From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com
But as we've discovered, lots of people get unduly attached to images that they can't legitimately use. I've applied a very light touch on image tagging myself, still get carping and reverts.
At some point (soon I hope) we'll get to where all fair use image descriptions include links to the exact set of articles where their use is justified, then it will be sufficient to run a variant of Orphanbot to quietly comment out all other attempts to use. Bots are relentless and are hard to accuse of bias or favoritism, so even the intransigent will learn to give up.
I think one of the issues on fair-use images in userspace is that people haven't thought through the use of those images. I'm guilty of this myself - I understand fair-use/copyright etc very well, but it's easy to not consider it when you're busy creating something.
Perhaps we can prompt people a little better: the boilerplates for {{fairuse}} {{albumcover}} etc could be modified to include the words
"Note: This image must '''NOT''' be used on User pages, Talk pages or Template pages. If used there, it ''will'' be deleted from the page '''without notice'''."
This is a helpful reminder to people building a userbox or a userpage, to people dropping a "thank you" or a "be less stressed" note on a talk page etc.
It also means that, if such problems happen in future, people can't say they weren't warned or didn't know or (my excuse) didn't think about it.
It's a lot better than expecting people to click a link to a page of legalese or to be familiar with the discussions we're having here. Especially for new users, who are most often blamed for misusing images.
:"REDVERS"
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/
"Redvers @ the Wikipedia" wikiredvers@yahoo.ie wrote in message news:20060105131743.68330.qmail@web26414.mail.ukl.yahoo.com... [snip]
Perhaps we can prompt people a little better: the boilerplates for {{fairuse}} {{albumcover}} etc could be modified to include the words "Note: This image must '''NOT''' be used on User pages, Talk pages or Template pages. If used there, it ''will'' be deleted from the page '''without notice'''."
Indeed, it should be possible for a bot to scan images marked "fair use" or similar, find usage in forbidden namespaces, and nuke them with extreme precision: it could even leave a little polite notice on the appropriate talk-page saying what happened to all the pretty pictures.
I wonder if there's scope for a tweak of Mediawiki's handling of images? You could mark a given namespace as an "image-type" namespace, in that references to "articles" in that namespace actually work as images do now. You could then possible specify that this "transclusion" should only occur in certain namespaces, and anywhere else you would simply get a link.
Maybe I should stop for lunch...;-)
On 1/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Redvers @ the Wikipedia" wikiredvers@yahoo.ie wrote in message news:20060105131743.68330.qmail@web26414.mail.ukl.yahoo.com... [snip]
Perhaps we can prompt people a little better: the boilerplates for {{fairuse}} {{albumcover}} etc could be modified to include the words "Note: This image must '''NOT''' be used on User pages, Talk pages or Template pages. If used there, it ''will'' be deleted from the page '''without notice'''."
Indeed, it should be possible for a bot to scan images marked "fair use" or similar, find usage in forbidden namespaces, and nuke them with extreme precision: it could even leave a little polite notice on the appropriate talk-page saying what happened to all the pretty pictures.
I wonder if there's scope for a tweak of Mediawiki's handling of images? You could mark a given namespace as an "image-type" namespace, in that references to "articles" in that namespace actually work as images do now. You could then possible specify that this "transclusion" should only occur in certain namespaces, and anywhere else you would simply get a link.
Maybe I should stop for lunch...;-)
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
I am not a coder or this might have been mentioned before, but isn't it possible to only allow images from commons on user/talk pages and templates?
Garion
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:27:51 +0100, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Redvers @ the Wikipedia" wikiredvers@yahoo.ie wrote in message news:20060105131743.68330.qmail@web26414.mail.ukl.yahoo.com... [snip]
Perhaps we can prompt people a little better: the boilerplates for {{fairuse}} {{albumcover}} etc could be modified to include the words "Note: This image must '''NOT''' be used on User pages, Talk pages or Template pages. If used there, it ''will'' be deleted from the page '''without notice'''."
Indeed, it should be possible for a bot to scan images marked "fair use" or similar, find usage in forbidden namespaces, and nuke them with extreme precision: it could even leave a little polite notice on the appropriate talk-page saying what happened to all the pretty pictures.
I wonder if there's scope for a tweak of Mediawiki's handling of images? You could mark a given namespace as an "image-type" namespace, in that references to "articles" in that namespace actually work as images do now. You could then possible specify that this "transclusion" should only occur in certain namespaces, and anywhere else you would simply get a link.
Maybe I should stop for lunch...;-)
That bot sounds like a good idea, at least for userspace, wich is where people get most upset if you start "censoring" theyr stuff. At least no one could blame a bot for playing favourites.
I fear the result might just be for more people to simply "invent" new license tags that give them permission to use images for theyr userpage anyway though. Case in point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mozilla wich currently looks like it might survive it's second run on TFD (at least if you just count the "votes"). Hopefully a dozen "keep per IAR" votes won't be given too much weight, as IMHO it's basicaly a fork of {{permission}} for one very spesific purpose.