On 4/2/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
I think the problem is that our image table has no metadata information about the image, it only knows if we have it or not. We would need at least another bit: a good/bad flag.
[snip]
InstantantCommons users should check (with a maintencance script) their images are still free, and decide upon the reason (eg. delete fair use, keep superseded) what to do. We should also provide an automatic system to automatically check the files once a month, with 'proper' defaults (they will always be able to keep violations, but don't make easy that configuration).
After giving it some more thought I think it should work something like this:
*To get instant commons access to commons sites must agree to
**Display an instant commons notice (like what the wikimedia wikis do for commons content) and include the attribution and license data. **Poll a deletion feed at least once a day
If an image is indicated as deleted, the software will then remove the commons notices from the image, and the image will look like a local upload with no mention of commons. This should be a mandatory requirement for instantcommons access to Wikimedia commons.
The instant commons software should have also feature to automatically 'delete' these images, so that they can be undeleted by the site operator. This feature should default to on, but site operators can turn it off at their own peril.
If we do end up implementing something like what Platonides suggested, a review status for all images (including deleted ones) then the instant commons auto-deletion setting could depend on the review status.
More simply, we could add a deletion reason dropdown to the deletion dialog and just store the deletion cause code in the deletion log.
/* Non-free open content license (nd, nc...) */ /* Duplicated image */ /* Superseded */ /* Quality problems */ /* other */ /* Missing copyright status */ /* Known copyright violation */ /* Privacy or Libel issues */
I am pretty sure that requiring sites to remove the commons notice on images is something we must do. We need to make it crystal clear that we can not, do not, and will not take any responsibility for an image we've deleted.
Nor should we be encouraging anyone to automatically keep images commons has deleted. Sites should only keep images auto-pulled from commons then deleted on commons after they have made an informed decision to do so, not as a result of the software.
I would be inclined to say that we should not permit instantcommons access to sites which won't use autodeletion for at least the last two causes, if we do end up with detailed deletion cause codes. But I'm less sure about that.