I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_princ...
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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Project_scope/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:
to
- 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:
It would probably be easier to specify that "significant doubt" means raising some specific fact and source for it (even if falling short of a complete proof). For instance, a bad reason for deletion is "I don't see a proof this is <1923"; a better one is "I think this photo is from 19xy or later so the copyright tag Z may not apply".
The reason for this is that the significant doubt must be debatable, otherwise it's just a variant of the Russel teapot.
Nemo
Folks are terrible at agreeing what "significant" means, including some immovable admins who regularly read it as "any".
Go for it.
Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 30 Jul 2017 04:08, "Gnangarra" gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Project_scope/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:
to
- 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:
-- Gnangarra
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi,
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. ;)
Regards,
Yann
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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Project_scope/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:
to
- 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:
-- Gnangarra
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l