In a message dated 3/7/2008 10:40:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Download the entire en database uncompress it and fit it on one internal drive. It used to be fairly easy. Now try that with images.>>
---------------- On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
Will
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
On 07/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
Massive, massive, massive potential for abuse?
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
Massive, massive, massive potential for abuse?
How is the potential different for images than text?
On 09/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
Massive, massive, massive potential for abuse?
How is the potential different for images than text?
Well, first of all you can't remotely link in (transclude) external text; you have to edit it into the wiki.
With regard to the question, though:
Short answer: you can't change local text to "OMG PENISES!!!" without us noticing.
Long answer: we already require local uploading of material, which is a significant hurdle to easy inclusion of material, and still find that casual and trivial image copyright problems are far harder to deal with competently and efficiently than textual copyright problems. If we want to have a way of enforcing image copyrights that works on anything more developed than the honour system, we need local uploads because we need the licensing and source metadata that comes with them.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
Massive, massive, massive potential for abuse?
How is the potential different for images than text?
[snip]
Whoops, I wasn't paying attention. I was under the impression that the first message meant "why don't we provide an image dump" not "why don't we allow <img> tags that src off-wiki". I must've read one message into another or something.
On 07/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
On my own wiki I link external pictures in by simply using a http request. Evidently at one time this was a standard part of the work. Not sure why we don't just do that for the majority of images.
It's OK to do that sometimes, but this is usually called 'leeching' and many websites will check their access logs and set up their webserver to refuse requests when people do that. It actually costs the other websites money to provide that service for your readers.
And if you're really unlucky they'll catch you doing it, and redirect your access to a completely unsuitable picture...
Will