On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that would be kinda redundant.
Well, uh, *yeah*.
Commons was not started as a free-culture media repository of spectacular cultural potential. It was started as a shared image repository service project for the Wikimedia projects. Here we have Commons admins claiming it's toooo haaaard to do the job Commons was invented for, so they'll start behaving in an actively hostile manner to other Wikimedia projects.
It fails as a shared image repository service when the language barriers cause it to do a worse job than the projects working alone would do.
One person has suggested (hopefully jokingly) that he should behave with hostility. No one else is taking up that charge but we are interested in working towards solutions which improve things for everyone.
So when a new language starts using Commons for its images - the way all projects are supposed to with their free-content images - then Commons needs to add an admin or two from that project.
Okay sure, I've added it to our budget and we now have two open FTEs for Spanish speakers. The position requires fluency in multiple languages, a comprehensive understanding of international copyright law, and terrific people skills. We'll start interviewing right away, but with a salary of $0 and no benefits it might take us a while to fill the openings.
If Commons can't do the job with the admins it has now, it needs to add a new procedure to allow admins from said projects to be trusted to do the same job on Commons.
You've failed to make any argument why two stage upload from content from new users is in any way inferior to cramming it all into commons directly.
Else Commons fails in its original purpose, and will need replacing with a project that will work.
You're such a troll David. :)
With nearly a million images I think we're long past the point were anyone could reasonably call it a failure.