On 6/28/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it
is. In the case of
requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid
evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler.
I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness
w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the
level of vandalism by IPs.
Perhaps you should do newimage patrol for a few weeks, then. If
vandalism were taking place at the same rate as bad image uploads,
people would be screaming bloody murder.
My bot's spending about ten hours a day handling bad image uploads,
and I'm spending another two to three. Between us, we're catching
about 95% of images without a license tag, about 20% of images without
a source, and about 2% of invalid fair-use claims. I don't have time
to follow up on any of this -- if the uploader removes the {{no info}}
or {{untagged}} template, the image simply gets lost among the tens of
thousands of other problem images. I can follow up on the ten or so
fair-use claims I dispute each day, but that takes another hour, and
doesn't do much good -- for every image I dispute, another 50 get
uploaded.
My best estimate is that there are around 100,000 images on the
English Wikipedia with a clearly invalid "fair use" claim or being
used in a manner inconsistent with their fair-use tag, and another
100,000 with an incorrect free-license claim. Any one of those could
harm us worse than the whole Siegenthaler mess when the copyright
holder files an infringement lawsuit.
--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]