On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't
fill in the fields at
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.
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
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on
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
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