They are correct? This doesn't make sense. Why allow users to upload free images to Wikipedia only so these images be moved to Commons by other users? This is totally not efficient. How can you expect users (i.e., me) to do this extra unnecessary step of moving the images?

I do allow free personal images and fair use images to be uploaded to Wikipedia, but free images that should be used on other projects is just a waste of resources (not only technical resources, but volunteering manpower too). Personally, I intend to stop moving images from he.wiki to Commons until an official decision has been made regarding this issue.

What is SUL anyway?

Yoni

2007/6/9, geni geniice@gmail.com:

On 6/9/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hi,

I wonder: Is there an obligation to upload free images to Commons? You

see,

...

I have a argued that by opening the Commons project, you, the

Foundation,

...

asserted that all free images should be now uploaded to Commons, and

*not*

...

to Wikipeida. Others have argued that there has been no official

statement,

...

thus uploading free images that can and will be used in other projects

can

...

still be uploaded to Wikipedia.

They are correct. Of course you can't stop content being moved to commons.

...

IMHO, "banning" (not technically, but via a rule) uploading of free

image to

...

Wikipedia will encourge the use of Commons and of it's content.

Once SUL appears it may be reduced but there are still reasons to host content locally (images on main page and personal pics).

-- geni

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

There are several reasons why projects might still allow or even recommend users to upload free-licensed files locally instead of to Commons. (see below.)

It's not efficient, but efficiency is not the only criterion people use to make decisions.

On 09/06/07, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote: How can you expect users (i.e., me) to do

this extra unnecessary step of moving the images?

Hello, it's a volunteer project. If you don't want to do that, simple - don't do it.

OK why might projects not encourage/mandate Commons uploading?

* lack of SUL - hassle to create another account, monitor another talk page

* lack of language support at Commons.

* lack of knowledge about Commons' purpose and how it works, technically (ie images are automatically available on all Wikimedia projects).

* lack of knowledge/familiarity about Commons' methods, categories, templates (especially combined with lack of language support). People will almost always prefer to use a method they're familiar with rather than one they're not, that has no appreciable benefit. (Yes there are benefits for the rest of Wikimedia. But unless they're explained on the local wiki, they're not going to be obvious.)

* lag in image use policy maturity. This is a major factor. It is unrealistic to imagine all projects of all sizes should have an image use policy as detailed as Commons' (leaving aside fair use). All projects go through stages of policy development where the community slowly realises this gap, or that loophole, or this requirement... in my opinion it simply won't work if anyone tries to "short-cut" the maturity process by, e.g. expecting a toddler project to have an image use policy like Commons. The project community just won't be ready and able to accept such a policy.

What this means is that as projects mature, and their image use policy evolves closer to Commons' (I hope), the community has a realisation that many of the images they formerly accepted are no longer acceptable, because they have e.g. no source, or unbelievable source claims, or misunderstanding (such as believing screenshots can create new copyright). So the community goes through a process of review and many of the old images are deleted. People protest and complain but slowly the understanding sinks through the community.

The local community are the right people to do this. If Commons or WMF tried to impose a review like this "from on high" it would mix in a bunch of other complaints and may prevent the image use message from being successfully communicated. Instead of understanding "Having source info is important because having unsourced images weakens us as a free-content project", people might just get the message "WMF/Commons are intefering in our local community with this useless bureaucratic requirement".

You can try to nudge this maturing process along but I believe you can't skip ahead...it won't be accepted. Being right is not enough, you also have to be convincing. :)

* lack of trust in Commons community. This is unfortunately a real factor from time to time. Trust takes time to build up, and with one bad deletion it can be straight out the window. It is sometimes related to the previous point, but not always. A few influential community member's bad opinions can easily spread to the whole community.

As always, I encourage anyone who wants to try and improve Commons relations with their local project to feel free to contact me to discuss the local opinions on Commons and how they might be improved. This might also be useful: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Turning_off_local_uploads

cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise