"

 JIDF posts image for Wikipedia 

Here's a situation I found intriguing. The JIDF blog specifically posted an image to put on this Wikipedia article. The heading currently reads ""Better Sample of the Groups We Target (For Wikipedia)."" This strikes me as problematic. At the very least, it gives the appearance of Wikipedia coordinating with JIDF to promote JIDF, or cooperating with JIDF's self-promotion. (From what I can tell, our image is downloaded from the blog image by Einsteindonut 8-22-08.) I'm sorry if you've already come to consensus about the inclusion of the image in the article, but I did want to mention this interesting nuance. Best wishes,  | Talk 
I don't like the way the JIDF is manipulating this article, posting messages for Wikipedia that are then being used as sources. I wish there was some way to put an end to it, but I think a blog is a WP:RS for what it says about the organization that sponsors it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 

 Hm. That's interesting.  The JIDF is only marginally notable (only two major press citations have been found), and being in Wikipedia increases the visibility of the organization. Wikipedia usually doesn't display web site screen shots. Usually an article gets a logo, if that. Also, we have a third-party cartoon in that image without copyright clearance.  Maybe we should drop that image.      

It looks like the JIDF doesn't want to be on Wikipedia after all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 
At this juncture, Malik, their opinion about whether to be on Wikipedia strikes me as irrelevant. (I'm assuming that WP:BLP does not apply to organizations, right?) However, if the screenshot is unusual for an article of this size, then I'd be interested in hearing the pro's and con's for keeping the image. (Aside from the promotional concern I've floated above.) Tx,  | Talk 

I think there may be copyright problems, because (for example) the Hamas logo is subject to copyright. I've brought the question up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 

The Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and CAMERA Wikipedia pages don't have screenshots. They don't even have pictures other than the logo, and those are organizations with physical offices, known officers, and big real-world events.  The page for Facebook has a picture of Facebook HQ (although, amusingly, that picture is actually of the Japanese restaurant that occupies the ground floor) and a screen shot of the home/login page.  Miniclip has a screen shot of their huge home page in their info box. LinkedIn just has a logo.  Myspace has a logo and a picture of the headquarters building. None of these Wikipedia pages have screenshots of interior web site pages. Wikipedia doesn't usually do that.    
But John, this image serves a different function. It displays the Facebook groups that were the target of JIDF activities. So it seems directly related to the notable aspect of the group's activity. Is it relevant that the screenshot is taken from the JIDF Facebook page or blog sites? After all, it could as well be an independent screenshot of the targeted group, without JIDF as the source. See what I mean?  | Talk 

Just to clarify, there was already a sample up.  I read the blog and they made a point saying that the original sample only showed anti-semitic groups and not the terrorist groups, and I wanted to learn how to add an image, so I replaced it.  I don't care if there's a photo up or not, but I do feel if there's going to be one, that it should be the most accurate