Commons-l

commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

7 participants
2055 discussions

Re: [Commons-l] Deletion of still-used images
by Florian Straub 14 Aug '06

14 Aug '06

"Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:34:00 +0930: > What we really need are links on local projects to the deletion log on > Commons for the "no such image" pages... there's nothing like a redlink > to make people ask "Whoa! What happened to that image?", but unless they > can find a reason (cf. the deletion record on Commons saying that > something was a copyvio) they're going to get angry. We already have that on de.wp - works fine, I think. Can anyone tell me how I can reply to the daily digest WITHOUT messing up the whole thread at http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-August/thread.html#511 ? Thanks in advance, Flo

3 2

Deletion of still-used images
by Brianna Laugher 14 Aug '06

14 Aug '06

Hello, At the moment there are about 40 CommonsTickers (CT) set up. That is quite good coverage, considering that a project is likely to need a certain critical mass before it can support a CT. We have all the top 10 Wikipedias except English, of course (due to technical reasons). There are another 35 Wikipedias that have 10,000-100,000 articles and increasing our coverage there is definitely something to work on. As CT coverage increases so does scrutiny of Commons admin actions, namely, deletion of images that are still being used. Why does this happen? Not because "Commons admins are arrogant and don't care about local projects" (gee, that's defensive :)) but because it's too much menial and manual work that arguably should not fall on our shoulders. Or at least not solely. I think we should adopt a clear policy that images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should not be deleted unless: * the image is currently being used by a vandal in a mass vandal attack (this is rare, but appropriate to stop a vandal) * [[en:w:WP:OFFICE]]-style intervention from Jimbo et al. And also, we should create further ways of sharing responsibility with the local projects and reducing menial tasks required by delinking. One way which might help a bit, would be to create a tag (possibly invisible) that would trigger a notice on CTs that said, "please delink this image now or risk redlinks!" At the moment it seems projects are not paying enough attention, perhaps. For example... Image:Princesymbol.png - on 30th June I re-tagged this as a copyvio, in an attempt to get the dozen-odd projects linking to it, to stop doing so. On the 4th August it was deleted by another admin. Today, on the 7th of August, it's _still_ being used by two projects (despite being deleted) - ja: and fr:. Two of the top 5 projects! So on one hand we have local projects upset at us for deleting images in use and on the other we have projects who seem not to even care when we notify them. It is a difficult balance to walk. Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking for us. User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it. If projects complain about an unregistered bot, they can a) get a CT and delink themselves b) live with redlinks the only exception being en.wp where the bot should be registered. (because en.wp technically can't have a CT yet, no other reason) Having this policy ("images shown to be in use by CheckUsage should not be deleted") will do a few things: * send a clear message to projects that we are not interested in damaging them * allow us as a community to start examining our own actions more clearly. Commons at the moment has no process or practice to discourage reckless admin actions, partly because we've had this ambiguous policy of allowing used-images to be deleted (ambiguous in that it is policy, but can be very damaging). If we are clear that this is not acceptable, we can be clear when our admins are in the wrong and we can start a process, for example, "3 strikes and you're out": 3 occasions of images being used and deleted (possibly in a timeline, eg one year)-> automatic de-admin. You can forget once, CheckUsage could be lagging twice, but three times... I don't think so. (Note 3 occasions, not 3 images.) I am not saying all the fault is Commons admins and they're terrible. But we do make mistakes (as do all admins on all projects), sometimes we do screw things up, and we should be prepared to be held responsible on those occasions. That would be adult. * it will probably increase the deletion backlog. After a period of frustration with the unwinnable War on Copyvios, I've come to a Zen-like acceptance that Commons, like all wikis, will always be a work in progress, will never be a clean professional database - because it's an ad-hoc arrangement run by volunteers. There will probably always be thousands of images awaiting deletion. So in the long run, whether we delete copyvios today or tomorrow probably doesn't matter. Deleting them tomorrow (that is, with no urgency) has the added bonus of pissing off fewer people. I like it. Sorry for being so verbose. Doubtlessly people disagree with me. If you have other ideas about how to solve this problem, or constructive criticism, I welcome it. regards, Brianna User:pfctdayelise

20 41

Deletion of still-used images
by Samuli Lintula 11 Aug '06

11 Aug '06

Sorry about the quoting. I just joined and I'm copying this from the archives. The issue is important so at the risk of breaking quoting netiquette I just have to argument with the practical points which Brianna brought up. Brianna Laugher: "One way which might help a bit, would be to create a tag (possibly invisible) that would trigger a notice on CTs that said, 'please delink this image now or risk redlinks!'" Me: This already exists. From simple: "+VfD Conscious puts deletion marker Duplicate on Image:IC_(400x).jpeg" and "+VfD Wikipeder puts deletion marker Copyvio on Image:Hésiode.jpg". CommonsTickers should have instructions on what to do in these cases. And some do: From de-wiki on +VfD (translated loosely): Check the image and if necessary comment on Commons. If the image is properly marked for a speedy deletion, remove the image from use and, if possible, replace with a free alternative. From fi-wiki on +VfD (translated loosely): Check the image and if necessary comment on Commons. Specifically: "puts deletion marker": replace the image "copyvio, logo, noncommercial, speedydelete": If valid, take image out of use. Note, that I have specifically adviced against removing images marked with subst:nsd or what ever. If the deletion request is removed and proper source is given, no one in fi-wiki could know it if someone had delinked the image. In fi-wiki I have adviced to remove images only in the two cases mentioned above and naturally also after the image really is gone. The problem is that less than 10 tickers have any instructions. Brianna Laugher: "So on one hand we have local projects upset at us for deleting images in use and on the other we have projects who seem not to even care when we notify them. It is a difficult balance to walk." Me: On the third, the largest, hand we have projects that are just fine. I've never heard a complaint from most of the wikis and not even from fi-wiki - although they have had the opportunity. And do we have projects upset at us, or just induhviduals from them? I actually find it very strange that some users (like two ever) come to Commons to blame the admins. They should go yell at the person who uploaded an image or who took it in use in a local project. All in all, I don't see a reason to change anything in the way we delete images and I don't think that anyone should remove links to images marked with subst:nsd/nld/delete/deletionrequest/deletebecause. However, I don't oppose to having a bot that removes links to images *after* an image has been deleted. -- Ystävällisin terveisin, Samuli Lintula

2 1

Re: [Commons-l] [Toolserver-l] Stats on deletion
by Daniel Kinzler 10 Aug '06

10 Aug '06

> interiot wrote: > Okay, do individuals' deletion totals need to be made opt-in then? Not sure - I would have thought that is uncritical, but Paddy's comments on Commons-l imply the opposite. > If I have a question about whether specific feature is okay, who is the best person to ask? I think it would be a very good idea to ask the Foundation to develop a privacy guideline for MediaWiki and tool developers. > Does a user's total number of edits count as "intelligence that is not relevant to Wikipedia activity"? Since several wikis have policies requiring a minimum number of edits to the main namespace, etc, it *is* relevant. OTOH, I'm a bit undecided if it's really OK to expose this information without asking. Ideally, new users would be presented with a text explaining what data they expose when they contribute, and how this may be analyzed. This may even be made a click-through part of the account creation process. Also ideally, users would be able to state which types of analysis they want to allow. Perhaps a simple scheme of "no statistics", "simple statistics" and "detailed statistics" would be enough, with a default of "simple". "Simple" statistics would basically be total counts (number of edits, maybe per namespace, number of deletions, etc), "detailed" would be "anything goes". A per-project policy could then require admins to at least allow simple statistics, or something like that. I'm not sure if this would be feasible and/or legally sound. I'm just brainstorming here. -- Daniel PS: sorry for cross-posting again. I guess this discussion should be moved to the foundation list or something. -- Homepage: http://brightbyte.de

2 1

Deletion of still-used images
by Florian Straub 07 Aug '06

07 Aug '06

Hi there, "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Another easy and obvious way is to get [[User:Orgullobot]] delinking > for us. User:Orgullomoore is happy to implement the bot with > translations and we have a good 40 languages already done. I have > thought we should wait until the single login is implemented before we > do this, but it's been 6+ months "coming soon", so I think we should > go ahead and if single login happens, well good for it. maybe someone is able to created a bot like CommonismNow, that can be operated by any user, who is registered with the bot. Maybe it would even be able to unlink images as fast as Checkusage scans them. Maybe I can win de:user:HardDisk for this, after he returns from vacation. Best regards, Flo PS: Brianna, decent POVs you mentioned in your posting!

1 0

Wikisource uploading to Commons only?
by Nathaniel Sheetz 21 Jul '06

21 Jul '06

Earlier today I started a discussion at the village pump about whether or not the English Wikisource should outsource all its image uploading (including scanned texts for transcripting/proofreading) to Commons. Sorry for the email, but I know that many admins may not be frequently checking the village pump. If any of you have something to contribute to the discussion, please do so. Thanks. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikisoure:Image_use_… Nathaniel (User:Spangineer)

1 0

Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings
by Brianna Laugher 20 Jul '06

20 Jul '06

Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings. (No source/no license/copyvionote) Why? Because it's counter-productive and therefore a waste of your time. If you notice a user already has a dozen recent warnings, or if you've got 10 more to add, instead of adding another one which they're just as likely to ignore, take the time to write a short sharp warning explaining * specifically what they're doing wrong (not "violating copyright" - "uploading logos" "uploading screenshots" "uploading random images from the web") * why it's wrong (like: source is require for all images - logos are considered unfree - screenshots don't take any new copyright) * relevant policy pages (usually Commons:Licensing) * where they can ask for help (their talk page, if you watch it, your talk page, Commons:Help desk / Village pump in their language) * the principle of WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK BEFORE UPLOADING. * that if they upload any more files and ignore what you've taken the time to say, then they will be blocked. And if they do that, then block them. If you're not an admin, ask one to block them. While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page. This is a good chance to drill home source/licensing requirements and the like, if they stick around. The aim of the warnings is to try and make users understand the importance of various copyright requirements. Spamming their talk page is not further to that aim, so it should be avoided. "Notifying the uploader" is not the real aim: making them understand is. As a rough guide, I would say first block, 1 or 3 days. Second block, 3 days or a week. Third block, a week or a month. Fourth block, I'd want to know a very good reason why it shouldn't be permanent. It all depends on the specific circumstances of course, like exactly how many images they're uploading, if they're giving false licenses, if they're responding to messages and warnings, if there's a language barrier, etc. regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise

5 5

repositories of content
by Mak Thorpe 14 Jul '06

14 Jul '06

Danny, when you get it finalized, to aid in the domino effect of persuading local repositories iit would be real nice if you contacted someone big like NPR or other media outlets for doing a story on it. If local repositories understand that established, significant collections such as LOC are doing this, it really removes a lot of skepticism, and provides formidable ass protection for bureaucrats whose sole job function appears to be job preservation. I have talked to one fellow at auch a collection and he thinks the idea is great, but is hesitant about how the conservative curators and board members would feel about such new fangled concepts. I resolved to do it guerrila style but going through the front door would be a lot more efficient and beneficial for all concerned. -Mak --------------------- daniwo59 at aol.com daniwo59 at aol.com Thu Jul 13 19:48:58 UTC 2006 That said, I still think we should wait until this is formalized. ... as Sabine pointed out, to begin looking at other repositories as well. Danny _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

1 0

repositories of content
by daniwo59＠aol.com 14 Jul '06

14 Jul '06

Hello As some of you may know, Brad and I were in DC for most of this week, where we werre joined by Mindspillage and NullC for some fascinating meetings with people from the Smithsonian, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Library of Congress, and the National Geographic Society. One of the primary purposes of these meetings was to identify content that we can use for our projects, including Wikisource. The meetings were very informative and productive. Given that there are certain legal issues involved, I will wait for Brad to describe in greater depth the outcome of these meetings. I will, however, describe two meetings that may have more immediate results for the Wikisource and Commons communities. Mindspillage and I had a great meeting with Lawrence (Larry) Swiader, the Deputy CIO of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. He has given us permission to use any and all of the material created and licensed by that Museum according to the terms of our license. This includes images, video, video transcripts, audio, and text, including the new Holocaust encyclopedia that they are building on line (in seven languages), and which they plan to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia of its kind in the world. All they are asking for in return in attribution. Essentially, although this was not said in so many words, they are releasing all of their in-hourse material according to the terms of the GNU-FDL. Larry was especially excited by the prospect of our people participating in the translation effort. I would like to point out that this is an outstanding repository of material, not just about World War II and the Holocaust, but about other modern instances of genocide, including Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. They have no problem whatsover with our translating their proprietary formats into free software formats such as .ogg files. At the end of our meeting, we discussed the need for a contract to formalize this agreement. Brad will be drafting one to send to their counsel, and things should be underway quickly. In the meantime, I encourage you to look through their materials and see what is there. The Library of Congress meeting was also quite spectacular. They also have enormous archives which they are willing to share, but I am noting here that some of their materials still fall under copyright so greater caution must be exercised. Over the next few weeks, we will better identify what is there for the taking. During our talks, they made mention of the fact that many important historical documents may have been scanned, but they have not yet been transcribed. One of the repositories mentioned was the Thomas Jefferson archives at Monticello. Speaking of this particular archive, they told us that the work was so daunting that the Jefferson people (and other groups as well) have taken to outsourcing the transcription work to India. I would like to suggest to the current Wikisource team and additional volunteers that we jump at this opportunity to help in the realtime preservation of these documents, which are of enormous historical importance. My other suggestion is that we contact these organizations in an organized manner, rather than as individuals, so that we appear organized and do not duplicate efforts. Finally, we have now contacted some of the most important repositories of content in the United States and we were welcomed by them. I encourage Wikimedians in other countries, representing other languages, to make the same coordinated effort with their local repositories in their respective languages. More to come, Danny

4 3

PLEASE HELP the Welcome log
by Brianna Laugher 13 Jul '06

13 Jul '06

Hello Commonsfolk and recently subscribed admins, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orgullobot/Welcome_log This is another plea for assistance on the Welcome log. PLEASE HELP us check it, even if it's only two users each day. There is a backlog of nearly two weeks. Newbies make a ton of mistakes and catching them early and correcting them is one way to cut down on future workload in terms of reducing required unlinking of images that need to be deleted, stopping problem uploaders earlier and reduce 'orphan' uncategorised images. After you've corrected their mistakes and left them a note explaining what they're doing wrong, if necessary, please remove their name from the list. It's very straightforward. Please help... even if you just look for some 'easy' users that had made no mistakes and remove their names from the list. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orgullobot/Welcome_log thanks, Brianna User:pfctdayelise PS: If you don't have 'quick nominate as no source/no license/for deletion + notify uploader' links installed, you might like to. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Quick-delete.js

4 6

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l