On English Wikipedia there is a list of untagged images, it started at 38 000+, about 6000 of these have been tagged in 5 weeks; see [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]]. From the several hundred I have tagged, 2/10 can be speedied as orphaned fair use images; 7/10 have no source and/or no license information and most likely would only be able to be used as fair use; ~1/10 is a logo, album cover or a gfdl image without a template. Tagging these images is a big drain on contributors time, especially if they aren't admins.
Technically all these images identified as untagged are speediable if they are tagged as no license or no source, so on behalf of the untagged images project I am looking for someone who could write a bot to tag these all these images and notify the up loader.
There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of copyright information provided for images, and the incorrect copyright information that is being added to images as a result of the license drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia to be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to provide copyright information after the image is uploaded?
--Peta
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created. Is there a technical reason behind this?
On 1/22/06, Peta Holmes holmespeta@yahoo.com wrote:
On English Wikipedia there is a list of untagged images, it started at 38 000+, about 6000 of these have been tagged in 5 weeks; see [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]]. From the several hundred I have tagged, 2/10 can be speedied as orphaned fair use images; 7/10 have no source and/or no license information and most likely would only be able to be used as fair use; ~1/10 is a logo, album cover or a gfdl image without a template. Tagging these images is a big drain on contributors time, especially if they aren't admins.
Technically all these images identified as untagged are speediable if they are tagged as no license or no source, so on behalf of the untagged images project I am looking for someone who could write a bot to tag these all these images and notify the up loader.
There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of copyright information provided for images, and the incorrect copyright information that is being added to images as a result of the license drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia to be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to provide copyright information after the image is uploaded?
--Peta
Yahoo! Photos Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 23 Jan 2006, at 02:48, Jay Converse wrote:
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created. Is there a technical reason behind this?
There is isnt there?
There is on commons.
Its a very long time since I uploaded an image on en.
Justinc
On 1/22/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created.
There is.
On 1/23/06, Wikiacc wikiacc@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created.
There is.
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be no untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That said, we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which might lead to more problems
Ian (Guettarda)
On 23/01/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be no untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That said, we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which might lead to more problems
Force tag, have a default {{untagged}}, purge everything with this agressively? Similar to David's article-boilerplate proposal, really...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 1/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be no untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That
said,
we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which
might
lead to more problems
Force tag, have a default {{untagged}}, purge everything with this agressively? Similar to David's article-boilerplate proposal, really...
That's a really good idea. Terribly simple.
Ian
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:44:33 +0100, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be
no
untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That
said,
we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which
might
lead to more problems
Force tag, have a default {{untagged}}, purge everything with this agressively? Similar to David's article-boilerplate proposal, really...
That's a really good idea. Terribly simple.
Yeah, might be an idea to add a seperate required "source" field though. Unfortunately some people seem to have gotten the impression that as long as they don't use a "fair use" tag, source is optional. If not then at least make it impossible to upload an image with a blank "summary" field. Easy enough to bypass, but at least people can't claim they didn't know it was required when they come to complain about the image getting deleted.
Another idea, one that would require a lot more developer work than the above, but possebly save countless maintainance hours down the line is this:
Make a "upload wizard" type system, one that will walk first time uploaders though a multi step process and explain everyting carefully in bite sized chunks across multiple different pages starting with "choose the right format", moving on to "pick a good descriptive file name", then "spesify who the copyright holder is and where you got the image" then give a crash course in copyright law (you know the basics, stuff like "publicaly available is not the same as public domain", all rights reserved is the default if nothing is spesified, and "you can't claim copyright to a copy you made of a copyrighted work", explaining the difference between free and unfree licenses etc) and force the user to check a "I understand" box, to move on to the license selection before finaly allowing them to upload the image. After completing the toturial a couple of times the user would "graduate" and get the to the normal "all in one" upload form.
On 1/23/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/01/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be no untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That said, we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which might lead to more problems
Force tag, have a default {{untagged}}, purge everything with this agressively? Similar to David's article-boilerplate proposal, really...
That would certainly make it easier for me to use OrphanBot to speed up the removal process. --~~~~
On 1/23/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/23/06, Wikiacc wikiacc@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/22/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I've always wondered why there isn't a drop-down box to allow the image uploader to select the copyright that they think fits best and then it auto-inserts the template when the image info page is created.
There is.
The problem is that it (obviously) isn't compulsary. There would be no untagged images if the upload only worked if you selected a tag. That said, we'd probably end up with spurious tags if we forced tagging...which might lead to more problems
Quite. When the selector was introduced, quite a few uploaders were "license roulette"-ing and tagging obviously copyrighted images as anything they could find, usually tags like GPL and CopyrightedFreeUse.
On 23 Jan 2006, at 02:02, Peta Holmes wrote:
On English Wikipedia there is a list of untagged images, it started at 38 000+, about 6000 of these have been tagged in 5 weeks; see [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]]. From the several hundred I have tagged, 2/10 can be speedied as orphaned fair use images; 7/10 have no source and/or no license information and most likely would only be able to be used as fair use; ~1/10 is a logo, album cover or a gfdl image without a template. Tagging these images is a big drain on contributors time, especially if they aren't admins.
Technically all these images identified as untagged are speediable if they are tagged as no license or no source, so on behalf of the untagged images project I am looking for someone who could write a bot to tag these all these images and notify the up loader.
There was one for a bit. Alas the small number of people who write bots, and the incredible bureaucracy involved in running them makes this hard.
There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of copyright information provided for images, and the incorrect copyright information that is being added to images as a result of the license drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia to be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to provide copyright information after the image is uploaded?
Remove the norification requirement and just speedy all untagged images.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006, at 02:02, Peta Holmes wrote:
There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of copyright information provided for images, and the incorrect copyright information that is being added to images as a result of the license drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia to be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to provide copyright information after the image is uploaded?
Remove the norification requirement and just speedy all untagged images.
I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.
Stan
On 1/23/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.
And at least a fair use claim requires some source information, even if the fair use claim is shaky.
How many of the untagged images are old, prior to the requirement for image tagging?
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 1/23/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I'm inclining this way myself. Commons' shoot-on-sight policy seems to work pretty well at keeping it clean, while on en: the images are being uploaded faster than they are being tagged, so we're falling behind. The untagged images worry me more than the declared fair use ones actually, because we simply don't know what's in there.
And at least a fair use claim requires some source information, even if the fair use claim is shaky.
Some days I find that half or more of the images I look at with the generic fair use tag are source-less - gets them a ticket on the fast track to oblivion.
How many of the untagged images are old, prior to the requirement for image tagging?
Not so many, less than 10% that I've seen - previous retroactive image-tagging initiatives must have caught most of them. I see a "bulge" around summer 2005, which I think is after the last big tagging push and before uploading screen was reworded, or it could just be clueless uploads by students on vacation.
Stan
On 1/23/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
How many of the untagged images are old, prior to the requirement for image tagging?
Not so many, less than 10% that I've seen - previous retroactive image-tagging initiatives must have caught most of them.
Also WP was much smaller then and people were less concerned, as I recall, with illustrating articles.
-Matt