I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see some evidence for this. Thanks User:Rodhullandemu --- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Reply-To: Alessandro Marchetti &lt;alexmar983(a)yahoo.it&gt;it>, Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; To: Wikimedia Mailing List &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Sent: 25/02/2020 16:45:02 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects ________________________________________________________________________________ Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia. At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons. When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Rebecca O'Neill &lt;rebeccanineil(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Thank you; it is. The issue is not with Commons, but with Commons' OTRS. tl;dr = wanted photographs of individuals with items on Wikidata (established 2012) , that meet Wikidata's notability criteria, are being rejected, unseen by the Commons or Wikidata communities, by OTRS volunteers, based on a 2010 policy that is on a password-protected wiki. Requests for details how how that policy was arrived at, and how it can be changed, remain unanswered. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Hoi, This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%… This is the chat at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wiki… Thanks, GerardM On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

I see. If I am reading it right I think that in that case I would never tried a direct OTRS , mostly because I know how the system is designed and its possible rigid reaction. IMHO it's not designed to minimize these points of stress but to encourage them. It looks more like a play when some people are confortable with a certain role. I am not interested in that play, so I try to skip it as much as possible. I have noticed for example people like these discussions about notability on Wikidata, but not the solution. In practice I see millions of items with acceptable IDs which will be completed by images and these discussions are already old. Just to be clear... I hate poorly created items, since I mostly teach who to manually improve them and even I don't care so much, so why people from other projects should bother inventing apocalyptic scenarios just makes me smile. They will stop when they will find something else to complain. Still, I don't know you but to me It looks more of a social thing than a fucntional one. There is really nothing more to discuss if you look into that, we need bibliometric items for precise application within the scope of Wikidata, and they require images. I am not going to write the more time-consuming steps I would have used to prepare or encourage or process that import, I simply would have assumed that the most direct way for that situation was just pointless to try. There is always some issues with one file in a batch or the phrasing of a sentence, there is always a confusion between notability guidelines... there is always a person who would precisely do what will escalate the situation. So, if the chance are more than 50% to go bad... why bother? I prefer to find ways to make the longer road more time efficient and meaningful. Of course if you don't go that way you are not presenting things in a nice clear single passage so you cannot often take the spotlight... but I am not committed to that aspect, so It's not an issue for me. I still meet a lot of very interesting people on the way. Still, you have my support to remove that rigidi interpretation of notability on OTRS. If I can help to more people sapre time, I totally support it. Alessadro Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 18:21:18 CET, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: Hoi,This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%… is the chat at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wiki…anks,     GerardM On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:  Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro     Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto:   Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia. At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons. When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks,       GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>  _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording. The person must; - establish their authority to license the image - the license must be a free license PD or CC-by - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia - it needs a URL to associate the permission with If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons. Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on the commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work. OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on. In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs &lt;michael(a)maggs.name&gt; wrote: -- GN. *Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

to quote Gerard There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put for purpose. OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws, both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that action of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in the process. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- GN. *Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original copyright holder is that as well. Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Hoi, Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the Commons community to decide otherwise. When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on another project. Thanks, Gerard On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding. Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different perspective must be evil or incompetent. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra &lt;gnangarra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand. And there must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration. But there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose* of use on Wikipedia. That is one of the most common motivations for submitting files. It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph, because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file, and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally. OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that they have the rights to do so. Emufarmers

Thanks for this clarity Paulo. Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion? 🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, < paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: