On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
**
Yes, there are a number of regulars at Commons:Deletion requests who will
vote "Keep" on any Flickr-validated images regardless of evidence of
copyright violation (or other policy problems). Unfortunately, this problem
is about to get worse as we're probably going to be adding automatic Flickr
transfer to the Upload Wizard this summer. I'm not sure what the solution
to this is, other than getting more smart people to be Commons admins.
Ryan Kaldari
Well, is there a chance now that anyone might delete the images we've been
discussing here, per the Board Resolution on Personality Rights and
Commons' own Guideline, incl. any copies in the web archive? We are now,
through this public discussion, propagating an additional set of links to
these privacy-infringing images.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people
Part of the solution, Ryan, surely is to de-admin admins who do not uphold
guidelines and policies. If the community is unable to do it, the office
should do it. Admins are being negligent, collude with breaches of
personality rights, and enable anonymous individuals to engage in media
licensing fraud, whether intentionally or by gross incompetence, as here
for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Joseph_Sta…
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot afford to turn a blind eye to such endemic
abuses.
The other, more proactive part of the solution is to actually
*train*admins, make them pass a test rather than a popularity contest,
and have
regular performance reviews.
Andreas
On 4/8/12 2:47 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
In my experience this is a prevalent problem on Commons; whether over
issues of personality rights or copyright. Users are fairly dismissive of
things that should throw up huge red flags.
For example tonight I came across this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rush_limba… Image
was quite legitimately questioned; the Flickr image notes are quite a red
flag suggesting that it might be a problem. Trivial work with Tineye and
Archive.org showed it is a clear copyvio.
But the original nominators comments were dismissed with apparently no
investigation.
Stuff like personality rights and copyright should be taken a lot more
seriously; with effort made to prove the lack of a problem, rather than
demand to have the issue presented on a plate (and then continue to ignore
it).
Tom
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing
listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l