On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If I was willing to lie, I could easily pass this test.
And with enough firepower I could rob Fort Knox... So?
My point was that someone willing to forge permission emails has already shown that they are willing to work at the lying process.
In many categories of image, this effort isn't even required, since nobody will doubt the claim of permission on Wikipedia in any event. For these categories of image, this process is creating work for the honest contributor for no benefit against the dishonest.
I suspect, though, that this procedure has been created because of incredible claims of permission? In those cases, a simple claim on Wikipedia will not be believed. How many of these kind of claim do we actually get?
In no way is it intended to make things harder for honest folks, and if you have real constructive suggestions on how to improve it I'm sure we'd all love to hear them.
Consequences do not change based on intention. For the honest contributor, it does make things harder.
Where was this policy decided upon? By whom? Is it actually documented anywhere at all? (note: I'm not accusing anyone of NOT documenting it - simply that I haven't seen it).
I'd like to know what the intentions are regarding permissions not received in email, since that's an issue for me.
Also, for information: how often are people lying when they email the permissions queue? About what proportion of tickets? I ask because the policy described by you sounds inspired by a constant flood of bogus 'permission'.
-Matt