New subject: SPEEDYING images Re: Jimbo's rule, copyright, old images with permission only

29 Jun 2006

      On 6/22/06, Sherool jamydlan@online.no wrote:
...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:46:12 +0200, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Revisiting
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
and checking the long long long list of images at [[Category:Images
used with permission]] there are many of them kept becuase they were
uploaded before such date.
It's been more than a year since the ruling, I believe older images
weren't removed in order to let uploaders tag them properly, find
replacements, or so they could be processed at the old Vfd.
Quoting Jimbo
"It is very unfortunate that such images are still being uploaded _new_
when we have not be happy about them for a long time.  It is not fair to
contributors who are working on such things, since we have no intention
to keep them in the long run."
Well, if in the long run they have to go, it could start now. So, I
was wondering why aren't they being processed yet.  I'm thinking of
nominating batches of them at IFD every certain time. On the other
hand, however [[WP:IFD]] is clogged, so I was a bit hesitant about
doing so without more feedback.
Thus I created [[User:Drini/OldCopyrightedImgs]] which has a small
sample for the first bacth and shows how I would be nominating them. I
tried to sample different kind of images (uploaded by the webmaster's
site, by random users, by respected old users, without source,
orphaned images, etc) so we can get an idea what we're dealign with.
Still, IFD is overloaded, so maybe better alternatives can come up?
Maybe a IFD-like for this kind of images?
Jimbo, what's your current view about such things?
I don't see how anyone could object, either they come up with a fair use
rationale or secure a permission to release the image under a free license
or it gets deleted, simgple as that, as you say there have been plenty of
time to fix this. Ok a lot of people don't know that these kind of
licenses are no longer allowed, but they will know once they get the IFD
notice on theyr talk page, and images can be undeleted now too, so there
is rely no excuse to delay this any further, if people are uneable to come
up with a compelling reason to keep an image within the IFD wait period
they can simply request the images be undeleted though Deletion review at
a later time if the copyright holder agree to release it under a free
license after all. Nothing like a pending deletion to make people spring
into action.
Just be sure it's done "by the book", notifying uploaders and adding
{{ifdc}} to captions where the image is used and so forth to boost
awarenes about why they are beeing deleted. IMHO making as many people as
possible understand why this kind of licenses are not acceptable are more
important than getting them all hastily deleted, "by permission" and "non
commercial" images are still a fairly big problem, people just don't use
those tags anymore becase they are not listed (they tend to pick "no
rights reserved" instead for some reason). I actualy think {{permission}}
and {{noncommercial}} should be added to MediaWiki:Licenses (at least
after all the old ones have been cleared out), that way we can easily
track them down and delete them rather than digging them out of some other
random license tag the uploader choose because he didn't find a good fit
(same deal as "don't know" and "some website"). But I digress.
--
[[:en:User:Sherool]]

WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, my point is, why aren't these being speedied like the new ones?
If giving time for finding replacements was the issue, plenty of time
has been given, (yet precisely since they were kept, noone is
bothering to find free replacements). Jimbo says those won't stay
forever, but unless they start being gone, noone will get the free
stuff.
So, is anyone willing to support speedying these images?
** at least in the case of the ORPHANED noncommercial/withpermission
before the date** ?