On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Here are some main ones I know of:
- Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all and let local projects decide which to use.
I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images, we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near duplicates just because.
So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should be no problem. And in other cases we should make sure we have a nice long tagged VFD cycle so everyone who cares can see it on commonsticker.
- Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but without special treatment).
If the small PNG is not index colors then it hasn't been hacked to work around IE's bugs. Like above we shouldn't keep an image unless it is actually serving a purpose. Working around IE bugs is a purpose, but only if they are actually being used for that.
I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?
On 20/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Here are some main ones I know of:
- Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all and let local projects decide which to use.
I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images, we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near duplicates just because.
So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should be no problem.
Well in those cases we can virtually do what we like, because no one will notice. ;) However I suspect we still have quite an army of hardworking "SVG gnomes" who spend some time re-linking PNGs as SVGs. Then, when an admin comes to *look* at the image, it appears that is not used (virtually, was never used). I don't know what to do about these gnomes...
- Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but without special treatment).
If the small PNG is not index colors then it hasn't been hacked to work around IE's bugs. Like above we shouldn't keep an image unless it is actually serving a purpose. Working around IE bugs is a purpose, but only if they are actually being used for that.
I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?
How is us having images, which any project can choose to use or not, "shoving" images on anyone? This is a somewhat odd assertion. Anyway I don't know much about this, I just know it's a reason some people have. And I personally don't want to push deletion of non-copyvios when it's going to cause friction between Commons and another project.
cheers Brianna
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Well in those cases we can virtually do what we like, because no one will notice. ;)
Indeed.
I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?
How is us having images, which any project can choose to use or not, "shoving" images on anyone? This is a somewhat odd assertion. Anyway I don't know much about this, I just know it's a reason some people have. And I personally don't want to push deletion of non-copyvios when it's going to cause friction between Commons and another project.
Projects can always upload an image locally if it is deleted or not accepted on commons. (except those projects whom have totally disabled local upload, .. but thats a self-inflicted wound)
However, if an image is on commons and a project doesn't want it there is no way for the project to stop the image from being used.. other than abusing the badimagelist or tracking down each and every time someone puts it in an article. They lose the ability to make a decision once and have it bind.
I don't know that it is a problem for these, but I think that it's worthwhile to point out that it's worse for commons to have an image that projects reject than it is for commons to reject an image a project wants.
However, if an image is on commons and a project doesn't want it there is no way for the project to stop the image from being used.. other than abusing the badimagelist or tracking down each and every time someone puts it in an article. They lose the ability to make a decision once and have it bind.
users can just reupload it under new names if they want to war over an images use anyway.
there are plenty of mechanisms already in place to deal with users who are disruptive or edit war.
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Brianna Laugher Sent: 20 February 2007 01:07 To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons request for input: policy onautomatic image replacement
On 20/02/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Here are some main ones I know of:
- Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all and let local projects decide which to use.
I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images, we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near duplicates just because.
So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should be no problem.
Well in those cases we can virtually do what we like, because no one will notice. ;) However I suspect we still have quite an army of hardworking "SVG gnomes" who spend some time re-linking PNGs as SVGs. Then, when an admin comes to *look* at the image, it appears that is not used (virtually, was never used). I don't know what to do about these gnomes...
its a pretty serious issue with mediawiki, categories suffer from the same problem.
i'm not going to go looking for bug reports right now but i bet its already been reported.
the problem is we only track history for page text and file content. While all other history can in theory be recovered from this in practice such searches would be impractically slow but this is a big change that would need to be done by the core devs and they are busy firefighting growth issues afaict.
one thing you can do is check where the svg is used and look for recent edit warring over the issue but thats a lot of work.
personally i think such svg gnomes should be blocked on sight but thats a descision for individual projects to make.
2007/2/20, peter green plugwash@p10link.net:
personally i think such svg gnomes should be blocked on sight but thats a descision for individual projects to make.
So come and ban me for changing bitmap COAs to SVG versions, and I will delete them without changing to SVG on your project:P
You have axe so nobody can forbid you to cut off your head!
AJF/WarX