Jimbo I think it's a terrible idea to delete images w/o explicit license information because the default assumed license is the GFDL. The uploader may not know that the image needs to be tagged, and we're going to lose many images this way. I've already found one that got deleted, but fortunately the author was still around and reuploaded it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:CMOS_NAND.png&action=his...
If the auther is gone, the image is gone, and for no good reason. Additionally, this could mean that images incorrectly tagged with the category [[Category:Images with unknown source]] could be gone in 7 days. Are administrators going to make sure that all images in that category are legitimate before firing away? Expect trolls to start to take advantage of this loophole to cause data loss.
We don't require text to have an explicit license, why should we do this for images? For no explicit license, the implicit GFDL should be imposed unless we find otherwise. If it looks suspicious it can be put to the vote, but I wouldn't make those speedy deletions. We'll use many free images this way.
Dori
Dori wrote:
Jimbo I think it's a terrible idea to delete images w/o explicit license information because the default assumed license is the GFDL. The uploader may not know that the image needs to be tagged, and we're going to lose many images this way.
It is far preferable to drop material of unknown status than to keep it. It can always be resubmitted if it's genuine.
We don't require text to have an explicit license, why should we do this for images?
As a practical matter, people seem to much more commonly toss away their brains about images; we get a lot more "I grabbed this off some web site, so it must be free" with images than with text.
There's some cut-and-paste with text too, but it seems to be rarer (and also much easier to tell due to formatting). For some reason people have the idea that they shouldn't _have to_ create original images like they should with text, or that somehow it's more acceptable to use copyrighted images without permission than it is to cut and paste someone's text without attribution or permission.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 9/17/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Dori wrote:
Jimbo I think it's a terrible idea to delete images w/o explicit license information because the default assumed license is the GFDL. The uploader may not know that the image needs to be tagged, and we're going to lose many images this way.
It is far preferable to drop material of unknown status than to keep it. It can always be resubmitted if it's genuine.
It's not unknown, as the upload dialog clearly states that what you are uploading has to be under the GFDL. So we're now going to delete all the images of those who thought it was understood that they would be licensing them under the GFDL. I often didn't bother to tag (or it was during the time when we weren't tagging) an upload, and I'm sure many others have done the same. We'll now be undoing people's work because of a future rule that they had no way of knowing at the time that they submitted the work.
It can't be resubmitted if you don't know about it, or if you're no longer editing on Wikipedia. Like I said, many of these will also be incorrectly labeled as unknown when they are in fact GFDL. There is also possibility of mischief, and I believe deleted images are purged after a certain amount of time (is it true of deleted text as well)?
Dori
I agree completely with Brion. On it.wikipeida we have recently agreed on a proposal to remove all unverified images and also a lot of fair use images (or should I call them fair abuse?). No matter what the upload dialog states, people seems to be struck by selective blindness when it comes to uploading images. I had to put a warning just above the "Source fimename:" box. It's written in red and with a bigger font size. It says somithing like: "Warning: Files lacking an indication of the source and the licence under which are released will be deleted!". Well, seems that some people still are unable to read it (even if they are less than in the past). Is there any way to make the phrase blinking?
I've spent the last three weeks deleting images from it.wikipedia and i can tell you 90% of images are just grabbed somewhere else. You can tell the difference, genuine images are usually bigger in size.
Roberto Frangi (Snowdog)
Roberto Frangi wrote:
I agree completely with Brion. On it.wikipeida we have recently agreed on a proposal to remove all unverified images and also a lot of fair use images (or should I call them fair abuse?). No matter what the upload dialog states, people seems to be struck by selective blindness when it comes to uploading images. I had to put a warning just above the "Source fimename:" box. It's written in red and with a bigger font size. It says somithing like: "Warning: Files lacking an indication of the source and the licence under which are released will be deleted!". Well, seems that some people still are unable to read it (even if they are less than in the past). Is there any way to make the phrase blinking? I've spent the last three weeks deleting images from it.wikipedia and i can tell you 90% of images are just grabbed somewhere else. You can tell the difference, genuine images are usually bigger in size.
The main thing to look out for is that too strong an encouragement may encourage some people to lie. People found lying about image sources should be blocked from editing.
It might be better to let them upload and then delete it, rather than set up incentives for people to lie. (This is harder for us to detect than if there is no source at all!)
--Jimbo
I prefer to handle a few liars (and they are blocked of course), instead of keeping on asking and explaining to people that just.... uploads images.
Roberto (Snowdog)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The main thing to look out for is that too strong an encouragement may encourage some people to lie. People found lying about image sources should be blocked from editing.
It might be better to let them upload and then delete it, rather than set up incentives for people to lie. (This is harder for us to detect than if there is no source at all!)
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 9/18/05, Roberto Frangi rfrangi@coopetition.it wrote:
I prefer to handle a few liars (and they are blocked of course), instead of keeping on asking and explaining to people that just.... uploads images.
I agree. And as Wikipedia has proved it so far, there are more people wanting to do good, than wanting to do bad ;-).
I am all for a STRONG incentive to put a source AND an author (this "taken by self" on commons makes no sense once the image is transcluded to other projects.
A fake source is harder to find for an image than for text anyway, imho.
Delphine
Dori wrote:
On 9/17/05, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Dori wrote:
Jimbo I think it's a terrible idea to delete images w/o explicit license information because the default assumed license is the GFDL. The uploader may not know that the image needs to be tagged, and we're going to lose many images this way.
It is far preferable to drop material of unknown status than to keep it. It can always be resubmitted if it's genuine.
It's not unknown, as the upload dialog clearly states that what you are uploading has to be under the GFDL. So we're now going to delete all the images of those who thought it was understood that they would be licensing them under the GFDL. I often didn't bother to tag (or it was during the time when we weren't tagging) an upload, and I'm sure many others have done the same. We'll now be undoing people's work because of a future rule that they had no way of knowing at the time that they submitted the work.
It can't be resubmitted if you don't know about it, or if you're no longer editing on Wikipedia. Like I said, many of these will also be incorrectly labeled as unknown when they are in fact GFDL. There is also possibility of mischief, and I believe deleted images are purged after a certain amount of time (is it true of deleted text as well)?
Dori
I agree with Dori.
I'll further add that even when the author is not gone, he is not always told the images lack label and will be soon deleted. It is killing motivation to discover two months later than some of your images have been deleted, while they were uploaded LONG before tags even existed and while when uploading them, you explicitely agreed to put them on gfdl licence (according to upload message at least).
Ant
PS : I was happy of the existence of mirrors to retrieve my own deleted images.
I agree with Dori. I'll further add that even when the author is not gone, he is not always told the images lack label and will be soon deleted. It is killing motivation to discover two months later than some of your images have been deleted, while they were uploaded LONG before tags even existed and while when uploading them, you explicitely agreed to put them on gfdl licence (according to upload message at least). Ant PS : I was happy of the existence of mirrors to retrieve my own deleted images.
At pl: a bot put a list of untagged images on every uploader's talk page.
Paweł Dembowski wrote:
I agree with Dori. I'll further add that even when the author is not gone, he is not always told the images lack label and will be soon deleted. It is killing motivation to discover two months later than some of your images have been deleted, while they were uploaded LONG before tags even existed and while when uploading them, you explicitely agreed to put them on gfdl licence (according to upload message at least). Ant PS : I was happy of the existence of mirrors to retrieve my own deleted images.
At pl: a bot put a list of untagged images on every uploader's talk page.
This is a good idea...
Ant
Dori wrote:
It's not unknown, as the upload dialog clearly states that what you are uploading has to be under the GFDL. So we're now going to delete all the images of those who thought it was understood that they would be licensing them under the GFDL.
If you look at the category in question, there is almost nothing in there which could possibly be under the GFDL. The bulk of it is the sort of stuff which is _legal_ for us to use under "fair use" but _undesirable_ for us to use under "fair use". (And _impossible_ for us to use under fair use, if it isn't properly sourced.)
I often didn't bother to tag (or it was during the time when we weren't tagging) an upload, and I'm sure many others have done the same.
Well, I've been warning about this for a long time. We used to have a lot more untagged images, and a huge and ongoing project got rid of the problem for almost all of the good stuff. What's left is... well, most of it has to go away.
--Jimbo
On 9/18/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, I've been warning about this for a long time. We used to have a lot more untagged images, and a huge and ongoing project got rid of the problem for almost all of the good stuff. What's left is... well, most of it has to go away.
Japanese Wikipedia contains a lot of untagged images; once some of them were listed on the vote for deletion, but survived. In discussion, the explanation the below was supported by many editors. "until a certain point, Japanese Wikipedia declared "uploaded images will be released under GFDL" so untagging isnt equal to that no information is provided. Those old uploaded images could be considered under GDFL since the uploadered accepted the condition implicitely." The consensus of JA community goes so, including images uncredited (without information of photographer)
My concern is if it is an acceptable solution glrobally, because it could affect other projects, specially Commons. If not, the current image policy on Ja should be modified.
The problem was discovered one of those images appeared as Featured Image on Commons. It was transwikied to Commons as GFDL image by another editor than the original uploader. Later it was listed as deletion candidate on Commons and an equivalent was uploaded to Commons. But I am not sure all those transwikied images from JAWP to Commons are limited among clearly tagged images by the original uploaders.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org