I'd like to officially announce Andre Engels as the reigning KING OF THE FLICKRLICKRS. Andre was one of the first FlickrLickr reviewers, and has reviewed a total of 30,000 CC-BY-licensed Flickr images so far.
http://epov.org/cgi-bin/flickrlickr.pl?stats=1
Thanks to Andre for his continuing dedication. Though, KenWalker is catching up quickly with 24,000 reviewed pictures. ;-) There are currently 65 registered reviewers.
For those who do not know, FlickrLickr is a collaborative review process for picking freely licensed pictures on Flickr that should be uploaded to Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr
You see 50 random photos per page, edit their descriptions, and tick the ones you want to upload. The vast majority of photos on Flickr is of no relevance to us, or of unacceptable quality. So far, more than 150,000 pictures have been reviewed, and about 8,000 of these have been uploaded to Commons.
New pics are being uploaded to Flickr at a much faster rate than we can review them -- there are more than 5 million pictures under acceptable licenses on Flickr. So we always need more volunteers. Just e-mail me off-list if you want an account (include your Commons username).
You can review some of the favorites chosen by FlickrLickr users here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr/Highlights (That page could use some reorganization - feel free to be bold. :-)
Some FlickrLickr pictures have become featured, and we do our best to ensure that useful pictures get included in Wikimedia articles. Volunteer today, and one day you might be the next .. KING OF THE FLICKRLICKRS. ;-)
On 2/18/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like to officially announce Andre Engels as the reigning KING OF THE FLICKRLICKRS. Andre was one of the first FlickrLickr reviewers, and has reviewed a total of 30,000 CC-BY-licensed Flickr images so far.
http://epov.org/cgi-bin/flickrlickr.pl?stats=1
Thanks to Andre for his continuing dedication. Though, KenWalker is catching up quickly with 24,000 reviewed pictures. ;-) There are currently 65 registered reviewers.
For those who do not know, FlickrLickr is a collaborative review process for picking freely licensed pictures on Flickr that should be uploaded to Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr
You see 50 random photos per page, edit their descriptions, and tick the ones you want to upload. The vast majority of photos on Flickr is of no relevance to us, or of unacceptable quality. So far, more than 150,000 pictures have been reviewed, and about 8,000 of these have been uploaded to Commons.
New pics are being uploaded to Flickr at a much faster rate than we can review them -- there are more than 5 million pictures under acceptable licenses on Flickr. So we always need more volunteers. Just e-mail me off-list if you want an account (include your Commons username).
You can review some of the favorites chosen by FlickrLickr users here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr/Highlights (That page could use some reorganization - feel free to be bold. :-)
Some FlickrLickr pictures have become featured, and we do our best to ensure that useful pictures get included in Wikimedia articles. Volunteer today, and one day you might be the next .. KING OF THE FLICKRLICKRS. ;-) -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?+ for instance http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Building_reflection_chicago.jpg and some others Iv'e spotted
a LOT of images on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Flickr_review_needed have a "reviewer" field, yet {{flickrreview}} isn't filled in and thus images still show up there.
Is that a bug? a feature?
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?
The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?
The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. -- Peace & Love, Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Thanks, I was just wondering about the duplicity. I'll continue markign images as reviewed
On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?
The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
*Sigh*
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
We *depend* on the goodwill of content creators for our success. We will squander our good will by taking advantage of simple mistakes made by people who couldn't be expected to know any better.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Part of our review process thanks Flickr users for their selection of a free licenses. This serves three purposes: It increases our confidence that no mistake was made, it promotes free licenses over non-free ones, and it raises awareness of our project and encourages people to become direct contributors.
I hope that you can see the advantages of review and will withdraw your objections. No one is asking you to do any work on it... and the end result should be a healther collection of content and a larger community. I think it's a good tradeoff for verses a tiny number of potentially ambiguously copyrighted images that we'll lose.
On 2/19/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
And this just in... Flickr is now down because for the past two days it has been displaying the wrong images. Although this seems to have been limited to small images, there is no reason to see why other technical difficulties couldn't cause license data and images to be mismatched.
I'm glad the review bot compares the MD5sum of our copy and theirs. :)
On 2/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/20/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a reason on why flckrlickr doesn't fill in the fields at {{flickreview}} template?
The template was invented only recently, and has been applied to FlickrLickr images even more recently. FlickrLickr images are reviewed & correctly licensed (they were all under CC-BY when my bot spidered them); CC licenses are not revocable. The justification here is that "Another look can't hurt"; I'm worried that it will cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
*Sigh*
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a dropdown box.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr user. A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images uploaded directly to Commons.
I hope that you can see the advantages of review and will withdraw your objections. No one is asking you to do any work on it... and the end result should be a healther collection of content and a larger community. I think it's a good tradeoff for verses a tiny number of potentially ambiguously copyrighted images that we'll lose.
Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to do.
On 2/20/07, samuli@samulilintula.net samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a dropdown box.
Please re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood me and I'm not sure how to clarify other than to say that I'm speaking about Flickr users and not flickrlickr users.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr user. A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images uploaded directly to Commons.
We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.
Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to do.
No one asked you to.
2007/2/20, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.
Not really, there is a link to the image description page on Flickr, but I rarely use it. In general all you see is the photograph, description and tags (not the comments). The only way I sometimes notice copyvios on FlickrLickr is that there is a series of images (the images are shown in order of posting to Flickr, so if one person posts a series to Flickr, it usually shows up close to each other in FlickrLickr) that seems 'too good to be true'. Then I might go and check, and find that it indeed is.
You should probably edit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_images accordingly then once the discussion here is over.
-Yonatan
On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, samuli@samulilintula.net samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license. Not only would such an accidental and uncompensated release have zero legal standing, it is terrible from a position of ethics.
IIRC, and it has been a short while since I uploaded images with FlickrLickr, a FlickrLickr user *does not* select any license from a dropdown box.
Please re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood me and I'm not sure how to clarify other than to say that I'm speaking about Flickr users and not flickrlickr users.
Furthermore, there are *many* copyright violations on Flickr. Flickr refuses to take complaints from third parties so it is no wonder the accumulate. A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
Yes, but this chance has already once been reviewed by a FlickrLickr
user.
A second checks is just as silly an idea as double checking all images uploaded directly to Commons.
We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.
Well, I'm not going to touch any of those images I uploaded with FlickrLickr. Re-checking them is a waste of time, tagging them was a stupid move, and I'll let someone else choke on work no one has time to do.
No one asked you to.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license.
There is no dropdown on the upload screen. Licensing is a user preference, and not an easy to find one (I just took about 3 minutes to find it again, even though I've been there several times -- it's under "Your account|Privacy & Permissions|Defaults for new uploads").
The main problem is that Flickr does not indicate the currently selected license on the upload screen (though it does show it once the file has been uploaded), and that it makes it easy to "change" the licensing retroactively as many times as the user wants. But I find any claim of accidental CC licensing on Flickr very hard to believe, as it takes significant effort and understanding to use the CC option in the first place.
A second human review is a good sanity check against situations where the flickr user is not really the copyright holder.
I encourage copyright review and verification on all resources hosted on Wikimedia projects. The Flickrreview process is strangely specific, especially given that FlickrLickr _already_ involves human volunteer reviewers. When repeated copyvios from a particular Flickr user are pointed out to me, I also delete all their metadata from my database, so that no further images are shown for review.
We should work towards a solution that is not specific to one resource. The underlying principles will be similar to the "stable version" idea: if a user is not trusted, all their uploads will have to undergo copyright review. Such review could take two stages - smell test, and detailed review. The smell test would be the check for obvious signs of copyvio: promo photo, screenshot, etc. The detailed review could involve contacting the copyright holder. The smell test is mandatory, whereas the review is optional (but desirable).
A first way to implement this approach without special software would be to only use positive tagging for pictures that _have_ undergone in-depth copyright review, rather than trying to negative-tag all those which are semi-suspicious.
The detailed review could involve contacting the copyright holder.
unfortunately the structure of present copyright laws and also the lack of any decent mechanisms for searching the net for copies of images (i think google images only supports searching for text) make it impossible to tell for sure who the real copyright holder of an image is.
you can contact the person who the uploader claims is the copyright holder but if the uploader claims they made it themselves you can never be sure if they are telling the truth.
On 2/23/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/20/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, if a Flickr user misclicked on the dropdown and selected the wrong license unknowingly and unintentionally they did not make a valid release under that license.
There is no dropdown on the upload screen. Licensing is a user preference, and not an easy to find one (I just took about 3 minutes to find it again, even though I've been there several times -- it's under "Your account|Privacy & Permissions|Defaults for new uploads").
I would agree that it's vanishingly unlikely that a Flickr user would accidentally select a Creative Commons license rather than 'All rights reserved'. The latter is the default; changing the upload default isn't the most obvious thing in the Flickr interface, as Erik says. Changing the license on an image post-update is easier, but again unlikely to be done accidentally.
I suspect that what Greg is concerned about is that someone may intend a CC license but inadvertently select one that is different from the one they intended, or one they do not understand the implications of.
Since no compensation has been given to the Flickr user, no implied contract exists and thus we don't have that protection against accidental mis-licensing as Greg says. I'd suspect Wikipedia and our user who uploaded it would be fairly protected against any lawsuit for damages, but it would still be an irritation for all.
I suspect you're both right here; Erik, that checking the status of FlickrLickr images is a lower priority, and Greg, that it's still ideally worth doing.
-Matt