I agree that the "precautionary principle" has been used repeatedly to delete files while there wasn't a "significant doubt" about a copyright violation.

Alas, the community has had difficulties (euphemism...) to read a sain consensus on this point.
If you have any receipt for a solution, I am all ears. ;)



2017-07-30 5:07 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com>:
I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle

The policy states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"  yet when it comes to nominating a file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to believe its not free because....."  there should more onus on the nominator at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt 

We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

I think a change from the current
  • Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
  • A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: 

Commons-l mailing list