What do you think about force user to choose a licence (in a combo box) when uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia. I see 2 benefits:
* Force user to care about licence,
* Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of media description page.
Aoineko
Example:
----------------------
| Choose a licence |v|
----------------------
| GFDL |
| Public Domain |
| Fair Use |
| ... |
--------------------
Hi,
Le Monday 15 March 2004 08:49, Guillaume Blanchard a écrit :
What do you think about force user to choose a licence (in a combo box) when uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia. I see 2 benefits:
Force user to care about licence,
Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of media
description page.
Yes, this is a long overdue missing feature.
Yann
I build a fake combo box on French upload page to show what I mean.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
(Look under "description" text box)
When user chose, for example, CC-AS, the program may automatically add a {{msg:CC-AS}} at the end of the image description page.
Aoineko
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yann Forget" yann@forget-me.net To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Force user to choose a licence when uploading data
Hi,
Le Monday 15 March 2004 08:49, Guillaume Blanchard a écrit :
What do you think about force user to choose a licence (in a combo box) when uploading a media (pictures, sound, etc.) to Wikipedia. I see 2 benefits:
Force user to care about licence,
Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of media
description page.
Yes, this is a long overdue missing feature.
Yann
-- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
"GB" == Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp writes:
GB> * Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of GB> media description page.
Actually, it'd make things a lot easier for everyone if some code for the license was in a database field. Easier to separate out stuff with incompatible licenses, for instance.
~ESP
A license' flag for medias may be a very nice idea! And imho, the combo-box may be a god way to force people to choose one of the available licenses.
Aoineko
----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Prodromou" evan@wikitravel.org To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Cc: wikitech-l@Wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Force user to choose a licence when uploading data
"GB" == Guillaume Blanchard gblanchard@arcsy.co.jp writes:
GB> * Automatically add {{msg:<NameOfLicence>}} to the bottom of GB> media description page.Actually, it'd make things a lot easier for everyone if some code for the license was in a database field. Easier to separate out stuff with incompatible licenses, for instance.
~ESP
-- Evan Prodromou evan@wikitravel.org Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
1. Force the user to choose a license 2. Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source 3. Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}} 4. Additionally store the license and source information in a separate database field
Now that we have our wish list, all that is needed is source code!
--Jimbo
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source
- Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}}
- Additionally store the license and source information in a separate
database field
What about {{msg:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, which takes an "argument" (text following the tag)? Perhaps a text field after the license choice?
Peter
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source
- Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}}
- Additionally store the license and source information in a separate
database field
What about {{msg:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, which takes an "argument" (text following the tag)? Perhaps a text field after the license choice?
My only concern about this approach is that most people don't understand anything about copyright. Asking them to choose a license under those circumstances is like rolling dice. It would be nice if the license choices were accompanied by a brief outline of the implications of each choice.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source
- Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}}
- Additionally store the license and source information in a separate
database field
What about {{msg:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, which takes an "argument" (text following the tag)? Perhaps a text field after the license choice?
My only concern about this approach is that most people don't understand anything about copyright. Asking them to choose a license under those circumstances is like rolling dice. It would be nice if the license choices were accompanied by a brief outline of the implications of each choice.
Ec
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Another problem is that people regularly put things under the wrong license ie claiming things are public domain when they are not.
We certainly need sources though.
Caroline
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Peter Jaros wrote:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source
- Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}}
- Additionally store the license and source information in a separate
database field
What about {{msg:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, which takes an "argument" (text following the tag)? Perhaps a text field after the license choice?
My only concern about this approach is that most people don't understand anything about copyright. Asking them to choose a license under those circumstances is like rolling dice. It would be nice if the license choices were accompanied by a brief outline of the implications of each choice.
Or simply a "don't know". If a person doesn't really know about this stuff, I'd rather them say they don't know, than to try to pick an approximate match. A tricky way to help sniff out problem pics is to ask for the date of the picture too, then focus attention on "post-1923 don't knows".
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the
source 3. Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}} 4. Additionally store the license and source information in a separate database field
My only concern about this approach is that most people don't understand anything about copyright. Asking them to choose a license under those circumstances is like rolling dice. It would be nice if the license choices were accompanied by a brief outline of the implications of each choice.
Or simply a "don't know". If a person doesn't really know about this stuff, I'd rather them say they don't know, than to try to pick an approximate match. A tricky way to help sniff out problem pics is to ask for the date of the picture too, then focus attention on "post-1923 don't knows".
A little admission of not knowing goes a long way. I agree that a little data about where and when these pictures come from would be very helpful. The failure to explain the origin of a submission is rapidly becoming a problem at Wikisource. The contributor is in the best position to know where his material comes from, and he owes a little due dilligence to the rest of the community. Regretably, many of the unsourced contributions probably are in the public domain, but anything more than some very basic tests are beyond the scope of what a reviewer should need to do.
Without going into details, I consider myself as having an aggressive attitude about what should be treated as in the public domain, but even an aggressive attitude needs facts to back it up.
Ec
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
What about {{msg:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}}, which takes an "argument" (text following the tag)? Perhaps a text field after the license choice?
My only concern about this approach is that most people don't understand anything about copyright. Asking them to choose a license under those circumstances is like rolling dice. It would be nice if the license choices were accompanied by a brief outline of the implications of each choice.
This could also be done by making them Wikilinks, either to something like [[Public Domain]], or to something like [[Wikipedia:Copyright Police#Public Domain]].
__ . / / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *) . . . mailto:till@tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072 . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179 . . . . .
I had implemented a half-working user interface once; is that still in the code or was it lost (can't check right now)?
Magnus
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think there is universal support for this proposal, actually this proposal:
- Force the user to choose a license
- Force the user to fill out a field (or more?) indicating the source
- Write this on the page: {{msg:<NameOfLicense>}}
- Additionally store the license and source information in a separate
database field
Now that we have our wish list, all that is needed is source code!
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org