Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/31/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/06, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
The problem is though that a lot of people are remarkably resistant to taking any notice of instructions and warnings. They just want to upload cool images, and get very upset when we remove and delete them.
Which is why we need to remove the upload link. If they need to hunt around a bit before they can upload images, there's a chance they'll run into the instructions.
Simply making the upload link a link to upload instructions... and asking users to upload by forming a image redlink would actually do a lot to help. A lot of images get uploaded without ever being linked in.. and where an image is used is very helpful in figuring it out its status (for fair use images, at least).
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming?
--Michael Snow
On 7/31/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming?
That bring around another question... Why do we consider redlinks for non yet created articles benificial while we conisder redlinks for not yet created illustrations to be a problem that must be fixed? :)
On 8/1/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/31/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming?
That bring around another question... Why do we consider redlinks for non yet created articles benificial while we conisder redlinks for not yet created illustrations to be a problem that must be fixed? :)
Because image names are the next best thing to arbitary, redirects don't work AFAIK, and arbitary image names don't canonicalize to a discrete and clear subject, unlike article names which generally do (and we have disambiguation pages for the ones which don't).
~maru
On 8/1/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
That bring around another question... Why do we consider redlinks for non yet created articles benificial while we conisder redlinks for not yet created illustrations to be a problem that must be fixed? :)
One reason is that images can't be renamed, and follow no naming convention whatsoever. Which makes the chance of an image (and an appropriate one at that) magically fitting the proposed name vanishingly small.
Steve
On 8/1/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming?
FWIW, what I tend to do is use the "preview" button to show the redlink, and click that. Not so much for images, though. Also, if by chance I make a redlink by accident, I tend to fix it with a redirect rather than changing the source.
Steve