Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Thoughts?
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Thoughts?
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Given the experience I just had with a new user, I'd think that disabling uploading for users without a userpage and/or new users (1 month?) would be a good idea.
Ruud
Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.
Mgm
On 3/22/06, Rudy Koot r.koot@students.uu.nl wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Thoughts?
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Given the experience I just had with a new user, I'd think that disabling uploading for users without a userpage and/or new users (1 month?) would be a good idea.
Ruud _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/06, Rudy Koot r.koot@students.uu.nl wrote:
Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Thoughts?
Given the experience I just had with a new user, I'd think that disabling uploading for users without a userpage and/or new users (1 month?) would be a good idea.
Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.
All that will do is force users to provide whatever the software is looking for as a "source". We're seeing this already with copyright tags: people are sticking license tags, usually "fair use" and "CopyrightedFreeUse" license tags, on images in a desperate attempt to keep the images safe from the "no license" patrol. You can see this in the responses to OrphanBot's notifications: many are of the form "What license tag should I stick on my image to keep it from being deleted?".
When trying to solve the image problem, there are some fundamental things you need to keep in mind: *Joe User doesn't care about "correct" *Joe User doesn't care about "copyright" *Joe User doesn't care about "source" *Joe User doesn't care about "policy" All Joe User wants is pictures in his article.
-- Mark
G'day Mark,
On 3/22/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Can't we just start by asking for a software upgrade that doesn't accept images without a source? Hiding the link also makes uploading harder for regular contributors who don't remember links and use the side bar for easy access and for newbies who do care abou copyrights.
All that will do is force users to provide whatever the software is looking for as a "source". We're seeing this already with copyright tags: people are sticking license tags, usually "fair use" and "CopyrightedFreeUse" license tags, on images in a desperate attempt to keep the images safe from the "no license" patrol. You can see this in the responses to OrphanBot's notifications: many are of the form "What license tag should I stick on my image to keep it from being deleted?".
This sort of thing used to irk me terribly, until I stumbled across something approaching Enlightenment. If we assume good faith, the answer is obvious: the user isn't lying in a desperate attempt to violate copyrights and get us in trouble; he's (it is usually a he) merely confused and caught up in process fetishism.
Images aren't deleted because they don't have a tag: they're deleted because they have no source and their copyright status is unclear, and we've decided not to take the risk of keeping such images around for no good purpose. But if I, or any other person trying to crack down on copyvios, try to explain the situation to a newbie, we say: "you need to place a tag on this image". Is it any *wonder* he gets confused? What, will any tag do? Any source is appropriate, right, even if that source says "all rights reserved, do not steal our images or we'll steal your thumbs, and what use will your precious Gameboy be then, eh?"?
We confuse what the tags mean with the tags themselves. I have the same problem with other templates, like the {{testn}} warnings: we aren't warning people, we're slapping a template on their page (congratulations! You're the 100th RC patroller to tag this page this year! Has it occurred to you that this talkpage already contains 99 identical boilerplate warnings, and what effect that has on a growing lad?), and likewise with images.
When trying to solve the image problem, there are some fundamental things you need to keep in mind: *Joe User doesn't care about "correct" *Joe User doesn't care about "copyright" *Joe User doesn't care about "source" *Joe User doesn't care about "policy" All Joe User wants is pictures in his article.
Bingo. And he's not being malicious in that; he's being human (or possibly a magpie). We need to explain to him *why* he can't have his picture; "because it hasn't got the right tag" just doesn't cut it.
When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I and a few other people said so". Learning the *reason* why we do things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them to others, is vital.
On 3/22/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
This sort of thing used to irk me terribly, until I stumbled across something approaching Enlightenment. If we assume good faith, the answer is obvious: the user isn't lying in a desperate attempt to violate copyrights and get us in trouble; he's (it is usually a he) merely confused and caught up in process fetishism.
Images aren't deleted because they don't have a tag: they're deleted because they have no source and their copyright status is unclear, and we've decided not to take the risk of keeping such images around for no good purpose. But if I, or any other person trying to crack down on copyvios, try to explain the situation to a newbie, we say: "you need to place a tag on this image". Is it any *wonder* he gets confused? What, will any tag do? Any source is appropriate, right, even if that source says "all rights reserved, do not steal our images or we'll steal your thumbs, and what use will your precious Gameboy be then, eh?"?
We confuse what the tags mean with the tags themselves. I have the same problem with other templates, like the {{testn}} warnings: we aren't warning people, we're slapping a template on their page (congratulations! You're the 100th RC patroller to tag this page this year! Has it occurred to you that this talkpage already contains 99 identical boilerplate warnings, and what effect that has on a growing lad?), and likewise with images.
This process is called reification, which happens to be one of my favorite words. It could be translated "thingification", and you're right, it's a problem. Mak
Mark Gallagher wrote:
When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I and a few other people said so". Learning the *reason* why we do things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them to others, is vital.
The image use policy page said all that three years ago when I started at WP, and it still does; I didn't have any trouble understanding it after working on WP for a couple weeks. The upload page has all manner of links and warnings, which link to even further explanations, eventually going back to first principles for those that want to learn all about copyright law.
While I want to assume good faith in all of this, in actually looking through a random swath of recent untagged uploads, the explanations that come to mind are either that we have many editors with the IQ of a turnip, or they are deliberately ignoring the policy and explanations we're putting in front of them. Whichever the case, their uploads are not helping build the encyclopedia, and we need to stop making excuses for them.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote: <snip>
the explanations that come to mind are either that we have many editors with the IQ of a turnip,
Sir, that is a great insult to turnips...
The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.
The [[Eternal September]] is upon as.
Stan Shebs wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I and a few other people said so". Learning the *reason* why we do things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them to others, is vital.
The image use policy page said all that three years ago when I started at WP, and it still does; I didn't have any trouble understanding it after working on WP for a couple weeks. The upload page has all manner of links and warnings, which link to even further explanations, eventually going back to first principles for those that want to learn all about copyright law.
While I want to assume good faith in all of this, in actually looking through a random swath of recent untagged uploads, the explanations that come to mind are either that we have many editors with the IQ of a turnip, or they are deliberately ignoring the policy and explanations we're putting in front of them. Whichever the case, their uploads are not helping build the encyclopedia, and we need to stop making excuses for them.
Stan
I agree here. I want to AGF, and perhaps in a number of cases, yes, the editor is just acting in good faith. But I've seen a number of cases -- even on Commons -- where the uploader just wanted some pictures for his article. Take, for instance, the images on [[Michelle Kwan]], which are all licenced under the GPL and yet are sourced from Encarta or some Tripod webpage -- neither of which mentions *anything* about the GPL. Numerous images previously used on the article as fair use were taken down (for what reasons, I know not) and replaced with these ostensibly "free" images. I suspect this is more common than we might think. I browse the celebrity articles quite often, and I keep seeing this game of musical chairs going on with the images because they're fair use. Each time the image gets replaced with either an image lacking source/licence data or another fair use image -- in either case, the image will end up deleted after a while, and the cycle will repeat. Is it any wonder that fans get fed up and start blatantly lying to us about the copyright status of images?
Then there are some cases where you just have to AGF but also yell "what the bloody hell were you thinking?" at the uploaders. For instance, there's an image of [[Tunku Abdul Rahman]] on Commons tagged as public domain because of age when it wasn't even taken 50 years ago. (And I really doubt Malaysian copyright law provides for such a short period of copyright.) And then we have a number of images tagged with a template identifying them as PD because they are a work of an employee of the Malaysian Prime Minister's Office. Only problem is that there's *nothing* to show that this assertion is true. The Malaysian PM's site is copyrighted by the Malaysian government, with all rights reserved -- and I doubt it wasn't created by employees of the PM's Office.
These mistaken taggings are more worrying, IMO, because they tend to come from active editors who just don't know any better. For most other cases I think it is reasonable to AGF, but most images with copyright problems *are* uploaded by throwaway accounts or people who blatantly lie to us. These are the two main problems (from my experience): good and active editors simply not knowing better, and throwaway accounts/bad faith editors uploading just any old damn image -- and in some cases tagging it incorrectly as free.
Having said that, I do think that it might be a tad over-reacting to make it extremely complicated/impossible for new editors to upload images. The problem is that the only good way to tell if someone is acting in good faith and at least knows something about our policies is by how long that editor has been here and how many edits that editor has made. Pretty much anything else is subject to gaming, as Mark Wagner/Carnildo has pointed out.
John
Some people are passionate about including "their" pics at all costs. I once got into a minor edit war with a newbie who insisted on replacing a clear public domain picture of an actress with a blurry screenshot from "Dallas".
I'm not sure what to do about such trolling and territoriality, but I think adding some sort of waiting period similar to page move restrictions or sprotection might solve a lot of the other problems from our newer users. A lot of the problem is that the rules aren't exactly clear - fair use isn't the most black and white area of law - and so people go by gut instinct instead of the rules. I still think a tutorial might not be a bad way to go. As has been pointed out, a lot of users would just ignore it, but it would help a lot of the good faith mistakes.
On 3/23/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
I agree here. I want to AGF, and perhaps in a number of cases, yes, the editor is just acting in good faith. But I've seen a number of cases -- even on Commons -- where the uploader just wanted some pictures for his article. Take, for instance, the images on [[Michelle Kwan]], which are all licenced under the GPL and yet are sourced from Encarta or some Tripod webpage -- neither of which mentions *anything* about the GPL. Numerous images previously used on the article as fair use were taken down (for what reasons, I know not) and replaced with these ostensibly "free" images. I suspect this is more common than we might think. I browse the celebrity articles quite often, and I keep seeing this game of musical chairs going on with the images because they're fair use. Each time the image gets replaced with either an image lacking source/licence data or another fair use image -- in either case, the image will end up deleted after a while, and the cycle will repeat. Is it any wonder that fans get fed up and start blatantly lying to us about the copyright status of images?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
We need to explain to him *why* he can't have his picture; "because it hasn't got the right tag" just doesn't cut it.
When we say "that's policy", what we're *really* saying is "because I and a few other people said so". Learning the *reason* why we do things, so that a) we can do them properly, and b) we can explain them to others, is vital.
That's a very important point. Simply saying, "because it's policy" gets people to dig in their heels. Many of these are young guys who are then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the lawn. They are testing their independance all the way.
Ec
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a very important point. Simply saying, "because it's policy" gets people to dig in their heels. Many of these are young guys who are then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the lawn. They are testing their independance all the way.
Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying it's policy?
Steve
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a very important point. Simply saying, "because it's policy" gets people to dig in their heels. Many of these are young guys who are then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the lawn. They are testing their independance all the way.
Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying it's policy?
That's a pretty good explanation in cases where we might actually get sued. In other cases (e.g. by-permission images, logos on userpages, and so forth), it really is a matter of project policy rather than any concrete legal liability on our part.
Kirill Lokshin
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's a very important point. Simply saying, "because it's policy" gets people to dig in their heels. Many of these are young guys who are then reminded of mom or dad telling them to clean their rooms or mow the lawn. They are testing their independance all the way.
Maybe just saying "so we don't get sued" would be simpler than saying it's policy?
Probably not. Suing and courts have no connection with their reality.
Ec
Dear uploader: If this image is from the web, please provide the URL to that image.
Bingo, instant image verification (and likely, instant copyvio verification).
On 3/27/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Dear uploader: If this image is from the web, please provide the URL to that image.
Bingo, instant image verification (and likely, instant copyvio verification).
Except that as soon as the image is tagged as {{imagevio}}, someone'll suggest that the image can be used as long as it's tagged {{fair use}}. It's quite difficult to get rid of sourced, tagged images.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 3/27/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Dear uploader: If this image is from the web, please provide the URL to that image.
Bingo, instant image verification (and likely, instant copyvio verification).
Except that as soon as the image is tagged as {{imagevio}}, someone'll suggest that the image can be used as long as it's tagged {{fair use}}. It's quite difficult to get rid of sourced, tagged images.
Orphan them.
-- geni
Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Not to be too cynical about the abilities of some of our editors, but I bet simply moving upload under Special pages will cut the number of bad uploads in half. Or make the link appear only if you set the "allow uploading" preference correctly.
Requiring as little as a week of WP experience will also cut down on bad uploads. There are an amazing number of logins whose complete list of contributions is the uploading of one or two copyright violations, and maybe an attempt to actually edit an article, all within the space of an hour.
Stan
On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
I think this is a little premature. It is really important to remember that, with our current methods - *The Number Of Untagged Images Is Going Down*. The images tagged as lacking source or license info no longer *have* a backlog(due to the change in CSD policy allowing them to be deleted, and the hard work of a number of Wikipedians), and the backlog of Un-tagged images *is going down*. Not by much; about 300 per day on average, but it *is going down*.
Give us working on the untagged image project time to get the backlog cleared up, and then we can see the problem more clearly. Quite possibly, the rate of new unacceptable images is not too great for us to handle. Maybe it is, but the current facts don't seem to show that.
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
Jesse Weinstein
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
I think this is a little premature. It is really important to remember that, with our current methods - *The Number Of Untagged Images Is Going Down*. The images tagged as lacking source or license info no longer *have* a backlog(due to the change in CSD policy allowing them to be deleted, and the hard work of a number of Wikipedians), and the backlog of Un-tagged images *is going down*. Not by much; about 300 per day on average, but it *is going down*.
In that case, anyone want to help over at commons? Don't worry, we've got plenty of backlog to go around.
Nathaniel
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
I think this is a little premature. It is really important to remember that, with our current methods - *The Number Of Untagged Images Is Going Down*. The images tagged as lacking source or license info no longer *have* a backlog(due to the change in CSD policy allowing them to be deleted, and the hard work of a number of Wikipedians), and the backlog of Un-tagged images *is going down*. Not by much; about 300 per day on average, but it *is going down*.
Give us working on the untagged image project time to get the backlog cleared up, and then we can see the problem more clearly. Quite possibly, the rate of new unacceptable images is not too great for us to handle. Maybe it is, but the current facts don't seem to show that.
And once you finish with the untagged images, which project are you going to move on to? Verifying the fair-use claims on the 150,000 images in [[Category:Fair use images]]? Checking the accuracy of the 80,000 or so "GFDL" images? Finding the few images where the "No rights reserved" claim isn't bullshit? Image tagging is an important task, but it isn't the only place where work is needed, either.
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 3/23/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Depends on the tags. If we deleted everything labled magazine cover we would be in far better shape.
-- geni
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
I think this is a little premature. It is really important to remember that, with our current methods - *The Number Of Untagged Images Is Going Down*. The images tagged as lacking source or license info no longer *have* a backlog(due to the change in CSD policy allowing them to be deleted, and the hard work of a number of Wikipedians), and the backlog of Un-tagged images *is going down*. Not by much; about 300 per day on average, but it *is going down*.
Give us working on the untagged image project time to get the backlog cleared up, and then we can see the problem more clearly. Quite possibly, the rate of new unacceptable images is not too great for us to handle. Maybe it is, but the current facts don't seem to show that.
And once you finish with the untagged images, which project are you going to move on to? Verifying the fair-use claims on the 150,000 images in [[Category:Fair use images]]? Checking the accuracy of the 80,000 or so "GFDL" images? Finding the few images where the "No rights reserved" claim isn't bullshit? Image tagging is an important task, but it isn't the only place where work is needed, either.
Either of those two tasks are useful. I was merely saying that we are making progress, not falling behind, afaict, so changing the process may not be necessary.
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
OK. That is an issue.
Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
OK. That is an issue.
Indeed. So the house is almost clean now. It's only the underside of the carpet that's dirty. :-(
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
OK. That is an issue.
Indeed. So the house is almost clean now. It's only the underside of the carpet that's dirty. :-(
Well, that's progress... Having gigantic piles of dirt lining the hallways, and dirt on the walls, and the roof, is worse than having dirt under the carpet. Yes, we need to deal with the dirt under the carpet, too, but we have still made progress.
Jesse Weinstein
On 24 Mar 2006, at 00:32, Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/ 041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
OK. That is an issue.
Indeed. So the house is almost clean now. It's only the underside of the carpet that's dirty. :-(
Well, that's progress... Having gigantic piles of dirt lining the hallways, and dirt on the walls, and the roof, is worse than having dirt under the carpet. Yes, we need to deal with the dirt under the carpet, too, but we have still made progress.
No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
The whole idea of the classification was to then delete 90%+ of it (if you read Jimbo's original comments).
Free encyclopaedia anyone?
Fair use content is not free content.
Justinc
On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
On 24 Mar 2006, at 00:32, Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On 3/22/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
It's also important to note that 95% of the images on the english wikipedia do have tags (although many may be wrong, it's true).
I haven't checked already-tagged images, but new uploads (based on the data at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-March/ 041534.html) have at least a 40% error rate for tagging.
OK. That is an issue.
Indeed. So the house is almost clean now. It's only the underside of the carpet that's dirty. :-(
Well, that's progress... Having gigantic piles of dirt lining the hallways, and dirt on the walls, and the roof, is worse than having dirt under the carpet. Yes, we need to deal with the dirt under the carpet, too, but we have still made progress.
No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
Er, no. If you read this whole thread, we still have about 15,000 signs to put up, and according to Mark Wagner, a lot of the signs are not correct, which is what I assume Ilmari Karonen meant about the dirt under the carpet. Getting good enough signs put up is exactly the problem we are working on right now. Whether we have fair use images or not is a whole other issue. Don't mix it in here, please.
Jesse Weinstein
The whole idea of the classification was to then delete 90%+ of it (if you read Jimbo's original comments).
Free encyclopaedia anyone?
Fair use content is not free content.
On 24 Mar 2006, at 00:46, Jesse W wrote:
No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
Er, no. If you read this whole thread, we still have about 15,000 signs to put up, and according to Mark Wagner, a lot of the signs are not correct, which is what I assume Ilmari Karonen meant about the dirt under the carpet. Getting good enough signs put up is exactly the problem we are working on right now. Whether we have fair use images or not is a whole other issue. Don't mix it in here, please.
We have several problems:
1. 15000 untagged images 2. maybe 70000 incorrectly tagged images 3. perhaps 200000 non free images
This is of course a clear improvement on having 150000 untagged images, but does not remove the need to delete them. Which was the point of tagging in the first place (a bit roundabout - would have been less work to delete before tagging, but hey Jimbo wanted to know how much there was and it was only supposed to take a few weeks, not a year).
Justinc
Jesse W wrote:
On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
No, we have just put up signs saying "dirt".
Er, no. If you read this whole thread, we still have about 15,000 signs to put up, and according to Mark Wagner, a lot of the signs are not correct, which is what I assume Ilmari Karonen meant about the dirt under the carpet.
Yes, that's what I meant. In fact, going with the sign analogy, it might be more appropriate to say that we have put up signs saying "clean", slightly under half of which point to dirt.
On 3/22/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia's got a problem with images. 2000 of them are uploaded every day, and most of them have inadequate source information, an incorrect license tag, or an invalid fair-use claim.
A quick and easy way to reduce the flood of images would be to remove the link to Special:Upload from the sidebar, and instead point the "upload file" link to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]. If users have to hunt around for a bit for the actual upload link (and hopefully read some of the page), they're less likely to upload every image they can find on Google Image Search.
Making the upload file link a little less obvious is a brilliant and reasonable soft-security method for reducing unwanted images.
Making arbitrary cut-offs for new users (or users without a homepage) is a hard-security method that seems unnecessary.