In a message dated 2/24/2008 2:19:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Please provide a reasoning for your disagreement.>>
------------------------------
BetaCommandBot is doing something for which we have, no specific rule, and no specific method outlined to address it.
Please refer to _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacom... d_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacom...)
*before* you respond so you can gain a proper background into what exactly is the issue.
Please note the number of established editors who see BCB as a problem. Simply ignoring their input, does not solve the situation. It's a real situation and we should not ignore it.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 24/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
BetaCommandBot is doing something for which we have, no specific rule, and no specific method outlined to address it. Please refer to _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacom... d_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacom...)
*before* you respond so you can gain a proper background into what exactly is the issue.
I read it. In several pages of rambling, most of the text was from people presuming that what the bot was doing was somehow a policy violation. Various people along the way tried to gently explain the notion of "foundation policy."
Lots of people being loudly wrong doesn't mean Betacommand or his bot are doing anything wrong, oddly enough. Noise is not evidence.
- d.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people being loudly wrong doesn't mean Betacommand or his bot are doing anything wrong, oddly enough. Noise is not evidence.
What is going wrong is that in some cases images that are validly fair use, uploaded and documented as such according to the policies in force at the time of the upload, are being deleted because they are not tagged correctly according to fairly new policies. Notification generally only takes place to the uploader, who in many cases has left the project.
I feel that insufficient care is being taken in SOME cases, and that if people bring up concerns like this their issues are treated dismissively.
-Matt
On 25/02/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What is going wrong is that in some cases images that are validly fair use, uploaded and documented as such according to the policies in force at the time of the upload, are being deleted because they are not tagged correctly according to fairly new policies. Notification generally only takes place to the uploader, who in many cases has left the project. I feel that insufficient care is being taken in SOME cases, and that if people bring up concerns like this their issues are treated dismissively.
Yes, it would be nice if the bot messages included this week's rationale. This would help its public relations a *lot*.
However, as I noted before, the actual damage is negligible - most of the images are found on the Internet, and any that aren't can be undeleted. You're bringing this up - have you found images that needed recovery?
- d.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
What is going wrong is that in some cases images that are validly fair use, uploaded and documented as such according to the policies in force at the time of the upload, are being deleted because they are not tagged correctly according to fairly new policies. Notification generally only takes place to the uploader, who in many cases has left the project. I feel that insufficient care is being taken in SOME cases, and that if people bring up concerns like this their issues are treated dismissively.
Yes, it would be nice if the bot messages included this week's rationale. This would help its public relations a *lot*.
However, as I noted before, the actual damage is negligible - most of the images are found on the Internet, and any that aren't can be undeleted. You're bringing this up - have you found images that needed recovery?
The rationale standard has been in place for a while now. The "it's a new rationale requirement" excuse made more sense nine months ago than now...
I agree with Matthew that the way this is being handled is cheesing a lot of people off. It's hard to try and address that properly in and among all the FUD being flung around, though.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it would be nice if the bot messages included this week's rationale. This would help its public relations a *lot*.
I strongly agree. I suspect that the message is light on instructions because it doesn't want to tell people what to do to keep the image - it's a 'show you care enough to keep it by researching what you need to do' kind of thing ...
However, as I noted before, the actual damage is negligible - most of the images are found on the Internet, and any that aren't can be undeleted. You're bringing this up - have you found images that needed recovery?
AFAIR once or twice, but I'm worried about its effect on articles that aren't as well watched.
-Matt
As always, the solution is more watching of pages...wait, have we gone over that before?
Something I've done in the past and am currently doing is watchlisting the user talk pages of people who used to edit articles on topics I'm interested in. Chances are, since they were editors before me, they uploaded the images that will get tagged, and they won't be able to fix the problem. Nice to know someone else is helping out.
And it's a lot easier than trying to do whatever the purpose of this thread is...
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
However, as I noted before, the actual damage is negligible - most of the images are found on the Internet, and any that aren't can be undeleted. You're bringing this up - have you found images that needed recovery?
AFAIR once or twice, but I'm worried about its effect on articles that aren't as well watched.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l