In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:51:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Yeah, that's less than ideal, unless the admin is quite sure and turns
out to be very accurate. What's the accuracy percentages we're looking
at?>>
-----------------
No one knows. The caseload is so large that no one can really review it.
Some of the situations are so mangled that it's hard to get a grasp on it.
Remembering that many of these images were loaded at a time *prior* to the
current convention and language, by people who aren't in-wiki any longer.
Which only makes the problem that much more difficult to measure.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:51:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wikipedia(a)zog.org writes:
+1, if you make the error message clear enough. Which I'm sure you will.
:)>>>
------------------
For example "You can subscribe by clicking this link... or sending the word
Subscribe in your subject line, etc etc "
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:37:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
Mind you, I suspect 200 a day or 1000 a day or whatever (I would
*guess* the latter is getting close to the rate of crap uploads, but
anyway) would lead to *more* deletion, as the backlog is much more
human-reviewable.>>
------------------------------------
By the way, I believe BC has already implemented, or said-he-would-implement
a limit on the tagging rate.
And I have no problem with more deletion, provided there is a reasonable
time spent in human review.
However I, and others, expressed concern, that this was unlikely given the
extreme back load. When deletions take place, for a single admin, at the rate
of 50 per minute, we can guarantee that reasonable review was not done.
That is what we want to avoid going forward yes.
But in addition, some of the deletions which *were* done, now need to be
reviewed and undone, as being probable borderline cases.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:24:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scs(a)eskimo.com writes:
vociferously in favor of removing everything but free images)
has so vastly much more time and energy on its hands that
I'm never, ever going to win. So I concede, and sleep easy.>>
------------------
And see I don't. What I do, is work within the system, to correct the
mis-interpretations and extreme viewpoints. That, in my view, enhances the
project.
When you *are* City Hall, you can *fight* City Hall. It just takes the
realization that you are, in fact, part of the controlling system, not subject to
it.
Our system is created by community consensus. It is not dictated from on
high. We are all on-high. We are not a bureaucracy, we are a discursive
democracy.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:19:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dgerard(a)gmail.com writes:
You have still failed to address what you were originally claiming:
that there was an actual problem with BetacommandBot beyond upsetting
people who failed to understand WP:NONFREE or didn't want to.>>
---------------
David, the long discussion on-wiki was in general about
A) the bot tagging 11 thousand images in a few days and then
B) stating that there was some kind of deadline by which they all had to be
reviewed.
Putting that sort of extreme workload out on the system, creates a situation
in which admins rush through trying to reduce the backlog. That is never a
reasonable approach, imho. This issue would have never been raised had the
bot been programmed to do no more than say 200 a day or whatever.
I'm sure we can all agree that creating thousands of cases to review is not
a useful result.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 4:12:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
it's these new situations
that generally result in cries of "admin abuse">>
----------------------------
I don't think I have the same level of faith.
We still have situations where an admin uses their tools while engaged in a
content dispute.
We still have situations where admins use process-wonking to try to win
content disputes.
Neither situation is the approach that we want to encourage. And both are
the situations we want to control.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
D, I did provide a particular case where the use of the Non-free policy
created a quite silly result.
Other than Geni who seems to be trying out for the debating society (that's
a joke!), no one has really presented any reasonable argument that would both:
A) enhance the project and B) address this specific case.
And by reasonable, I don't tendentious and extreme interpretation's of
Nonfree.
We *want to encourage* authors and artists to add their content to the
project. That enhances the project. Creating bureaucratic nightmares for them
isn't really helping us to help them. And we end up with people, otherwise
believing in us, leaving because we make it so difficult.
Could you address, specifically and directly the case of Ben Patrick Johnson
that I recently mentioned. Trying to make everyone only add free content,
ignores the fact that we are allowed to add fair use content. So what I'd
like to see is an example where this book cover could be added, under fair use
content. Arguing that it should be added only as a free image isn't going to
address my concerns that new fair-use images are being unfairly targeted for
deletion.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 3:22:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
Florida and most US law is based on English common law. The role of
consideration in contract law is one of the things that comes from
English common law.
Most of the US (and most of the former British empire) is a common law
jurisdiction.>>
---------------------
No one is disupting that, but English common law is not what's under
consideration since US and Floridian law has moved far beyond the roots. What is
being considered is what law we *actually* must adhere to, not that law from
which it came.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 3:13:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
There is no contract without consideration. If a stranger took the
picture out of a sense of friendliness there is perhaps a gift, but no
contract. The situation may be different if you bought him a drink in
exchange for taking your picture.>>
------------------
Yes I'd say a thing like this would normally be considered a *gift*. No
reasonable person would interpret this action as creating any form of ownership
over the product.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:43:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
The counter argument to that is that would probably be to bring up the
role of consideration (I'm assuming english common law based here
Napoleonic code and the like will be somewhat different). Again I must
stress I don't know or pretend to know what the law would decide in
this area.>>
----------------------
Moot. We're dealing with the law as it applies in Florida (and the US in
general).
I am glad you stress that you don't know what the law would decide in this
area. Just so we're clear on that.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)