On 11/16/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/16/06, Matthew Brown <morven(a)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