precautionary principle - Commons-l

30 Jul 2017

I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_prin…

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