On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez
<pdsanchez(a)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.