Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy, wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload? They can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of deletion.
It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.
Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is. Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to input information.
We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's not very effective against the joker who says his source is "df39rhjufuasl2".
And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people to try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution. (I'm not asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more aware of the need to provide attribution.
But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate field that requires source information.
--Michael Snow
What about a radio button set in the form that forces uses to choose a particular license when uploaded?
Michael Snow said:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy, wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload? They can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of deletion.
It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.
Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is. Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to input information.
We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's not very effective against the joker who says his source is "df39rhjufuasl2".
And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people to try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution. (I'm not asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more aware of the need to provide attribution.
But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate field that requires source information.
--Michael Snow
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I should clarify that I don't mean that the radio button would result in an extra database field. It would simply invoke an appending of text in the image commentary in the way that many users currently do by manually typing "{{msg:GFDL}}" in the commentary text box. This would simply provide additional encouragement in that direction (as well as a short cut). Certainly not a foolproof or comprehensive system, but it might make new users more conscientious of the need to specificy licenses, as well as making them aware of the preference of the GFDL over other licenses. For example, clicking the {{msg:fairuse}} radio could bring up a javascript dialog cautioning about the use of that license, etc.
Decumanus (Matthew Trump) said:
What about a radio button set in the form that forces uses to choose a particular license when uploaded?
Michael Snow said:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
We still need to get a system in place that requires people to provide source information when uploading images. For the types of uses for which US copyright law allows "fair use", the Berne Convention requires that the source of the work be mentioned. We cannot justify fair use if we aren't able to determine where the stuff comes from.
While it would be nice to have a "system" that's all database-happy, wouldn't it be nearly as effective, and immediately possible, to simply update the text of the upload page to ask people to give as much detail as they possibly can as to the source of the upload? They can be warned that if they don't do so, there is a strong risk of deletion.
It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.
Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is. Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to input information.
We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's not very effective against the joker who says his source is "df39rhjufuasl2".
And we should, again with an appropriate lead-time to allow people to try to fix existing problems without edit wars over deletion, just start deleting stuff that doesn't have proper attribution. (I'm not asking people to start deleting stuff today, because a good-faith effort to do the right thing all around will take a bit of time.)
I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more aware of the need to provide attribution.
But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate field that requires source information.
--Michael Snow
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Michael Snow wrote:
It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.
It sounds like a good idea. I think that it should be made bold face, and should say 'you must' instead of 'please'. After that it should explain the potential penality for not doing it -- deletion.
We're not going to do anything radical and sudden and frightening, but at some point in the possibly distant future, we hope to have our image-tagging sophistication to the point that we'll just delete stuff that doesn't suit our needs for freedom and transparency.
Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is. Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.
Perhaps we could ask the wikitech-l list to add a field for "Source:", and the text there could say "Source (required!):".
Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to input information.
I think that's an astute observation, yes.
We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's not very effective against the joker who says his source is "df39rhjufuasl2".
That's true, but our main purpose is to keep good people happy, not to concern ourselves too much with jokers. Once we firm up our policy here, if a joker writes 'df39rhjufuasl2' for the source, we'll just delete the image on sight.
My primary concern is not to offend and annoy the many good people who have made perfectly valid contributions to date, and whose failure to give proper source attribution is not *their* fault, but rather mine, for not seeing to it that they were properly guided all along.
I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more aware of the need to provide attribution.
But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate field that requires source information.
I agree absolutely. Let's start irritating the developers. :-)
--Jimbo