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.
We *depend* on the goodwill of content creators for our success. We will squander our good will by taking advantage of simple mistakes made by people who couldn't be expected to know any better.
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.
Part of our review process thanks Flickr users for their selection of a free licenses. This serves three purposes: It increases our confidence that no mistake was made, it promotes free licenses over non-free ones, and it raises awareness of our project and encourages people to become direct contributors.
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.