Hi,
a few days ago I added two images that I took at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_College%2C_Cambridge
Silly me forgot to mention that I took those pictures and that I am releasing them under the GNU FDL.
Now, [[User:Imran]] came along and added {{msg:unverified}} to one of them: http://tinyurl.com/2t5bd - This, I can understand, because I completely forgot to mention the source of the image and everything.
However, the same user added {{msg:GFDL}} to the other image: http://tinyurl.com/2auzx - This, I'm a little puzzled about. How were they to know that the image was GFDLed?
Thanks for any insight, Timwi
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Timwi wrote:
Now, [[User:Imran]] came along and added {{msg:unverified}} to one of them: http://tinyurl.com/2t5bd - This, I can understand, because I completely forgot to mention the source of the image and everything.
However, the same user added {{msg:GFDL}} to the other image: http://tinyurl.com/2auzx - This, I'm a little puzzled about. How were they to know that the image was GFDLed?
I was going on the assumption (as some of the other taggers are) that if the photo was taken by a wikipedian and that the wikipedian was likely to understand the GFDL (primarily sysops and other long-term regulars) then unless they stated otherwise I assumed that it was under GFDL (as the image upload page states). If I'm not satisfied on either of these accounts then I mark it unverified.
When I came across the first image I wasn't sure and didn't check your userpage, but when I came across the other images from Cambridge I checked it and came to the conclusion that you took the photos and were familiar with the GFDL upload policy.
Normally in most cases I would mark an image with no information as unverified, as I'm trying to work fairly rapidly through the images (spending 5-10 seconds/image) and unless there's a block of images uploaded by the same user I don't normally bother to try and find out what the licence should be.
Imran