On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote: No. The problem was a base with a Lenin monuments of XIX century. Fear of lack of FOP is one of the reasons of small activity of existing users - so we have big activity of new users. We see that they make mistakes in this area, but even from them the count of errors is very small and the jury given the task to solve it carefully. -- regards, Lvova

We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why Freedom of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion. It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course. Lodewijk (who is very happy that NL has Freedom of Panorama) No dia 22 de Setembro de 2011 11:24, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>escreveucreveu:

Hello Jane, I recently started with collecting the deletion request pages in the categories for Belgium and Luxembourg, France exists longer. This just the top of the iceberg, but is a start to get insight how big the problem is. Many earlier deletion requests still need to be put in the categories. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sorted_deletion_requests Greetings - Romaine --- On Thu, 9/22/11, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com From: Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] FOP-Research urgently needed To: "Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition" <wikilovesmonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011, 9:35 AM Lodewijk, I totally agree with you (a big Hurrah for FOP in NL!!) and let me just say how impressed I am with the result so far despite problems such as the ones Yaroslav mentions. Browsing the photo's daily as they come in, I am often awed at the inspiring "monuments" that are being added to Commons. I am also highly impressed at the number of new users (thanks to the tool by Nuno I have an impression of how many of these there are). I shudder to think about the reactions of users when they see a request for deletion with a "NO FOP" message - is there any way we can get admins to somehow link to the proper explanation in the user's language? Or perhaps the deletion requests can be forwarded to some WLM intermediary? How big IS this problem? I wish I could see how often this is happening, because I would hate to see our new users disillusioned so quickly in their Wiki Commons upload experience. Jane 2011/9/22 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> We should definitely stick to our usual procedures on Commons - and make sure that the law is followed. Of course WLM is a good argument why Freedom of Panorama is a Good Thing but that is another discussion.  It would be very helpful if uploaders can early in the prrocess identify which buildings will be protected, and which are possible to be photographed of course.  Lodewijk (who is very happy that NL has Freedom of Panorama) No dia 22 de Setembro de 2011 11:24, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> escreveu: On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:54:28 +0400, Анастасия Львова <stasielvova(a)gmail.com Well, I obviously have smth to say about this - and I will post it on October 1, so that we do not get distracted from the current activity. But just to mention it, the database has a number of typos (like the one you cite), what is more important, it has a big number of more serious errors - the monuments which are still protected by law and included in the database but do not factually exist. The point is that this is not so much an obstacle for running WLM, since hardly anybody would provide monuments of non-existing monuments, and if someone would, this could be a major success. (I think if we could collect in such a way free images of wooden churches burned in Arkhangelsk Oblast in 1970s-1980s it would be great). On the other hand, the FoP is a real issue - the images which violate FoP are subject to deletion on Commons, and you do not want a new user to start his/her participation in Wikipedia with a deletion review notice on his/her talk page. The fraction of non-free images is obviously small, since most of the monuments of cultural heritage protected in Russia were created before 1917 and thus are PD-RusEmpire. I believe (but did not check) that this fraction is even lower in Saint-Petersburg. Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

Yes, I know about the base. That's why we started after proposition of restriction of the territory only (and we choose the city which we could check), that's why we have disclaimers and prooflinks on every page with lists. And we have not received an official response from the Ministry of Culture with the momre correct base, although we did the request. This is what I mean when I speak about task for jury - attempt to trace and explain; the most violations of FOP from participators in ru-WLM I see for those participators who upload monuments that not from the base, without a correct ID (who use ID like '1' or smth like this). I hope that everything will be alright in the end, the problem is not so large in scale. -- regards, Lvova