On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?
The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
*Sigh*
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a dropdown box.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr user. A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images uploaded directly to Commons.
I hope that you can see the advantages of review and will withdraw your objections. No one is asking you to do any work on it... and the end result should be a healther collection of content and a larger community. I think it's a good tradeoff for verses a tiny number of potentially ambiguously copyrighted images that we'll lose.
Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to do.