Hi all, The "Upload file" link in the left pane of monobook still takes you to the page for uploading an image to the English wikipedia. In most cases, it would be more helpful to be uploading the image to Commons (US fair use being the notable exception).
Since I notice that certain other wikipedias at least make a commons upload link equally prominent, is it time we considered removing the upload-to-EN link entirely, or hiding it somewhere for those that really do want to upload fair use images? And instead, provide a link to upload to commons?
Or perhaps I'm missing something - is there any reason I should ever want to upload something to EN, other than fair use?
Steve
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The "Upload file" link in the left pane of monobook still takes you to the page for uploading an image to the English wikipedia. In most cases, it would be more helpful to be uploading the image to Commons (US fair use being the notable exception).
Since I notice that certain other wikipedias at least make a commons upload link equally prominent, is it time we considered removing the upload-to-EN link entirely, or hiding it somewhere for those that really do want to upload fair use images? And instead, provide a link to upload to commons?
I don't think commons needs the deluge of unfree images it would recive
Or perhaps I'm missing something - is there any reason I should ever want to upload something to EN, other than fair use?
Steve
Vandalism.
-- geni
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Or perhaps I'm missing something - is there any reason I should ever want to upload something to EN, other than fair use?
Any number of practical considerations, especially when we're dealing with newer users:
1. Most en: contributors don't have a Commons account; until single login is actually implemented, having to sign up for a new account will just be an annoyance. 1.a. Even if users _do_ sign up to Commons, they are unlikely to check their talk pages there on a regular basis, which would make contacting them far more difficult. 2. Images uploaded to Commons with what turns out to be an unsuitable license are likely to be deleted out of hand, with no notification to the user; such images on en: can be retagged as fair use if needed. 3. Conversely, Commons does not (at present) have the infrastructure in place to deal with the flood of new uploads we see on en:, making it more likely that non-free images will slip through the cracks.
Having a more streamlined process for migrating free images to Commons would be better, in my opinion; but even that might not be possible with the increasingly stringent demands being placed on image tagging.
Kirill Lokshin
On 03/05/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
- Most en: contributors don't have a Commons account; until single
login is actually implemented, having to sign up for a new account will just be an annoyance. 1.a. Even if users _do_ sign up to Commons, they are unlikely to check their talk pages there on a regular basis, which would make contacting them far more difficult. 2. Images uploaded to Commons with what turns out to be an unsuitable license are likely to be deleted out of hand, with no notification to the user; such images on en: can be retagged as fair use if needed. 3. Conversely, Commons does not (at present) have the infrastructure in place to deal with the flood of new uploads we see on en:, making it more likely that non-free images will slip through the cracks.
Having a more streamlined process for migrating free images to Commons would be better, in my opinion; but even that might not be possible with the increasingly stringent demands being placed on image tagging.
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Steve
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
Kirill
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be rather complex.
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith.
There is a differnce between assumeing good faith and assumeing judgement
See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
Kirill
People are just playing safe. Keeping an image we knew there were doubts about would be hard to defend.
-- geni
On 5/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be rather complex.
Curious. I was under the impression that Bridgeman v Corel drew no distinction based on where the copy was made (if the copy is accurate, how could you tell?), and that _any_ (two-dimensional, slavish, etc.) reproduction of a PD artwork was considered PD under US law.
Kirill
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be rather complex.
Curious. I was under the impression that Bridgeman v Corel drew no distinction based on where the copy was made (if the copy is accurate, how could you tell?), and that _any_ (two-dimensional, slavish, etc.) reproduction of a PD artwork was considered PD under US law.
Kirill
But not under UK law. So if an image was copyed and published in the uk it may or may not be copywriten. So you have an image published in the uk that may be copywriten. Then the Berne convention turns up and I lost interest in trying to figure stuff out. In any case you then have the problem of UK editors. Copyright law in this area appears to be a mess. We need sources so we can deal with the problem of it being clarified (For example if Bridgeman v Corel was overturned knowing which images were copied directly from PD sources by wikipedians would be kinda hand since we would then know what not to delete).
-- geni
On 5/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be rather complex.
Only in the UK, and even that is ambiguous only because there haven't been any cases challenging that yet (as far as I know). No copyright status would be recognized in the US at all. I think it's pretty low-priority on our copyright issues, given that as far as I know there's no evidence that a photo of 15th century 2-D art would be considered copyrighted in the UK. (Museums are of course shaking in their boots over the idea, but that's only because they stand to potentially lose money over it. As a principle it is entirely unsound that an exact reproduction of a public domain work should generate any new copyrights; it completely undermines the idea of the public domain in the first place.)
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith.
There is a differnce between assumeing good faith and assumeing judgement
I agree completely. I think the burden of proof in copyright matters has to be with the uploader, which does somewhat undercut "assume good faith" in situations where things have been improperly or ambiguously tagged.
FF
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
Speaking of assuming bad faith... :-)
There are not many who upload in bad faith, and those who do tend to weed themselves out by getting blocked. The usual case is ignorance; while one doesn't need to know much to add a legit sentence, valid uploads require more knowledge, including a basic familiarity with the legalities. Even after simplifying the legalese down via templates, and providing lots of links and advice on the upload pages, we still get hundreds of bad uploads per day, many of which will require admin cycles to clean up. It doesn't help that many uploaders think they know about image copyrights already, so there is a lot of unlearning for them to do.
One advantage to commons is that the rules are enforced rather more stringently; while the admins from en: agonize over whether the newbie copviolators are being sufficiently praised for investing a whole 20 seconds copying from a random website, admins from de: come along and blam blam blam, the problem images are gone. :-)
Stan
On 5/3/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One advantage to commons is that the rules are enforced rather more stringently; while the admins from en: agonize over whether the newbie copviolators are being sufficiently praised for investing a whole 20 seconds copying from a random website, admins from de: come along and blam blam blam, the problem images are gone. :-)
de: doesn't allow fair use images, right? That makes it much easier, since there's no motivation to try and salvage a borderline image ;-)
Kirill Lokshin
On 03/05/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
There are not many who upload in bad faith, and those who do tend to weed themselves out by getting blocked. The usual case is ignorance; while one doesn't need to know much to add a legit sentence, valid uploads require more knowledge, including a basic familiarity with the legalities. Even after simplifying the legalese down via templates, and providing lots of links and advice on the upload pages, we still get hundreds of bad uploads per day, many of which will require admin cycles to clean up. It doesn't help that many uploaders think they know about image copyrights already, so there is a lot of unlearning for them to do.
Maybe we need a green line and a red line like with customs at airports.
Do you own this image? Did you take it, or make it with your own bare hands, starting from scratch? Are you willing to release virtually all rights to it, and let others sell, modify or otherwise abuse it? Green line for you!
All others, line up over here, we'll deal with you next week.
Steve
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
When it comes to image uploads and tagging, I don't assume bad faith. I assume cheerfully aggressive cluelessness. I wish the problems were caused by people acting in bad faith -- it'd be easier to deal with, then.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On 5/3/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
When it comes to image uploads and tagging, I don't assume bad faith. I assume cheerfully aggressive cluelessness. I wish the problems were caused by people acting in bad faith -- it'd be easier to deal with, then.
Fair enough. I'll point out, though, that "aggressive cluelessness" is hardly limited to people who upload images. It's just as easy to add one of a number of nice little "This image will die a horrid death in a week unless the uploader satisfies Chapter V, Subsection 12, paragraph xvii of the Great Wikipedia Image Rulebook" templates to an image as it is to upload it in the first place; and while I understand that many images can't be readily identified by anyone other than the original uploader, you'd think that people would make some minimal effort for the really, REALLY obvious ones.
Kirill Lokshin
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
The image deletion process is, unfortunately, institutionalizing the assumption of bad faith. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PUI#April 30 (specifically the discussion of the Himmler photo); people seem to be approaching the issue of image sourcing with the intent to delete as many images as possible, preferably for purely bureaucratic reasons.
I'm looking at that discussion and wondering whether the nominator actually believes the other guy's claim that he works for the "National Personnel Records Center" and therefore has some expertise in the matter.
The worrying possibility exists that he does indeed believe but is indulging in his ability as a Wikipedia contributor to "cock a snook" at a self-proclaimed expert.
[Cross-post to wikien-l, wikitech-l and mediawiki-l; apologies for duplication]
On 03/05/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The "Upload file" link in the left pane of monobook still takes you to the page for uploading an image to the English wikipedia. In most cases, it would be more helpful to be uploading the image to Commons (US fair use being the notable exception).
Since I notice that certain other wikipedias at least make a commons upload link equally prominent, is it time we considered removing the upload-to-EN link entirely, or hiding it somewhere for those that really do want to upload fair use images? And instead, provide a link to upload to commons?
Allow me to recall a #mediawiki anecdote from about a week ago. A user new to the software wanted to set up about three wikis using a fourth as a mini version of our Commons (their own implementation); the "usage" side had been established, but the user queried whether or not uploads from all wikis could be diverted to the new.
Given that the "slave" wikis would all have access to the "master" database (excuse the confusing mix of terminologies for those who are placing this into 'SQL context), I considered it wouldn't be too difficult.
Now for the relevant bit. It's been discussed before, a little, and I touched upon it in a recent discussion sparked off from the newbie's questions...but it could be feasible for us to replace our Special:Upload pages with something a bit more intelligent. Making use of the licencing dropdowns, we could, I think, redirect free images to Commons in a seamless fashion (after checking existence and providing a courteous note to the user, of course).
This has advantages and disadvantages. The user's upload experience is simple, and the image can be used as before without trouble. On the other hand, deliberate or accidental mis-selection of the licence [cw]ould result in an influx of non-free materials arriving on the Commons.
Nevertheless, I think the idea has potential, and it's something I might be interested in helping to hack together in the future. I'll throw it out here and see what people think. And since I'm at it, I'll cross-post to mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, too.
Rob Church
On 5/3/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
Nevertheless, I think the idea has potential, and it's something I might be interested in helping to hack together in the future. I'll throw it out here and see what people think. And since I'm at it, I'll cross-post to mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, too.
Rob Church
We need the ability to upload images onto en to deal with vandalism. Secondaly how would [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] work?
-- geni
On 03/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We need the ability to upload images onto en to deal with vandalism. Secondaly how would [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] work?
We could change things a bit, of course; if the shared image repo. version of the file is protected, then we could disallow local uploads.
In addition, I believe (but don't quote me on it) that the bad image list is applied to commons stuff too by virtue of the order of execution.
Rob Church
Rob Church wrote:
On 03/05/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We need the ability to upload images onto en to deal with vandalism. Secondaly how would [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] work?
We could change things a bit, of course; if the shared image repo. version of the file is protected, then we could disallow local uploads.
Better yet, don't allow a local upload if the Commons version exists.
Rob Church wrote:
[snip] Now for the relevant bit. It's been discussed before, a little, and I touched upon it in a recent discussion sparked off from the newbie's questions...but it could be feasible for us to replace our Special:Upload pages with something a bit more intelligent. Making use of the licencing dropdowns, we could, I think, redirect free images to Commons in a seamless fashion (after checking existence and providing a courteous note to the user, of course).
That's a brilliant idea. I'd really like to see it implemented. Not only for English Wikipedia, but for all Wikimedia projects.
This has advantages and disadvantages. The user's upload experience is simple, and the image can be used as before without trouble. On the other hand, deliberate or accidental mis-selection of the licence [cw]ould result in an influx of non-free materials arriving on the Commons.
Even though I'm not a Commons expert, I can deduce that Commons too has a problem with wrong licenses, hence some of the deletion.
[snip]
Filip
P.S. Sorry for doubleposts... I used Reply to all
"Filip Maljkovic" wrote:
Rob Church wrote:
[snip] Now for the relevant bit. It's been discussed before, a little, and I touched upon it in a recent discussion sparked off from the newbie's questions...but it could be feasible for us to replace our Special:Upload pages with something a bit more intelligent. Making use of the licencing dropdowns, we could, I think, redirect free images to Commons in a seamless fashion (after checking existence and providing a courteous note to the user, of course).
If we already had the unique login system, it would only be a fact of <form action changing at the user level.
On 5/3/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote: ....
Now for the relevant bit. It's been discussed before, a little, and I touched upon it in a recent discussion sparked off from the newbie's questions...but it could be feasible for us to replace our Special:Upload pages with something a bit more intelligent. Making use of the licencing dropdowns, we could, I think, redirect free images to Commons in a seamless fashion (after checking existence and providing a courteous note to the user, of course).
This has advantages and disadvantages. The user's upload experience is simple, and the image can be used as before without trouble. On the other hand, deliberate or accidental mis-selection of the licence [cw]ould result in an influx of non-free materials arriving on the Commons.
Nevertheless, I think the idea has potential, and it's something I might be interested in helping to hack together in the future. I'll throw it out here and see what people think. And since I'm at it, I'll cross-post to mediawiki-l and wikitech-l, too.
Rob Church
I like this idea. I don't think there would be very many bad uploads, since only free licensed-images would go onto Commons, and if you are clueless, then you'll either not provide any sort of license or just pick a random one, and it's not like Commons isn't trigger happy, so even with an epidemic....
This would provide some nice symmetry. It's already seamless one way (using Commons pics on en) so why not be seamless the other way? We can perhaps make some headway on moving over all Free images and media over to Commons (leaving fair use and such on en) if we did this.
~maru
On 5/3/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
I like this idea. I don't think there would be very many bad uploads, since only free licensed-images would go onto Commons, and if you are clueless, then you'll either not provide any sort of license or just pick a random one, and it's not like Commons isn't trigger happy, so even with an epidemic....
I don't think they could handle it. Even if all the "fair use" images, all the "no license tag" images, and all the "I don't know" images are uploaded to En, that still leaves Commons with a flood of 800 images a day, 200+ of which will have bogus license information - a 50% increase in workload.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]