On 1/22/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is. -- ~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc

On 23/01/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Force tag, have a default {{untagged}}, purge everything with this agressively? Similar to David's article-boilerplate proposal, really... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:44:33 +0100, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah, might be an idea to add a seperate required "source" field though. Unfortunately some people seem to have gotten the impression that as long as they don't use a "fair use" tag, source is optional. If not then at least make it impossible to upload an image with a blank "summary" field. Easy enough to bypass, but at least people can't claim they didn't know it was required when they come to complain about the image getting deleted. Another idea, one that would require a lot more developer work than the above, but possebly save countless maintainance hours down the line is this: Make a "upload wizard" type system, one that will walk first time uploaders though a multi step process and explain everyting carefully in bite sized chunks across multiple different pages starting with "choose the right format", moving on to "pick a good descriptive file name", then "spesify who the copyright holder is and where you got the image" then give a crash course in copyright law (you know the basics, stuff like "publicaly available is not the same as public domain", all rights reserved is the default if nothing is spesified, and "you can't claim copyright to a copy you made of a copyrighted work", explaining the difference between free and unfree licenses etc) and force the user to check a "I understand" box, to move on to the license selection before finaly allowing them to upload the image. After completing the toturial a couple of times the user would "graduate" and get the to the normal "all in one" upload form. -- [[User:Sherool]]

On 1/23/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote: Quite. When the selector was introduced, quite a few uploaders were "license roulette"-ing and tagging obviously copyrighted images as anything they could find, usually tags like GPL and CopyrightedFreeUse. -- ~~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc

Justin Cormack wrote: I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there. Stan

Matt Brown wrote: Some days I find that half or more of the images I look at with the generic fair use tag are source-less - gets them a ticket on the fast track to oblivion. Not so many, less than 10% that I've seen - previous retroactive image-tagging initiatives must have caught most of them. I see a "bulge" around summer 2005, which I think is after the last big tagging push and before uploading screen was reworded, or it could just be clueless uploads by students on vacation. Stan