On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:16:18 +0100, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM, cohesion
<cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org>
wrote:
Thousands of bad images get uploaded every week,
there is simply
no way to give each one 20 minutes of editor time to review.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it was not a recently uploaded
image - it's been on the site for almost two years.
Well two years ago the Non-free (then title "fair use") policy stated
(among other things):
"(...)For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the
article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image
description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be
clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question."
-
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&oldid=43474222>
And yes it was official policy at that point. One might argue that it was
not very well known (or enforced) back then, but requieiring a link to the
article is hardly some recent retroactive addition, it's been in there for
a very long time (see below).
This one was
deleted because it claimed to be fair use, but didn't link
to any article. That may seem extreme, but when we are dealing with
thousands of images the work really has to rely on the uploader.
Linking to the article has only recently been required. Imposing new
rules and then expecting someone who uploaded an image 2 years ago to
still be on the site to make that change is rather ludicrous.
Depends on your definition of recently. True it's only been "hard" policy
for a couple of years, but even the earliest precursor to the current
policy I know off
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Image_description_page&oldid=1431693>
(4 September 2003), states:
"Remember there is no "general rule" about fair use, each "fair
use" must
be explained and a rationale must be established for that specific use
(i.e. every page that uses the image will have a distinct rationale for
using the image on that page even though fair use is claimed on the image
page)."
While it doesn't explicitly state that each article name must be typed out
it's hard to have a distinct rationale for each use without mentioning
wich use is wich. Also later versions (2004 an on) also include a link to
the article in all the example rationales given.
Ok so it wasn't tagged as official policy at the time, but then again
neither contemporary versions of things like WP:NOR
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&oldid=5884338>
or WP:NPOV
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=1471194>...
--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]