In a message dated 2/24/2008 1:54:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The problem of replaceable fair use images removing the incentive to find and upload free stuff? I think we have made rather a large dent in that problem.>>
------------------------------- No the problem of using a bot to remove all fair-use images system-wide, without any attempt to find any free images or even show evidence that any free images exist.
That's the problem. It's harming the project. Please address it directly. Thanks.
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:
In a message dated 2/24/2008 1:54:40 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The problem of replaceable fair use images removing the incentive to find and upload free stuff? I think we have made rather a large dent in that problem.>>
No the problem of using a bot to remove all fair-use images system-wide, without any attempt to find any free images or even show evidence that any free images exist. That's the problem. It's harming the project. Please address it directly. Thanks.
Sure! The bot doesn't have admin rights - it flags images that appear to be in violation of well-established policies.
So you want people to, er, stop looking for violations?
- d.
On 2/24/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! The bot doesn't have admin rights - it flags images that appear to be in violation of well-established policies.
So if the bot flags an image that appears to be a violation of policy and in fact it isn't, I would be free to remove that flag?
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! The bot doesn't have admin rights - it flags images that appear to be in violation of well-established policies.
So if the bot flags an image that appears to be a violation of policy and in fact it isn't, I would be free to remove that flag?
If the image has a current fair-use justification including the page it's used on, then that would be a mistaken tagging, and you should flag that to Betacommand as an error and remove the tag.
That rarely happens, but the vast majority of taggings are correct.
If you see an image tagged that is used properly but not currently properly justified, add the justification properly and remove the tag.
On 24/02/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Sure! The bot doesn't have admin rights - it flags images that appear to be in violation of well-established policies.
So if the bot flags an image that appears to be a violation of policy and in fact it isn't, I would be free to remove that flag?
Yep. I certainly do. (Or I put the current favoured tag on, or I don't bother.)
I do agree with its vital and useful work - to save us from being buried under an ever-replenished mountain of blatant fair-abuse, and remember I'm a BIG FAN of fair use on en:wp - but I certainly don't expect perfection from it. If you catch the bot making a lot of errors, a polite note to Betacommand would probably help all.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
I do agree with its vital and useful work - to save us from being buried under an ever-replenished mountain of blatant fair-abuse, and remember I'm a BIG FAN of fair use on en:wp - but I certainly don't expect perfection from it. If you catch the bot making a lot of errors, a polite note to Betacommand would probably help all.
The assumption here is that a failure to be compliant with current tagging fads implies "blatant fair-abuse". It's very easy to go around tagging things as wrong based on some mechanical rationale, and much more difficult to apply human thought to fix these problems. If the bot were responsible enough to fix half as many as it identifies it would not leave the good editors feeling that they are fighting off a swarm of mosquitoes.
Ec
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No the problem of using a bot to remove all fair-use images system-wide, without any attempt to find any free images or even show evidence that any free images exist.
That's the problem. It's harming the project. Please address it directly. Thanks.
That's not even vaguely what's happening. Your statement fails to match reality.
Betacommandbot's runs are taking fair use images that don't have a currently valid fair-use justification, including justification for the specific page(s) it's used on, and tagging them as such. The normal process that follows removes those images if nobody fixes the lack of tags.
Some images whose use falls under existing policy are being tagged because they don't have a currently compliant fair-use justification - this is an administrative issue, and one that Betacommandbot is not addressing. If someone doesn't notice and manually fix it then the image will get deleted even though its use was in fact policy compliant.
A vast majority of the images so tagged aren't being used in compliant manners, though.
It is not useful to throw up grossly false misrepresentations of what's going on when discussing this issue. I agree, as do a lot of others, that the current process for identifying and fixing images that are properly used but not properly tagged right now is inadequate. Some people have spent a lot of effort trying to follow Betacommandbot around and fix those things; I have intermittently tried, but the nature of how it's being run makes that difficult for me.
But the accusation that anyone is trying to remove all fair use from the project is simply false.
Betacommandbot does nothing to images with current, valid fair-use justifications. Individual editors and admins sometimes review such justifications and challenge those they feel are not policy compliant, but they are not doing so on a wholesale basis trying to rid the project of those images.
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No the problem of using a bot to remove all fair-use images system-wide, without any attempt to find any free images or even show evidence that any free images exist.
That's the problem. It's harming the project. Please address it directly. Thanks.
The problem seems to be about bots that make decisions that should be made by humans.
Ec
On 2/25/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The problem seems to be about bots that make decisions that should be made by humans.
BINGO
How about this idea?
We create a category called "Images-Nobots".
We ask bot maintainers to program their bots to not patrol images in this category. Presumably, newbie uploaders would not know about this category so new images would continue to be patrolled for the most part.
Also presumably, there would be plenty of "humans" patrolling this category. Truly non compliant images would still get tagged.
We keep a big heavy LART on standby for those who intentionally add non-compliant images to this category.
On 25/02/2008, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/25/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The problem seems to be about bots that make decisions that should be made by humans.
BINGO
I *believe* in practice admins aren't presently auto-deleting stuff with expired tags added by Betacommandbot (I could be wrong). But a smidgeon more process here would be helpful in people feeling better about the process.
- d.
" Also presumably, there would be plenty of "humans" patrolling this category. Truly non compliant images would still get tagged."
Thats the problem. I would presume the opposite, in fact, and thats why we've got bots to begin with.
In order to argue that the bot is doing something wrong (the bot itself, not Betacommand) you need to point out where it is not obeying policy. If you look at WP:AN/Betacommand, you'll note that there is no (and has never been a) consensus that BCBot stop operating. The fact is that it is obeying policy, so your next step is to *change the policy.* This can be done, by consensus, and is by far a better approach than attacking a bot that is enforcing the letter of current policy.
Betacommand, on the other hand, may not have the communication style best suited to the bot operator. I won't ding him for getting pissed off, I would, but someone a little more communicative and verbally dexterous might have an easier job of it.
Nathan
On 25/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Betacommand, on the other hand, may not have the communication style best suited to the bot operator. I won't ding him for getting pissed off, I would, but someone a little more communicative and verbally dexterous might have an easier job of it.
And inclined to taking the ridiculous quantities of vitriolic abuse heaped on anyone who moves in any way to remove the masses of blatant policy violations uploaded as "fair use."
- d.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 7:39 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Betacommand, on the other hand, may not have the communication style
best
suited to the bot operator. I won't ding him for getting pissed off, I would, but someone a little more communicative and verbally dexterous
might
have an easier job of it.
And inclined to taking the ridiculous quantities of vitriolic abuse heaped on anyone who moves in any way to remove the masses of blatant policy violations uploaded as "fair use."
Betacommand is not the most touchy-feely postitive communicator on good days. Were we implementing this project from scratch, we'd certainly want to have someone else be the operator, even if he coded it.
On 25/02/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Betacommand is not the most touchy-feely postitive communicator on good days. Were we implementing this project from scratch, we'd certainly want to have someone else be the operator, even if he coded it.
I think the main problem remains that people hate having their images taken away, and direct their ire at what is after all Foundation policy at the person who dares work toward it. c.f. the linked ANI comments page.
- d.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:30 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Betacommand is not the most touchy-feely postitive communicator on good days. Were we implementing this project from scratch, we'd certainly
want
to have someone else be the operator, even if he coded it.
I think the main problem remains that people hate having their images taken away, and direct their ire at what is after all Foundation policy at the person who dares work toward it. c.f. the linked ANI comments page.
It certainly doesn't help. Whoever ran this would have to have an incredible amount of patience under the best circumstances.
But the fact remains that I and many others feel that Betacommand is not the best communicator to try and reduce stress and drama rather than end up generating it.
That's not a ding on him - most, by far a majority of the admins and senior editors have too short a temper for that type of role. I don't think that I would. But it would be good if someone who did have the even keel and temperment stood up and volunteered to run the bot in the future.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Betacommand is not the most touchy-feely postitive communicator on good days. Were we implementing this project from scratch, we'd certainly
want
to have someone else be the operator, even if he coded it.
I think the main problem remains that people hate having their images taken away, and direct their ire at what is after all Foundation policy at the person who dares work toward it. c.f. the linked ANI comments page.
Very true. But at the same time, a not-insignificant portion of complaints lie in perceivedly automated deletion - if not by BCB (which is incapable of deleting anything, IIRC), then by trigger-happy admins.
Johnleemk
On 25/02/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Very true. But at the same time, a not-insignificant portion of complaints lie in perceivedly automated deletion - if not by BCB (which is incapable of deleting anything, IIRC), then by trigger-happy admins.
Mmm. Perhaps a mention in the bot's note that deletion is (or should be) human-reviewed, and is not automatic.
- d.
On 26/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/02/2008, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Very true. But at the same time, a not-insignificant portion of complaints lie in perceivedly automated deletion - if not by BCB (which is incapable of deleting anything, IIRC), then by trigger-happy admins.
Mmm. Perhaps a mention in the bot's note that deletion is (or should be) human-reviewed, and is not automatic.
I just put a note on the bot's talk page suggesting this.
BTW, the bot's templates now add: "Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page." So it's telling people what they need to do next.
- d.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No the problem of using a bot to remove all fair-use images system-wide, without any attempt to find any free images or even show evidence that
any free
images exist.
That's the problem. It's harming the project. Please address it
directly.
Thanks.
The problem seems to be about bots that make decisions that should be made by humans.
I wouldn't blame the bots - I'd blame the humans. If an admin is too silly to see that an image is only considered non-compliant because of some technicality, if an admin is too trigger-happy with the delete button and takes the bot's word at face value, the problem lies on the part of the admins. Bots don't delete images, admins delete images. (I wonder if we'll now see gun control arguments applied since I've brought out the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line.)
Johnleemk
Johnleemk wrote:
I wouldn't blame the bots - I'd blame the humans. If an admin is too silly to see that an image is only considered non-compliant because of some technicality, if an admin is too trigger-happy with the delete button and takes the bot's word at face value, the problem lies on the part of the admins.
While what you say is true, I suspect we *do* have admins who are that trigger-happy. It's especially true, I figure, when you've got AWB all set up so that you can rapidly "review" and speedily perform a bunch of actions, but then, in the manner of a couch potato clicking the remote, you click one too many times, and sail right past something interesting.
Steve Summit wrote:
Johnleemk wrote:
I wouldn't blame the bots - I'd blame the humans. If an admin is too silly to see that an image is only considered non-compliant because of some technicality, if an admin is too trigger-happy with the delete button and takes the bot's word at face value, the problem lies on the part of the admins.
While what you say is true, I suspect we *do* have admins who are that trigger-happy. It's especially true, I figure, when you've got AWB all set up so that you can rapidly "review" and speedily perform a bunch of actions, but then, in the manner of a couch potato clicking the remote, you click one too many times, and sail right past something interesting.
Remotes were a necessary invention motivated by the increasing proportion of programs that are dominated by advertising. :-)
Ec