Or, the es.wp users are all not aware of the restrictions on what is
acceptable. Your earlier post appeared to support the es.wp position.
This is a problem that should be handled at the source, not creating
better tools to fix what should not be happening in the first place.
If, say, 90% of the material being uploaded is against the grain, why
should we not try to fix the problem at the source? We are clearly
not doing a good enough job explaning what is okay and what is not if
this kind of situation has evolved.
On 11/14/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/11/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Commons exists to be a repository for free
culture *and* to serve as
an inter-wiki storage medium for *free* media. it is not a place to
dump stuff, nor is it a place which exists independently of other
wikis.
Copyright violations are not a minor or trivial problem. They are a
serious problem, for which we are obligated to act when they are
properly brought to our attention. This is all nothing new.
If there are Wikimedians who are advocating housing copyrighted media
in Commons, speak up now, because we need to get clear on why that is
not cool immediately.
There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a
Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to
stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up,
evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty
much no-one even bothers trying.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com
727-231-0101