-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
After just working my way through 150 untagged images on en.wikipedia (an that is only a small fraction!) I thought about ways to improve the tagging process.
Many of the images had no image description at all. But making descriptions mandatory would only lead to things like "asdfghjk" as a description. Having a mandatory dropdown box with licenses would make things even worse, as newbies/vandals/people-who-don't-care might choose one at random, making it much harder to find copyright violations. (They can already do that by putting a false tag in the description, but that requires knowledge of the tagging system and something bordering on criminal energy).
So I thought, why not, upon upload of a new image, *automatically* add "{{unverified}}" to any image dewscription that does *not* contain the sequence "{{"? This is dead easy technically, and will bring untagged images to our attention without wasting time and effort of people who could do something more constructive.
Image descriptions that contain "{{" but *not* a copyright tag can still be found through the current scanning process.
The "{{unverified}}" could be stored in [[Mediawiki:AutoImageTag]] or something, so each wikipedia can use the one appropriate for the language/tagging system.
Magnus
Magnus Manske (magnus.manske@web.de) [050606 03:59]:
So I thought, why not, upon upload of a new image, *automatically* add "{{unverified}}" to any image dewscription that does *not* contain the sequence "{{"? This is dead easy technically, and will bring untagged images to our attention without wasting time and effort of people who could do something more constructive. Image descriptions that contain "{{" but *not* a copyright tag can still be found through the current scanning process. The "{{unverified}}" could be stored in [[Mediawiki:AutoImageTag]] or something, so each wikipedia can use the one appropriate for the language/tagging system.
Sounds very good to me!
- d.
On 6/5/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
So I thought, why not, upon upload of a new image, *automatically* add "{{unverified}}" to any image dewscription that does *not* contain the sequence "{{"? This is dead easy technically, and will bring untagged images to our attention without wasting time and effort of people who could do something more constructive.
A good idea, but I'm concerned that users will just guess a license when they are fixing unverified images. It is already the case that wikipedia has many images incorrectly tagged.
Most of the time only the uploader can identify the copyright except in the rare case of an historically notable image that we're using as fair use... For other case it would take more effort to locate the source (if it's even possible) than to replace the image, and in many of the cases where the image wasn't notable but we could find it without the uploader the image will not be free for us to use.
Because of this the unverified template need to instruct users not to add the license. Users should hunt down the uploader and get the uploader to set it. If the uploader is not available we should dump the image.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gregory Maxwell schrieb:
On 6/5/05, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
So I thought, why not, upon upload of a new image, *automatically* add "{{unverified}}" to any image dewscription that does *not* contain the sequence "{{"? This is dead easy technically, and will bring untagged images to our attention without wasting time and effort of people who could do something more constructive.
A good idea, but I'm concerned that users will just guess a license when they are fixing unverified images. It is already the case that wikipedia has many images incorrectly tagged.
Most of the time only the uploader can identify the copyright except in the rare case of an historically notable image that we're using as fair use... For other case it would take more effort to locate the source (if it's even possible) than to replace the image, and in many of the cases where the image wasn't notable but we could find it without the uploader the image will not be free for us to use.
Because of this the unverified template need to instruct users not to add the license. Users should hunt down the uploader and get the uploader to set it. If the uploader is not available we should dump the image.
Some can be tagged correctly without the original uploader: * fair use * where a suitable source is given * images that are obviously PD because of age and probably some other cases.
That said, the {{unverified}} template should probably include a warning not just to guess a license, and that doing so might have legal consequences. After all, if I tag a copyrighted picture with, say, {{GFDL}}, and wikipedia (or someone else using it) gets sued, they can point to me for tagging it, right?
Magnus
Magnus Manske stated for the record:
Some can be tagged correctly without the original uploader:
- fair use
- where a suitable source is given
- images that are obviously PD because of age
and probably some other cases.
US Government-created public domain as well.
Some can be tagged correctly without the original uploader:
- fair use
- where a suitable source is given
- images that are obviously PD because of age
and probably some other cases.
That said, the {{unverified}} template should probably include a warning not just to guess a license, and that doing so might have legal consequences. After all, if I tag a copyrighted picture with, say, {{GFDL}}, and wikipedia (or someone else using it) gets sued, they can point to me for tagging it, right?
That sounds perfect to me.
Magnus Manske stated for the record:
So I thought, why not, upon upload of a new image, *automatically* add "{{unverified}}" to any image dewscription that does *not* contain the sequence "{{"? This is dead easy technically, and will bring untagged images to our attention without wasting time and effort of people who could do something more constructive.
I like this idea a whole lot.
-- Sean Barrett | These go to eleven. It's one louder, isn't sean@epoptic.com | it? It's not ten. --Nigel of Spinal Tap
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org