Hi,
We have now started our official call for support regarding the long awaited CommonsDelinker (-unlinker, -orphaner...).
Many people have agreed on the commons-l that we urgently need a bot for delinking images in local wikis. Thus we now need to ask the foundation as this bot necessarily will have to break usual bot rules as it needs to run in every of the 701 Wikimedia wikis. It is unreasonable to await approval by 701 different Wikimedia wiki communities. They all use Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Commons now needs to efficiently interact with them in return:
That for the administrators of Wikimedia Commons request to be exempt from local bot policies in order to run this bot.
So I ask all people that are tired of time consuming human delinking in every wiki and that want to get rid of our copyvio backlog efficiently sign this call in meta-wiki (we need your support ;-):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker
Please also contact your local (wikipedia-, wikisource-, wikinews-...) communities so that they are already prepared and know what it is about. Communities that are openminded towards that service will take part as soon as possible at the beta test phase of that bot running at large scale.
If you are interested to know how this bot will work in detail have a look at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
Cheers, Arnomane
On 22/09/06, arnomane@gmx.de arnomane@gmx.de wrote:
every of the 701 Wikimedia wikis. It is unreasonable to await approval by 701 different Wikimedia wiki communities. They all use Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia Commons now needs to efficiently interact with them in return:
There's something backwards about this - Commons was created as a service project for the wikis. But instead of saving deleted images to local wikis it goes and removes the references to the images?
- d.
On 9/22/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's something backwards about this - Commons was created as a service project for the wikis. But instead of saving deleted images to local wikis it goes and removes the references to the images?
I think en.wikipedia can do without haveing copyvios from commons. We've got enough of our own.
On 9/22/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's something backwards about this - Commons was created as a service project for the wikis. But instead of saving deleted images to local wikis it goes and removes the references to the images?
The deleted files are by and large copyright violations. Some of them MAY be usable under fair use, but I don't think that's the job of the person removing copyright violations to work out, is it?
-Matt
On 23/09/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/22/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There's something backwards about this - Commons was created as a service project for the wikis. But instead of saving deleted images to local wikis it goes and removes the references to the images?
The deleted files are by and large copyright violations. Some of them MAY be usable under fair use, but I don't think that's the job of the person removing copyright violations to work out, is it?
Yeah, true. I'm still not so sure we should be going back and removing the image, rather than leaving a glaring gap for an interested editor to spot, particularly on the big wikis. Hmm.
- d.
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, true. I'm still not so sure we should be going back and removing the image, rather than leaving a glaring gap for an interested editor to spot, particularly on the big wikis. Hmm.
I mean "removing the image link from the article page, rather than leaving a glaring gap".
- d.
Well, they all get really pissed about those "glaring gaps" (=redlinks), so it seems many editors don't share this opinion.
Unfortunately.
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, true. I'm still not so sure we should be going back and removing the image, rather than leaving a glaring gap for an interested editor to spot, particularly on the big wikis. Hmm.
I mean "removing the image link from the article page, rather than leaving a glaring gap".
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l