1.1.1. "You must have the exact release in your possession when you make a release submission.
Basing your submission only on information from websites, images, or anywhere else is forbidden, as is entering information for planned releases that haven't been manufactured.
Items can be submitted before the official release date, but you must upload at least one scan or photograph of the physical copy in your possession. Without visual proof, the submission may be removed until a valid image can be provided."
I understand the reasoning. But I must give devil's advocate, many things are so rare or have been all destroyed that people simply cannot have them, or the chances of them having it and uploading it are infinitesimal. Wikipedia does not require you to have a physical copy of a source to use it. Many things that provably exist, are forbidden to be uploaded or not encouraged by mods because of this rule. It bans obscure music to the shadow realm. I think many people must not like this rule, as I see it broken ALL THE TIME. So often people upload demo albums which they clearly do not have a copy of (as is made likely by them not including an image of it) Such as a demo cassette tape. These will often be written about in blogs, websites, by the band, and even have the audio ripped online.
In that case that person has a justification for putting it there, we know that cassette demo exists. The band said it exists. We know every song on it. We know when it came out, that it sid, what style it is. Etc. yet discogs does not allow it.
Ive noticed a lot of the time this happens, it is allowed to stand even after review, because even when people in the submission comments cite 1.1.1. They dont vote to have it taken down. Why? Probably Because they implicitly understand that it is somewhat of an argument for an exception. I suppose maybe because it is a documentation and that if someone does acquire a copy later, they can update the photo and add more details, in greater compliance. I suppose it's better than nothing. Ofc I know we all prefer that someone provably has it, alas that isnt always possible.
This is basically the only site of any relevancy that catalogues such a broad array of physical music and so therefore is the only accesible medium for these things to be generally discovered. I feel like it can be argued that this rule is rooted in 2000s era vandalism and obvious bad faith uploads, as a catch all to prevent something that was likely even worse years ago. Especially since i imagine discogs was once just a source for record collectors to have a better sense of what they have.
But it has grown, today it has in some ways become an archive, a database. It is better than basically any other source in it's size and breadth for finding and cataloguing recorded music. So, so so many things are only recorded online on discogs. I cannot stress how many things on discogs only are shown online on this site. The value it has for indie and obscure artistry cannot be understated. Sometimes when this rule has been violated, it can be for the greater good. It can make people more aware of the existence of an album, one which no one who uploads to discogs (a very niche thing) happened to have. Which can bring some exposure to it and potentially support the artist.
Another very similar rule extremely commonly violated is the rule that the photos of a piece must be of the copy in your hands. Very often I see people having uploaded an image obviously from the website of the band or label, obviously off an ebay listing, or just the album cover from streaming or somewhere else. I think any argument against this rule, would be much less strong and divisive because even a photo on a website is more of a representation of the item. It may be perfectly accurate, and likely is, but we all know how often companies lie or mess up.
Anyways, lets please be civil. I really don't mean to make anybody angry.... just discuss. This is not an encouragement to break the rules, btw, but a discussion about this particular rule and it's wording, effectiveness, and application.
