On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk <base-w(a)yandex.ru> wrote:
But we can use it like [[File:Example.jpeg|link=]] or
[[File:Example.jpeg|link=Some page]] which would suppress or substitute the
link with another link. We can also use images via css or scripts for some
backgrounds and so on which is not about the link-parameter but has the
same issue in core.
The question is how attribution requirement is being fulfilled in the
What is general community consensus and WMF position upon it?
<Note this reply is entirely in my personal volunteer capacity, and in no
way represents anything official>
From what I've seen on enwiki, this mainly applies
to images used as
navigation icons or decoration in templates.
Whenever I see an image requiring attribution or notice of license (which
basically means "anything that's not public domain or CC0") that is using
the "link=" parameter, I'll fix it with an appropriate edit summary.
Sometimes it's possible to find or create a replacement image that's public
domain or CC0 which can be used instead of the problematic image, or
sometimes I just remove the "link=". In some cases the link necessary for
attribution is supplied in some other way, e.g. by superimposing an "info"
icon on the image with the necessary link.
A few years back I tried to make a user script that would highlight
problematic images, but the plethora of licensing categories (particularly
on Commons) made it too difficult to keep up with. Maybe the new Structured
Data planning can make this possible.