On 10/16/07, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:15:26 +0300, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
OK, state of the union:
- WatchFlickr now adds {{flickrreview}} again
- CommonsHelper has a "direct upload" switch (off by default)
- Direct upload by CommonsHelper will add {{BotMoveToCommons}} with
the appropriate source language, so things will end in subcategories of [[Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review]]
An example of how it looks: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ARosemary_Clooneys_hom...
I'm a bit lost in this conversation. Did any human review the license information and such before or right after the image was transferred to Commons?
Well, * /presumably/ it was checked when it was uploaded in the original wikipedia * /presumably/ the guy who transfers it checked (how else does he know the name?) * /presumably/ the guy who transfers it checks the end result * /presumably/ the good people at commons check it when it is transfered
IMHO that's an improvement over the "normal" upload to commons ("oh, I found a pretty image on the web, I'll upload it to commons!";-)...
If the original wikipedia image has a valid license tag, how should one check anyway? The obvious criteria are: * Image is too large to be a thumbnail stolen from some webpage * Image does not contain borders, logos, or "(c)" texts * Image either has a source given (eg., nasa.gov), or * looks amateurish enough to be made by the original uploader ;-)
Yay for reasonable doubt!
Cheers, Magnus