On 4/1/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/1/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler
<daniel(a)brightbyte.de> wrote:
It would be in our interest to block access to
sites which continue to
distribute copyright infringements which we have deleted.
Right. On another note, has a policy been thought out about mediawiki
installations which would bar their users from uploading images
locally and ask them to do so on Commons?
Does the Wikimedia Commons community have the strength to deal with
potentially thousands of new users not aware of our "free" policies
and uploading images to Commons?
Is there a requirement that the websites allowed to use InstantCommons
host free content? Or can every Tom Dick or Harry use InstantCommons?
It's just a software feature. We might not use it. I would strongly
suggest that we not use it until we have good answers to these
questions.
As far as handling new users goes, ... we need to improve that for
ourselves even without the extra pressure of instantcommons. Many
things have been proposed, few implemented.
As far as free content or not sites goes, It would be be very
interesting when some of our commons users start enforcing the
copyleft terms of their images licenses against sites using instant
commons images in sites which are non-free.
For the copyright related concerns I raised earlier in the thread,
here is a fun datapoint:
177,734 files uploaded to commons in Jan and Feb 2007,
of those files 20,741 have already been deleted which is a bit under
12%. There have been 45,810 total image deletions on commons since Jan
1st.
This graph is also interesting:
http://72.165.205.81/dimage_life3.png
It shows the distribution of age at time of deletion for files deleted
on commons. The green curve is the most recent quarter, the purple is
prior quarter. It's clear that the introduction of bot-deletion for
backlogs has had a substantial impact on the timing of our deletions.
The slope of the CDF after it initially stabilises would indicate that
once a file has passed 15 or so days old the probability of us
deleting on any given day is just a small constant. This wouldn't be
bad if old deletions weren't such a substantial fraction of our total
deletions.