk page.

Unsubscribe / opt-out:' If you do not wish to receive further notifications related to the CPUG Board Elections 2026, you may remove your name from the mailing list

We look forward to your participation.

—CPUG Election Committee 04:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)