Maybe now is a good time to revive the "move all our free images to Commons" crusade. I'll grab my pitchfork...
--Andrew Whitworth
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm wrote:
And also why free content is preferred to be on Commons in the first place.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:27:39 +0200, "Derbeth" derbeth@wp.pl said:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:22:49 +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
Secondly, current version of the tool does a plagiarism - beacause it does not mention image authors and does not provide any mean (like by making images clickable) to check these authors.
Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Tricky to do this automatically since it's all wiki-text with templates, but we'll investigate a solution here.
Fortunately most images on Commons use {{Information}} template; in other cases it would be quite reasonable to simply assume, that names from links to User: namespace in image description are names of the authors.
That's a good example why it's so important to follow standards on Commons.
-- http://pl.wikipedia.org - otwarta encyklopedia http://pl.wikinews.org - otwarte źródło informacji http://pl.wikibooks.org - otwarte podręczniki
Opera - the fastest browser on Earth!
Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
-- Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm
Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l