I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected, images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted, but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps. Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans, and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images were deleted in the first place.
No moral to the story, except perhaps that figuring all this out (and re-uploading from my backup copies) is time that could have gone into content development. I suspect all this publicity is going to bring a new crop of vandals wanting to "prove" that WP is a failure, so even more time will go into defending rather than improving.
Stan
That's a problem similar to one I see with categories. We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
Right now, we can only see it clearly if someone removes a cat if we're looking at the article, while looking at the entire cat should be sufficient.
Mgm
On 12/2/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected, images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted, but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps. Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans, and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images were deleted in the first place.
No moral to the story, except perhaps that figuring all this out (and re-uploading from my backup copies) is time that could have gone into content development. I suspect all this publicity is going to bring a new crop of vandals wanting to "prove" that WP is a failure, so even more time will go into defending rather than improving.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
The use of {{tl|fairusein}} will let a user know where the image is intended to be used. It might also be worth noting the information on the image talk page.
Steve Block wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
The use of {{tl|fairusein}} will let a user know where the image is intended to be used. It might also be worth noting the information on the image talk page.
In fact I started using it last night when doing a pass over the fair use category (the "fairuse" tag helpfully suggests it).
A requirement for two-way linkage between image and article seems like the right long-term strategy, because checking can be automated, and garden-variety vandalism is unlikely to break both links simultaneously.
Stan
Steve Block wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We need a way to record which articles an image has been on (not the other way around) and we also need to see how a category changes.
The use of {{tl|fairusein}} will let a user know where the image is intended to be used. It might also be worth noting the information on the image talk page.
Yep. When I put a fairuse image up that doesn't have a categorised reason (book cover, etc.), I try very hard to name the articles it's being used in and why.
On Uncyclopedia, appropriated and manipulated images are de rigeur. But fair use for satirical purposes is even wider than for educational purposes, so I tend to add something like "the uploader asserts that the use of this copyrighted image in the article [[whatever]] is fair use as satirical and political speech under US law" or similar. c.f. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Niggers , which is a fairly vicious satire of the Cleveland Indians and their staggeringly racist logo, and adapts said trademarked logo for its purposes. (I'm amazed they haven't come after it; possibly they are having the good sense to ignore it and not draw attention to it.)
- d.
Stan Shebs wrote:
I unexpectedly found myself in Anthere's position today - checked on my gallery of fair use postage stamp images today, and as expected, images for which I hadn't yet written the article had been deleted, but also some images long used in my article about Austrian stamps. Turns out that some anon had emptied out half the article, this went unnoticed for several weeks (it's on my watchlist, but must not have checked it that day), then while I was on vacation and not examining watchlist daily, the bot came along, marked the images as orphans, and a couple weeks later somebody else deleted. After *that* a nice anon quietly restored the article, leaving it unclear why the images were deleted in the first place.
I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here. If we start tagging images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to ifd. That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as that is part of the ifd process. It puts another obstacle in the way of the above circumstance.
Steve block
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here. If we start tagging images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to ifd. That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as that is part of the ifd process. It puts another obstacle in the way of the above circumstance.
fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of being implemented. I will suggest that these are left out of the bot assisted orphaned fu trawl (which isnt running at the moment as tools has lost a drive apparently).
But free images on commons are worth a thousand fair uses.
Justinc
Justin Cormack wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here. If we start tagging images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to ifd. That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as that is part of the ifd process. It puts another obstacle in the way of the above circumstance.
fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of being implemented.
Gosh, when are we to be notified of that fact?
Steve Block wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 14:36 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
I think there's certainly a germ of an idea here. If we start tagging images with {{tl|fairusein}}, we could move that all images so tagged are not speedyable under the orphan rule, but rather must be taken to ifd. That would not, however, help if the uploader was on holiday, as ifd lasts five days, but the uploader would at least be notified, as that is part of the ifd process. It puts another obstacle in the way of the above circumstance.
fairusein is essentially now a requirement, just in the process of being implemented.
Gosh, when are we to be notified of that fact?
Sorry, that's rather unfair of me. It's just I can't remember much debate on this, and it feels like if it is presented as a requirement woithout any discussion, it will kick up a bit of dust. I for one would be more than happy to support it in a discussion, but having it imposed makes me bristle. Apologies.
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 15:02 +0000, Steve Block wrote:
Sorry, that's rather unfair of me. It's just I can't remember much debate on this, and it feels like if it is presented as a requirement woithout any discussion, it will kick up a bit of dust. I for one would be more than happy to support it in a discussion, but having it imposed makes me bristle. Apologies.
Its not imposed, and there are probably only several hundred images tagged so far. But no one has objected. Jimbo hath decreed that the fair use image situation is a mess and must become organised and justifiable. As fair use law is about the usage not the image its the usage that has to be justified, so its just a label to say which usage(s) are under consideration, so there is something to discuss. They could be autogenerated from the current (article space) links, the manual process is just to allow some review (although a seperate review process was proposed that I think is better).
[[WP:FU]] is where things get discussed. I find it all too depressing now. Does anyone know if any of the mirrors have produced anything to scrub wikipedia of non free images (including the Image: links)?
Justinc