An editor on META is having the crazy idea of tagging all historical logo propositions made during the Wikipedia logo contest back in 2003 with a template
"This image has no license information attached to it. This means that it has an unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided and a license is given, the image will be deleted one week after this template was added."
Example:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EloquenceSunflowerBlue-Small.png
Please help save Wikipedia history and weight in to avoid all those images being deleted. We are reaching the limits of non sense.
Ant
On 2/19/10 10:19 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
An editor on META is having the crazy idea of tagging all historical logo propositions made during the Wikipedia logo contest back in 2003 with a template
"This image has no license information attached to it. This means that it has an unknown copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided and a license is given, the image will be deleted one week after this template was added."
Example:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EloquenceSunflowerBlue-Small.png
Please help save Wikipedia history and weight in to avoid all those images being deleted. We are reaching the limits of non sense.
Ant
Link
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Crochet.david
Well the person is right, all files are meant to have valid license and source information attached.
-Peachey
K. Peachey wrote:
Well the person is right, all files are meant to have valid license and source information attached.
That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL.
Another way to look at it: If someone uploads something today in full compliance with today's rules the likelihood remains that new rules will develop in the next five years, and the problems will start all over again then in circumstances where the only person capable of compliance is no longer available. This kind of situation puts all history at risk. Putting history at risk threatens reliability when rules only permit us to express half-truths.
Ec
Ray Saintonge, 20/02/2010 03:03:
That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL.
This is explicit since 2005: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=125186 And, Meta is not Commons.
Nemo
Another way to look at it: If someone uploads something today in full compliance with today's rules the likelihood remains that new rules will develop in the next five years, and the problems will start all over again then in circumstances where the only person capable of compliance is no longer available. This kind of situation puts all history at risk. Putting history at risk threatens reliability when rules only permit us to express half-truths.
On 2/20/10 10:46 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Ray Saintonge, 20/02/2010 03:03:
That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL.
This is explicit since 2005: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=125186 And, Meta is not Commons.
Nemo
yeah, and the logo contest was done before 2005, and at that time, if my memory is correct, there was a little text under the SAVE button that stated something such as "your modifications are under GFDL".
So, in reality, any edit made at that time followed the rules of modifications of the website, and were gfdl. Unfortunately, later, the rules changed and the obligation is now to put a tag ON the description page. That does not mean that all the content put on meta before 2005 suddenly became copyrighted because the rules changed.
IF these images are considered copyrighted, then the entirety of meta content written between 2001 and 2005 is copyrighted and it is probably best to entirely delete it.
To be honnest, I am tempted to be bold and to add a tag "GFDL" on all image description page. THAT WAS THE EDITING RULE at that time.
Ant
Another way to look at it: If someone uploads something today in full compliance with today's rules the likelihood remains that new rules will develop in the next five years, and the problems will start all over again then in circumstances where the only person capable of compliance is no longer available. This kind of situation puts all history at risk. Putting history at risk threatens reliability when rules only permit us to express half-truths.
On 2/20/2010 11:32 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
On 2/20/10 10:46 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Ray Saintonge, 20/02/2010 03:03:
That's stupid!!!! When these logos were submitted these rules to appease small bureaucratic minds did not exist. Anyone making a submission simply agreed that his submissions were under GFDL.
This is explicit since 2005: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?oldid=125186 And, Meta is not Commons.
Nemo
yeah, and the logo contest was done before 2005, and at that time, if my memory is correct, there was a little text under the SAVE button that stated something such as "your modifications are under GFDL".
So, in reality, any edit made at that time followed the rules of modifications of the website, and were gfdl. Unfortunately, later, the rules changed and the obligation is now to put a tag ON the description page. That does not mean that all the content put on meta before 2005 suddenly became copyrighted because the rules changed.
IF these images are considered copyrighted, then the entirety of meta content written between 2001 and 2005 is copyrighted and it is probably best to entirely delete it.
To be honnest, I am tempted to be bold and to add a tag "GFDL" on all image description page. THAT WAS THE EDITING RULE at that time.
Ant
I would not object to anyone putting a GFDL tag on all of these images!
Cary
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org