Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Add a link to "contributors" or...

Tracking bugs in the open (was Re:...

Jeevan Jose

24 Aug 2014 24 Aug '14

5:03 p.m.

Show replies by date

Mark

24 Aug 24 Aug

5:57 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:

...

Fwiw, a new PDF exporter is being tested, and looks like it'll be deployed soon: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering It might be worth checking (I have not) what attribution is done in the new exporter. If it's better, then the right fix would be to just deploy the new exporter ASAP. Best, Mark

Craig Franklin

25 Aug 25 Aug

2:50 a.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

On 25 August 2014 03:57, Mark <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:

...

On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:

I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches lately ;-). Cheers, Craig

Jeevan Jose

3:06 a.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

...

I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches lately ;-). Cheers, Craig _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Just disable the "Download as PDF" and "Create a book" options till testing is over. Even CC 4.0 licenses require any license violation must be fixed within 30 days. :) Jee

Michael Peel

24 Aug 24 Aug

6:55 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!). Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose <jkadavoor(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors. It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth This is very wrong as license is not fetched and photographer is only Fir; not all people edited that "file" page. I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too by Stefan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_l… I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention. Regards, Jee _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Michael Peel

7:05 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved? Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

...

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pete Forsyth

7:21 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Mike -- Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis of a GFDL license, as far as I can tell, that recommendation was never adopted in any policy, so it's still possible to upload GFDL files. (The fact that this file happens to also have a CC B Y-NC-SA license is not the basis of any WM decision -- it just happens the photographer also permits that license.) I've confirmed by private email correspondence that this photographer is clear about the licenses he does and doesn't want to use. Seems like a loophole worth closing. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

...

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved? Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative

Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).

Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose <jkadavoor(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Try to "download as PDF" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah > > Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors. > > It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg > License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth > > This is very wrong as license is not fetched and photographer is only

Fir;

> not all people edited that "file" page. > > I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN

too

> by Stefan: >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_l…

> > I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention. > > Regards, > Jee > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

> 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

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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pete Forsyth

7:24 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

I don't mean to divert this thread into a discussion of the GFDL loophole, though -- Jeevan's original question about PDF output is a good one, it's important that all WM software honor attribution requirements (and, ideally, non legally-binding wishes) appropriately. Pete On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved? Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative

Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).

Fir;

> not all people edited that "file" page. > > I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN

too

> by Stefan: >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_l…

> > I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention. > > Regards, > Jee > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

> 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

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 Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Michael Peel

7:34 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Hey Pete, Thanks for pointing me towards that discussion - I hadn't spotted it, and I've replied (and apologised for not noticing it) accordingly. This is definitely a loop worth closing, as it's a right pain to deal with when working with derivative images of Wikipedia page screenshots. For a practical example, see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Categ… I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the software. Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 20:21, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved? Thanks, Mike On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative

Commons license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing, rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).

Fir;

> not all people edited that "file" page. > > I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN

too

> by Stefan: >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copying_within_Wikipedia#For_l…

> > I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention. > > Regards, > Jee > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

> 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

Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Mark

8:19 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

On 8/24/14, 9:34 PM, Michael Peel wrote:

...

I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the software.

I don't think the GFDL question and the software question are really the same. The software should attribute people better than it does, and IMO it still does not do it properly with the new image you swapped in. All the (current) PDF-generator does is append a list of the usernames of people who've edited the image's description page. This is not really good attribution: 1) it does not actually mention the license; 2) it fails to actually identify the author of the image (vs. people who've done other things like added a category link to the image's description page); and 3) it does not attribute photographers with their real name, even when known. Absent non-cc-licensed GFDL images, doing that may not be *legally* required, but I think it's good practice and friendlier to do so. -Mark

Jean-Frédéric

10:01 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Hi, This is definitely a loop worth closing This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all list readers who might not check it out :): please see < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/Appropriate…

...

-- Jean-Fred

Jeevan Jose

25 Aug 25 Aug

2:43 a.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve the accuracy of data gathering from file pages. BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding is that the current script is trying to fetch information from author and license fields. If that attempt fails, it simply lists the editors of the file page which is wrong. As Mark mentioned above, this is not a GFDL issue. We need to improve our software in both sides; at the Commons page where data is collected, and at tools which gather the data available there. Hope developers at both side ([3], [4]) will consider this. 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg&a… 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cheetah (export pdf) 3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/PDF_rendering 4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data Regards, Jee On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Jean-Frédéric <jeanfrederic.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- Jean-Fred _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Russavia

24 Aug 24 Aug

7:30 p.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Mike et al On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

...

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved?

GFDL is a free licence. You can licence under the free GFDL licence and also licence it under an -NC licence. So long as one licence is free on Commons, you can have other combinations. But the problem isn't solved. I have numerous aviation photographers and friends who have licenced their works under GFDL -- many of which are irreplaceable, or are the best illustration of the subject. Examples being: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abramovich_Chukotka.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_woah%… http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Singapore_Airlines_Airbus_A380_Walln… http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Myanmar_Air_Force_Shaanxi_Y-8_MRD.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PLAAF_Xian_HY-6_Li_Pang.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6-300… and the list goes on. If there is an issue with how the PDFs are presenting the licencing information, this is still very much an issue, and if it isn't working as it should at this moment, the PDF feature should be switched off. Cheers

Jeevan Jose

25 Aug 25 Aug

9:59 a.m.

New subject: Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

I tried to make the PDF of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter It credits "File:WinAir De Havilland Canada DHC-6-300 Twin Otter Breidenstein.jpg Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WinAir_De_Havilland_Canada_… License: unknown Contributors: Timo Breidenstein" License is still "unknown" Regards, Jee On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Mike et al On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:

I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse. Problem solved?

3547

days inactive

3548

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

13 comments

7 participants

tags (0)

participants (7)

Craig Franklin
Jean-Frédéric
Jeevan Jose
Mark
Michael Peel
Pete Forsyth
Russavia