Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point, rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up later.
I have some support for this position :) see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
Suggestion:
- Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
{{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease tag has been removed on commons
All I can say to that is "please for the love of God no". People should take responsibility for verifying the source if they are so eager to have it on Commons. Commons admins have more than enough to do...and this method would just cause unnecessary duplication. Just verify it in the first place, in the first place it was uploaded! What is the rush? Commons isn't going anywhere. Let's take the time to get at least this right, 'cause God knows Commons has enough copyvios without needing to import old ones.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding; I didn't propose to "dump everything into commons on sight", but to ease the transition for both parties (if there are indeed two, and not just the big happy wikimedia family;-)
IMHO my suggestion makes it easy for the wikipedia "party" to transfer an image believed to be suitable to commons, easy for the commons "party" to find such an image (via template and included category), easy to approve (remove the template) or disapprove (delete), and again for the wikipedia "party" to finalize the move (delete if approved on commons).
As for "verifying the source" - a picture of a building with "took this myself, GFDL" is as easy/hard to verify for someone on wikipedia as it is for someone on commons - either believe it or ask the original uploader yet again (pointless IMHO). Of course, obvious non-free image should not be uploaded to the commons in the first place.
Finally, when it comes to judgement about the "freeness" of an image, I would imagine that people from commons have more experience with that kind of thing than the average wikipedia person. OTOH,a wikipedia user might know the original uploader and place better judgement on wether his/her claims of GFDL etc. are likely or not.
Magnus