Greetings to everybody,
On pfctdayelise's suggestion who's never afraid of rejoicing for something, I'd like to request a round of applause for Mikhail Evstafiev.
Mikhail Evstafiev is a Russian artist, painter, writer and photographer. He has covered the wars in Bosnia and Chechnya (hint: these are dangerous places and recent periods before Wikipedia was born, two factors which usually make it difficult to gather images), and various political and cultural events.
A while ago, Evstafiev was contacted to enquire whether he would agree to licence some of his photographs under Free licences. He did, and since then he has created an account and uploaded quite a few photographs himself. His work can be seen at : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mikhail_Evstafiev and his account is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Evstafiev
What should we do from there ? my suggestions: 1) On the moral aspect: Rejoice: there are really interesting people on Commons. 2) On the social aspect: Do our outmost so that people like Evstafiev feel at home on Commons and really become part of the family (Seek them on the Internet, ask them to join, explain how it is around here and how contributing to Commons is a symbiosis, provide technical support) 3) On the technical aspect: Watch this sort of images over and over and over again and learn how to compose photos that strong ourselves.
Cheers ! -- Rama
On 11/6/07, Rama Rama ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
- On the social aspect: Do our outmost so that people like Evstafiev
feel at home on Commons and really become part of the family (Seek them on the Internet, ask them to join, explain how it is around here and how contributing to Commons is a symbiosis, provide technical support)
Yeah. Looking at his talk page makes me sad -- the usual round of scripted & stacked image deletion warnings for copyright reasons. We need socially more appropriate ways to deal with copyright issues.
On Nov 6, 2007 8:24 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yeah. Looking at his talk page makes me sad -- the usual round of scripted & stacked image deletion warnings for copyright reasons. We need socially more appropriate ways to deal with copyright issues.
This is one of the reasons I've advocated that add a realtime web chat feature. New user education should be handled in a human-to-human real-time manner as much as possible. We probably do not have the resources to handle all cases and all users this way, but especially for the newest users we should make an effort.
There are a number of other improvements that could be made. For example, the notices that we give people could be made to sound more friendly and personal, and less like a parking tickets. But I think that ultimately it comes back to the software: If we won't accept people uploading without identifying the author (a good thing!) then we should have an upload form that makes such mandatory information actually mandatory.
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is one of the reasons I've advocated that add a realtime web chat feature.
100% in favor.
Wikia is currently funding further development of the LiquidThreads discussion extension, for the purpose of deploying it on Wikia. Funding will continue, and the project will be supervised by me, into December 25.
I've always targeted chat as a feature for the extension, so we'll see if we can get this done within that timeframe. If not, and if you are aware of either volunteers or sources of funding for this, please let me know.
On 06/11/2007, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is one of the reasons I've advocated that add a realtime web chat feature.
100% in favor.
Wikia is currently funding further development of the LiquidThreads discussion extension, for the purpose of deploying it on Wikia. Funding will continue, and the project will be supervised by me, into December 25.
Has wikia started releaseing the source code of any of it's extentions yet?
"Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org wrote on :
On 11/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
This is one of the reasons I've advocated that add a realtime web chat feature.
[snip]
I've always targeted chat as a feature for the extension, so we'll see if we can get this done within that timeframe. If not, and if you are aware of either volunteers or sources of funding for this, please let me know.
What about something like the applet at http://wikipedia-irc.cruxwan.de/Chat.html or what about simply promoting IRC a bit more in those templates?
Regards,
Flo
On 08/11/2007, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What about something like the applet at http://wikipedia-irc.cruxwan.de/Chat.html or what about simply promoting IRC a bit more in those templates?
Mmm. Is there a #wikimedia-commons-help channel or similar?
(Watch me not volunteer ;-)
- d.
"David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote on Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:42 AM:
On 08/11/2007, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
What about something like the applet at http://wikipedia-irc.cruxwan.de/Chat.html or what about simply promoting IRC a bit more in those templates?
Mmm. Is there a #wikimedia-commons-help channel or similar?
(Watch me not volunteer ;-)
Now there is #commons-help and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:New_user_support
Don't hesitate improving it :))
Flo
On 07/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There are a number of other improvements that could be made. For example, the notices that we give people could be made to sound more friendly and personal, and less like a parking tickets. But I think that ultimately it comes back to the software: If we won't accept people uploading without identifying the author (a good thing!) then we should have an upload form that makes such mandatory information actually mandatory.
What are the difficulties with doing that? What's stopping that happening?
Leaving aside the structured-data thing (in the belief that it's not going to happen anytime soon), could we superficially improve the upload form?
Say, use Javascript to create form elements (text fields) for the various bits of {{information}}, and then do some Javascript warning if you hit 'Upload' but haven't filled one of them out?
Also, would this really solve anything? If you make fields mandatory don't people just lie to get past them? (which is kind of where we're at now.) After all you can require someone to fill out a field but you can't technically require someone to tell the truth (or even care).
cheers Brianna
What are the difficulties with doing that? What's stopping that happening?
Leaving aside the structured-data thing (in the belief that it's not going to happen anytime soon), could we superficially improve the upload form?
Say, use Javascript to create form elements (text fields) for the various bits of {{information}}, and then do some Javascript warning if you hit 'Upload' but haven't filled one of them out?
Also, would this really solve anything? If you make fields mandatory don't people just lie to get past them? (which is kind of where we're at now.) After all you can require someone to fill out a field but you can't technically require someone to tell the truth (or even care).
In this case, the difference would not be so much in the technical bells and whistles than in the "shoot on sight" policy for images which don't have an author specified. A really convincing lie is probably as difficult to do than a Free image, so most people don't bother.
This being said, the "mandatory author", if considered, must be refined (else we'd have to get rid of most Egyptian antiques...). The strictest implementation I can imagine would be to require the name of the author for works published after a "safety time", a date before which works cannot possibly not be in the public domain by now (it's be in the 150 years order of magnitude, making provisions for the author living 80 years after he created the work and a 70-year delay for public domain. Beware, a 150-year provision does NOT take specifics into account, like the 30 year bonus for authors who "died for France". Count 200 years to be reasonably sure).
-- Rama
On 06/11/2007, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yeah. Looking at his talk page makes me sad -- the usual round of scripted & stacked image deletion warnings for copyright reasons. We need socially more appropriate ways to deal with copyright issues.
Yes. These messages are newbie-biting at its finest.
- d.
On Nov 6, 2007 8:42 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. These messages are newbie-biting at its finest.
0_o
Is this what newbie-biting is? I thought it was being hostile to new users.
There are certainly lots of things there which are unoptimal. But newbie-biting?
I would not call giving an established user a polite standard notice that they forgot to specific a license (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Rakhat_Aliyev.jpg&d...) on their 60th upload "newbie biting". Here we could improve things by adding a step to new user creation that allows new users to select "for images where I am the creator or copyright holder, I will allow them to be released under this licensing unless I specify otherwise". A default. It could default the license selector, and if the default were made public other people could just fix the tagging rather than nagging. That wouldn't solve the need to ask for authorship, but that issue should be fixed on the upload form.
Nor would I call it newbie biting to politely inquire why someone has uploaded an image owned by reuters...
Perhaps you could be more specific about the biting?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Here we could improve things by adding a step to new user creation that allows new users to select "for images where I am the creator or copyright holder, I will allow them to be released under this licensing unless I specify otherwise". A default. It could default the license selector, and if the default were made public other people could just fix the tagging rather than nagging. That wouldn't solve the need to ask for authorship, but that issue should be fixed on the upload form.
Only if you know that user is a good one. There was a time where you didn't need to specify the author if using {{GFDL-self}}, and there was only one {{PD}}
Still today, with current rules you see a lot of uploading with fake free licenses from the selector. Showing always the same and autoreorganising the uploaded images might be useful, but also hide copyvios / false claims.
I've also been rather frustrated with some of the automated tags. For instance, I recently had an album jacket image removed for lack of fair use rationale which I uploaded using a fair use template for album jacket artwork in an article about the album/CD. It was unclear to me where the discussion about fair use was and how wikimedia/ wikipedia could have two different and conflicting views on album artwork and fair use. I asked in the IRC channel and everyone just said, "when I get a bot tag, I just let it get deleted"... which I guess is one way of viewing it...
I guess if there were some link to a discussion page or something where you could ask for clarification, that would be useful.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Yeah. Looking at his talk page makes me sad -- the usual round of scripted & stacked image deletion warnings for copyright reasons. We need socially more appropriate ways to deal with copyright issues.
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On Nov 6, 2007 8:49 AM, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I've also been rather frustrated with some of the automated tags. For instance, I recently had an album jacket image removed for lack of fair use rationale which I uploaded using a fair use template for album jacket artwork in an article about the album/CD. It was unclear to me where the discussion about fair use was and how wikimedia/ wikipedia could have two different and conflicting views on album artwork and fair use. I asked in the IRC channel and everyone just said, "when I get a bot tag, I just let it get deleted"... which I guess is one way of viewing it...
I guess if there were some link to a discussion page or something where you could ask for clarification, that would be useful.
Ahh. This one isn't too hard to explain, I hope:
Some Wikimedia projects do not allow any "fair use" at all, or really any copyrighted image which is unlicensed or without a free content license.
The communities of some projects (For example, Spanish Wikipedia) have decided on a balance of freedom of reuse verses thoroughness of coverage which is different from the one found on English Wikipedia. It is also the case that we have some projects, such as Wiktionary a wiki dictionary, where the need for unlicensed copyrighted works is not so clear.
Wikimedia commons uploads should be usable on *all* projects, and reusers should have a basic confidence that works on commons are expected to be legal for almost all kinds of reuse under almost all systems of law.
Because of these policy and purposes differences, unlicensed images are not usable on all projects. So, instead they should be uploaded directly to whatever project you intend to use them on, such as English Wikipedia.
You can find more information at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_...
OK, so to be sightly more specific... this happened on en.wikipedia so maybe this isn't the right place to discuss, but...
I used this template for my FU rationale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_album_cover
And got this message:
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SummerCDJI.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SummerCDJI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And then this deletion:
21:09, 1 November 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:SummerCDJI.jpg" (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW)
--
So my question is, where do I find out what the FU policy is on cover art. The Template:Non-free_album_cover seemed to state it was OK.
- Joi
On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 8:49 AM, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
I've also been rather frustrated with some of the automated tags. For instance, I recently had an album jacket image removed for lack of fair use rationale which I uploaded using a fair use template for album jacket artwork in an article about the album/CD. It was unclear to me where the discussion about fair use was and how wikimedia/ wikipedia could have two different and conflicting views on album artwork and fair use. I asked in the IRC channel and everyone just said, "when I get a bot tag, I just let it get deleted"... which I guess is one way of viewing it...
I guess if there were some link to a discussion page or something where you could ask for clarification, that would be useful.
Ahh. This one isn't too hard to explain, I hope:
Some Wikimedia projects do not allow any "fair use" at all, or really any copyrighted image which is unlicensed or without a free content license.
The communities of some projects (For example, Spanish Wikipedia) have decided on a balance of freedom of reuse verses thoroughness of coverage which is different from the one found on English Wikipedia. It is also the case that we have some projects, such as Wiktionary a wiki dictionary, where the need for unlicensed copyrighted works is not so clear.
Wikimedia commons uploads should be usable on *all* projects, and reusers should have a basic confidence that works on commons are expected to be legal for almost all kinds of reuse under almost all systems of law.
Because of these policy and purposes differences, unlicensed images are not usable on all projects. So, instead they should be uploaded directly to whatever project you intend to use them on, such as English Wikipedia.
You can find more information at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on _the_Commons
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 06/11/2007, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
OK, so to be sightly more specific... this happened on en.wikipedia so maybe this isn't the right place to discuss, but... I used this template for my FU rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_album_cover And got this message: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SummerCDJI.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:SummerCDJI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) And then this deletion: 21:09, 1 November 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:SummerCDJI.jpg" (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW)
Fair use is a vexed issue on en:wp.
There's a Metric Arsehold of angst compressed into that short sentence ...
- d.
On Nov 6, 2007 9:29 AM, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
OK, so to be sightly more specific... this happened on en.wikipedia so maybe this isn't the right place to discuss, but...
It isn't ... but thats perfectly okay.
I used this template for my FU rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_album_cover And got this message: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SummerCDJI.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:SummerCDJI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid.
[snip]
AHH. Have you ever seen [[Brazil_(film)]]? The movie features an oppressive, and apparently nonsensical, government bureaucracy.
I don't think it's too much of an overstatement to say that you've bumped into a little slice of Brazil inside English Wikipedia.
All unlicensed images on English must have include a statement of why the image is expect to be acceptable as fair use. This isn't an unreasonable demand, or .. isn't when you have our expirence! ... it also shouldn't be a demand that is too hard to comply with.
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
You are required to provide a rationale which isn't the template. It can pretty much be a simple repetition of the text in template. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline (which is linked from the bottom of the template) for instructions.
I happen to think this is an example of stupid and bureaucratic non-sense to require you to do a bunch of unneeded paperwork to permit an image that we will ultimately accept when the paperwork is done.
I've tried to change the procedure on a couple of occasions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_use_ration...) but the status-quo on English Wikipedia can be impressively resistant to change, so it hasn't happened yet. (feel free to read the discussion that followed from my comment)
What I can't do, apparently, is fix things so that they aren't stupid. But what I can do is offer to do the paperwork for you. Let me know (e-mail is best) when you upload something like an album cover to English Wikipedia, and I'll simply take care of all the byzantine details for you.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks a lot for this Gregory. Extremely useful. I will do the work myself in the future. I just didn't understand it. Slowly learning the ways of your wiki wiki world. heh
On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Nov 6, 2007 9:29 AM, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
OK, so to be sightly more specific... this happened on en.wikipedia so maybe this isn't the right place to discuss, but...
It isn't ... but thats perfectly okay.
I used this template for my FU rationale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_album_cover And got this message: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SummerCDJI.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:SummerCDJI.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid.
[snip]
AHH. Have you ever seen [[Brazil_(film)]]? The movie features an oppressive, and apparently nonsensical, government bureaucracy.
I don't think it's too much of an overstatement to say that you've bumped into a little slice of Brazil inside English Wikipedia.
All unlicensed images on English must have include a statement of why the image is expect to be acceptable as fair use. This isn't an unreasonable demand, or .. isn't when you have our expirence! ... it also shouldn't be a demand that is too hard to comply with.
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
You are required to provide a rationale which isn't the template. It can pretty much be a simple repetition of the text in template. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non- free_use_rationale_guideline (which is linked from the bottom of the template) for instructions.
I happen to think this is an example of stupid and bureaucratic non-sense to require you to do a bunch of unneeded paperwork to permit an image that we will ultimately accept when the paperwork is done.
I've tried to change the procedure on a couple of occasions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Non- free_use_rationale_guideline&diff=prev&oldid=149336799) but the status-quo on English Wikipedia can be impressively resistant to change, so it hasn't happened yet. (feel free to read the discussion that followed from my comment)
What I can't do, apparently, is fix things so that they aren't stupid. But what I can do is offer to do the paperwork for you. Let me know (e-mail is best) when you upload something like an album cover to English Wikipedia, and I'll simply take care of all the byzantine details for you.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 06/11/2007, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Thanks a lot for this Gregory. Extremely useful. I will do the work myself in the future. I just didn't understand it. Slowly learning the ways of your wiki wiki world. heh
Worlds. en:wp isn't Commons either. Fun fun fun!
- d.
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
There's probably a bit of that. The problem is that we have a firehose of nonfree stuff being uploaded under the hitherto-unknown "I wanna!" clause of US fair use law. So cleaning it up is getting a bit harsher. I'm a big fan of fair use when encyclopedically useful (and we could get away with *FAR* more than we do), but the floods of crap and the whinier flooders are really quite, um, annoying.
- d.
On Nov 6, 2007 12:46 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
There's probably a bit of that. The problem is that we have a firehose of nonfree stuff being uploaded under the hitherto-unknown "I wanna!" clause of US fair use law. So cleaning it up is getting a bit harsher. I'm a big fan of fair use when encyclopedically useful (and we could get away with *FAR* more than we do), but the floods of crap and the whinier flooders are really quite, um, annoying.
David really hit on the primary reason here: It's the firehose of "I wanna!"s.
It's a lot easier for people to clean up rubbish if they can avoid waisting their lives with never ending arguments by relying on simple bright line bureaucratic rules. "Oh you used blue ink. The form clearly says black ink. I'm going to rip this up and you're going to have to start over".
Invested parties don't want to lose the tools that make their lives easier. ... and if you don't stand back and look at the bigger picture it doesn't sound too unreasonable. And then there is the fear... "what if this requirement is the only thing holding back a tidal wave?!".
I'd actually feel better if Andrew's suspicion were true, at least that would imply that someone thought through the effects. I don't think thats the case.
The process has been minting a whole generation of highly invested '"I wanna" attornies' who are now actively working to change the English Wikipedia project policy to permit anything they can get away with ('free' as in we haven't been caught yet). :(
Of course, this is also relevant to commons... both in terms of the risks of following in English's footsteps, and that fact that we catch no small amount of fallout from their actions.
On Nov 6, 2007 12:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's a lot easier for people to clean up rubbish if they can avoid waisting their lives with never ending arguments by relying on simple bright line bureaucratic rules. "Oh you used blue ink. The form clearly says black ink. I'm going to rip this up and you're going to have to start over".
It's actually worse than you think. That particular enforcement rule is because the description page doesn't link to an existing article. One interpretation of WP:NFCC 10c is that the description should link to every article that is it being used on. If this is not the case it will be tagged as an invalid rationale, *even* if there is a plain text human entered rationale there. Why this isn't made more apparent in the edit summary is a mystery, and may very well be due to Andrew's theory. You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale to put in a rationale, which requires an article name as a parameter...
I'm not justifying this interpretation, and explaining it does make me feel like a Brazil-style bureaucrat, but there you go. :)
This whole scheme is being worked on, and may, hopefully eventually be simplified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal
Tuesday, 6 November 2007, Andrew Gray wrote:
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
And yet I still hear people complaining that it's so much harder to upload stuff with a correct licence at Commons because they want to upload fair use images, which we don't allow.
My usual response to that is that things are actually much simpler at Commons *because* we don't allow works under fair use provisions. If you think it's easier at English Wikipedia, you probably just haven't been caught yet.
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
No it's to make you think and hopefully show that on some level you understand what you are doing.
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:57 PM, geni wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/11/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Because of some rather legalistic interpretations of the policy, the template you applied to the image which has *all appearances of a rationale* and which probably says exactly what you would say for a rationale if you spent a long time thinking about it .... isn't actually considered a rationale.
I sometimes wonder if this is an elaborate trick to put people off using non-free images, simply by making it such a hassle that it's not worth their time...
No it's to make you think and hopefully show that on some level you understand what you are doing. -- geni
Well, I read the template which seemed to be a pretty legitimate fair use argument. Clearly I misunderstood the process, but I would like to assert that I did "think" and that "on some level" understood what I was doing on the copyright level... but you're welcome to disagree. :-p
-- My Blog - http://joi.ito.com/ My Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/ Facebook Profile - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505656997 LinkedIn Profile - http://www.linkedin.com/profile?key=1391
On 06/11/2007, Joichi Ito jito@neoteny.com wrote:
Well, I read the template which seemed to be a pretty legitimate fair use argument.
Uncertain. It could be argued that using the covers solely to illustrate with no commentary on the covers is a problem.
Clearly I misunderstood the process, but I would like to assert that I did "think" and that "on some level" understood what I was doing on the copyright level... but you're welcome to disagree. :-p
You do that asserting by writing out a rational.
Rama Rama wrote:
What should we do from there ? my suggestions:
- On the moral aspect: Rejoice: there are really interesting people
on Commons. 2) On the social aspect: Do our outmost so that people like Evstafiev feel at home on Commons and really become part of the family (Seek them on the Internet, ask them to join, explain how it is around here and how contributing to Commons is a symbiosis, provide technical support) 3) On the technical aspect: Watch this sort of images over and over and over again and learn how to compose photos that strong ourselves.
Above all, don't do something like the following comment at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Evstafiev_Mikhail:
-- Looking at all his images. I have actually strong doubts that the uploader is the author of all these photos. --ALE! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ALE%21 ¿…? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ALE%21 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On 06/11/2007, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Above all, don't do something like the following comment at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Evstafiev_Mikhail: Looking at all his images. I have actually strong doubts that the uploader is the author of all these photos. --ALE! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ALE%21 ¿…? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ALE%21 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How to quell really stupid deletion requests? AFD on en:wp has the same problem.
- d.
On Nov 6, 2007 12:56 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
How to quell really stupid deletion requests? AFD on en:wp has the same problem.
Provide mechanisms for resolving things that don't involve deletion requests!
Actually, commons is normally pretty good in this regard. ...