On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Really all we need to do is impliment a review process
for uploaded media
that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP,
permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use,
something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for
approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be
a relatively fast process.
I haven't seen any evidence that we've got a significant
eyeballs-to-images problem on commons. Can you suggest some?
Lack of immediate gratification would be a big turn-off... e.g. at
least a flagged revision change is atomic: you make your edit and
forget about it. But for an upload, if you're planning on putting it
in a specific article that would pretty much stink.
Many of the recently deleted (but now restored) images came from users
with long contribution histories.