User:Isarra/Avatars

So many ways this could go horribly wrong

 * Animation
 * Penises
 * WP:NOPENIS?
 * Solution: Only allow penis avatars on Commons.
 * Muhammad
 * Censorship!
 * Copyvios
 * Even files off Commons wouldn't necessarily work, as avatars are generally expected to link to the user profile/page/feed, not to the file description.
 * Possible workaround for at least attribution might be to have source info in a popup, but how do we use/modify that? May need to be able to verify where the things came from in the first place, but impractical to have an actual description page for every one, despite sourcing and verifiability being important particularly on some projects...
 * Possible workaround for at least attribution might be to have source info in a popup, but how do we use/modify that? May need to be able to verify where the things came from in the first place, but impractical to have an actual description page for every one, despite sourcing and verifiability being important particularly on some projects...

The policy writers will love this.

Implementation issues

 * Same avatar cross-project? Different projects tend to have different policies regarding signatures, file usage, etc, so that could be problematic...
 * Description pages? Wikia just has avatars as a separate thing entirely from general files and frankly doing otherwise seems pretty silly especially considering how small they tend to be, but we do need to know the copyright status of them same as any other content...

Problem
Unfortunately we do need avatars - a structured graphical conversation such as Flow would require visually more for people to quickly differentiate between participants than plain text, so links won't work. Plain link signatures barely stand out enough to be all that useful even without being surrounded by other formatting and structural elements.
 * We should be able to relatively easily test if this actually matters if need be. May not even need flow itself; how hard could it be to tack it onto a LQT somewhere and... something.

Alternately we could just use random pictures of slime mold for everyone and not worry about it.

So...

 * Have there actually been any studies on these specifically, on user icons in a forum setting? Histories indicate folks just started using avatars at various points, folks liked them, and the rest is misery. Became standard and all that jazz.
 * Cultural differences will apply to these same as any other dealybobber, but significantly? Nevermind Muhammad pictures here; these are effectively the same sort of thing as an image one might put in a userbox, but carried with them along with all associated implications with regard to interaction...
 * Many users value anonymity - a picture, arbitrary as it may be, takes that away to some extent, lending preconceptions to other participants that they may not otherwise have had because now they see the image and judge based on that before even reading the post/response. Alternately they'd generate preconceptions and assumptions from a userpage or other comment or even the grammar or signature anyway. Alternately alternately the thing about avatars potentially lending to trust may apply as below, though to a probably lesser extent: avatar indicates competence, poise, community... and a willingness and ability to express oneself.


 * Plenty of stuff on more advanced avatars - 3D stuff and gaming such as that an individual's Second Life avatar's appearance will impact their behaviour in-game, as well as indications that avatars that more accurately represent an individual to themself also do to others and that increases trust, productivity, and civility within a group...
 * May have implications here, but a lot fuzzier due to the more limited medium.

Citations needed.