On 10/16/07, Samuli Lintula <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:15:26 +0300, Magnus Manske
<magnusmanske(a)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_ho…
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