On 11/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to include them when:
a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind (especially for the US)
For the UK there is a datated but free high quality alternative for anyone who is prepared to do a search through the national monuments record archive.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated
On 11/23/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated
Joe user doesn't use cats and there are not really enough of the things to be a problem anyway.
geni wrote:
On 11/23/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated
Joe user doesn't use cats and there are not really enough of the things to be a problem anyway.
Does j. random luser tend to select the right "fair use" tag at upload time from the dropdown? We could quite simply add "Google maps/Google Earth" in there and have the appropriate template categorise the images for us...
On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 11/23/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated
Joe user doesn't use cats and there are not really enough of the things to be a problem anyway.
Does j. random luser tend to select the right "fair use" tag at upload time from the dropdown? We could quite simply add "Google maps/Google Earth" in there and have the appropriate template categorise the images for us...
It isn't really common enough to be worthwhile. If you followed that line the drop down menu would be even more insanely long than it already is.
suggestion: Why don't we push for creating [[Category:Google maps images]] as a subcategory of Fair use images if we get average joe user tagging images with such category it's going to be easier for us reviewing themn and deleting when appropiated
What's the point of having a category for something that will almost always get deleted? I imagine the Google Earth/Maps articles already have all the images they need (which isn't enough to warrant a category), and they will virtually never fall under fair use anywhere else, so they should be deleted, not categorised.
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What's the point of having a category for something that will almost always get deleted? I imagine the Google Earth/Maps articles already have all the images they need (which isn't enough to warrant a category), and they will virtually never fall under fair use anywhere else, so they should be deleted, not categorised.
It's similar to a honeypot - we put the category there, hoping people are honest enough to use the category to make it easy to come along later and delete them.
It's similar to a honeypot - we put the category there, hoping people are honest enough to use the category to make it easy to come along later and delete them.
a) The people that would be categorising them would likely be people that could just delete them (or tag them for deletion) if they knew they weren't allowed. b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed, which will probably just increase their usage.
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed, which will probably just increase their usage.
I'm going to object to the logic here. You're suggesting that by creating a category, people will simultaneously think they're allowed (and hence upload more of them), while not putting them in that category, because they know they're not allowed? That's too weird, even for Pokémon fans.
Steve
On 11/24/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed, which will probably just increase their usage.
I'm going to object to the logic here. You're suggesting that by creating a category, people will simultaneously think they're allowed (and hence upload more of them), while not putting them in that category, because they know they're not allowed? That's too weird, even for Pokémon fans.
Some people will upload them without paying any attention to the category - as the category won't affect them, we can ignore them when considering the benefits of making the category. Other people will see the category and upload more images - that's the main affect the category will have, so that's what we need to consider.
Op 24-nov-2006, om 14:51 heeft Thomas Dalton het volgende geschreven:
Some people will upload them without paying any attention to the category - as the category won't affect them, we can ignore them when considering the benefits of making the category. Other people will see the category and upload more images - that's the main affect the category will have, so that's what we need to consider.
I think that the goal of the images should be put into consideration. Isn't it better conduct to categorize "satellite photos" as opposed to "images from Google Earth"? This would allow people to put free images in the category as well. I don't really see the use of categorizing images from Google Earth, because they aren't any more or less useful than equivalents from other sources.
PS: I'm new to this list, and haven't seen the beginning of this discussion, so my apologies if this is off-topic or besides the point.
Michiel Sikma michiel@thingmajig.org Web designer and programmer
I think that the goal of the images should be put into consideration. Isn't it better conduct to categorize "satellite photos" as opposed to "images from Google Earth"? This would allow people to put free images in the category as well. I don't really see the use of categorizing images from Google Earth, because they aren't any more or less useful than equivalents from other sources.
A "satellite photos" (or "satellite and aerial photos") category would seem sensible to me.
On 11/24/06, Michiel Sikma michiel@thingmajig.org wrote:
Op 24-nov-2006, om 14:51 heeft Thomas Dalton het volgende geschreven:
Some people will upload them without paying any attention to the category - as the category won't affect them, we can ignore them when considering the benefits of making the category. Other people will see the category and upload more images - that's the main affect the category will have, so that's what we need to consider.
I think that the goal of the images should be put into consideration. Isn't it better conduct to categorize "satellite photos" as opposed to "images from Google Earth"? This would allow people to put free images in the category as well. I don't really see the use of categorizing images from Google Earth, because they aren't any more or less useful than equivalents from other sources.
PS: I'm new to this list, and haven't seen the beginning of this discussion, so my apologies if this is off-topic or besides the point.
Michiel Sikma michiel@thingmajig.org Web designer and programmer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There's no reason why [[Category:Google Maps images]] cannot be a subcategory of both [[Category:Fair use images]] and [[Category:Satellite images]]
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed, which will probably just increase their usage.
I'm going to object to the logic here. You're suggesting that by creating a category, people will simultaneously think they're allowed (and hence upload more of them), while not putting them in that category, because they know they're not allowed? That's too weird, even for Pokémon fans.
The question is, do we want to frustrate those whose intent is to be good citizens? Some will not bother to find the correct category, or will intentionally pick what they know to be an incorrect category. For those, the existence of a "correct" category will make little difference. Others, however, will seek the correct category, because they're trying to do what's right. For those people, seeing a category may lead them to believe that Google Earth snaps are ok. Under this proposal, we zap those people by deleting their contribution. This makes no sense, unless we're more interested in catching people than in encouraging proper behavior.
To use an analogy, it would be like having a special lane on a highway, marked for "traffic in excess of speed limit". Then posting police to ticket anyone using that lane.
-Rich