On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:27:18PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, so people who are looking to follow the link to another article click and get the wrong behaviour. People actually looking for the image info don't think of clicking. Everyone loses!
Would it be possible, on each and every page, to have a "Image credits" link which would provide links to the attribution page of every image used on that page, no matter how it was used? Then professionals would know to always click on that same "Image credits" link placed in the bottom corner, for example.
I've been following this thread with some interest, both as a photographer (who has actually contributed original work to WP) and as a usability guy, who understands that icons should behave the way icons *behave*...
and I like Steve's suggestion here a *lot*; I think it's probably the best balance between people getting credit for their work, and websites working as websites are -- these days -- expected to work.
I've unthreaded this, so this proposal doesn't get lost in the noise.
Comments, all?
Cheers, -- jra
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:23:50PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:27:18PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Heh, ok, so people who are looking to follow the link to another article click and get the wrong behaviour. People actually looking for the image info don't think of clicking. Everyone loses!
Would it be possible, on each and every page, to have a "Image credits" link which would provide links to the attribution page of every image used on that page, no matter how it was used? Then professionals would know to always click on that same "Image credits" link placed in the bottom corner, for example.
I've been following this thread with some interest, both as a photographer (who has actually contributed original work to WP) and as a usability guy, who understands that icons should behave the way icons *behave*...
and I like Steve's suggestion here a *lot*; I think it's probably the best balance between people getting credit for their work, and websites working as websites are -- these days -- expected to work.
I've unthreaded this, so this proposal doesn't get lost in the noise.
Comments, all?
An "image credits"-link below an icon will look very odd. Especially when there are 8 project icons next to each other, like at the bottom of the en:Main_Page.
For the WM project icons, we could perhaps have an Icon: namespace. But this would not solve the problem of the featured article thumbnails not working like thumbnails on other news websites.
We could show a fancy menu when hovering over the image, having a link to the image info page and a link to the article. That would still be - unexpected for most users - not friendly to users browsing with user agents that are not CSS or JS ready (depending on implementation) - ugly to code when many browsers should be supported. Fallback would be the current behaviour.
I'm not yet convinced that this would be a good solution, though.
Regards,
JeLuF
On 5/15/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
An "image credits"-link below an icon will look very odd. Especially when there are 8 project icons next to each other, like at the bottom of the en:Main_Page.
If I understood the suggestion correctly, it is to essentially have something like
[[Special:Credits/Galileo_Galilei]]
which would then display all the image description pages of images used on [[Galileo Galilei]], and to embed a single link to this special page somewhere in the skin for all articles, e.g. an "image credits" tab.
Erik
Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link called 'Article and image credits'.
I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text - yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/
On May 15, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/15/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
An "image credits"-link below an icon will look very odd. Especially when there are 8 project icons next to each other, like at the bottom of the en:Main_Page.
If I understood the suggestion correctly, it is to essentially have something like
[[Special:Credits/Galileo_Galilei]]
which would then display all the image description pages of images used on [[Galileo Galilei]], and to embed a single link to this special page somewhere in the skin for all articles, e.g. an "image credits" tab.
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link called 'Article and image credits'.
I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text - yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/
Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5 contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with licence details for each image).
Steve
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link called 'Article and image credits'.
I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text - yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/
Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5 contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with licence details for each image).
Keep optimizing, Steve; I like this even better. ;-)
Cheers, -- jra
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5 contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with licence details for each image).
How do you find the 5 top contributours? Lines of changes? I don't believe in a technical way to find the "top" contributours.
Regards,
jens
On 5/15/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5 contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with licence details for each image).
How do you find the 5 top contributours? Lines of changes? I don't believe in a technical way to find the "top" contributours.
wiki subpage? Add yourself if you want to be attributed. ;)
Provide the list of the 20 contributors with the most diffs, plus the originator. You'll almost certainly have the top 5 in there somewhere.
Steve
On 5/15/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 08:47:14PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Actually a credits tab would make an awful lot of sense from a GFDL compliance point of view. It would provide full credits of text (top 5 contributors, plus list of others) and images (all contributors with licence details for each image).
How do you find the 5 top contributours? Lines of changes? I don't believe in a technical way to find the "top" contributours.
Regards,
jens _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Provide the list of the 20 contributors with the most diffs, plus the originator. You'll almost certainly have the top 5 in there somewhere.
Only true in the majority of cases because the overwhelming majority (86%) of articles have fewer unique contributors than that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png)
Edit counts are a horrible metric in general... Edit analysis shows that people who add lots of content tend to do it in single large bursts.
Plenty of articles that fall out of the group with <20 distinct contribs would be completely misrepresented by the 'top 20 contributors'.
On 5/16/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Provide the list of the 20 contributors with the most diffs, plus the originator. You'll almost certainly have the top 5 in there somewhere.
Only true in the majority of cases because the overwhelming majority (86%) of articles have fewer unique contributors than that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Articles_distinct.png)
Edit counts are a horrible metric in general... Edit analysis shows that people who add lots of content tend to do it in single large bursts.
Plenty of articles that fall out of the group with <20 distinct contribs would be completely misrepresented by the 'top 20 contributors'.
All I'm claiming is that generally the top 5 contributors would be found in the top 20 most active. Not always, I warrant. Other than that, yeah, we're facing an old problem - determining the worth of an editor's contributions automatically.
Steve
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 10:30:56AM -0800, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
Well, just a credits link - not a tab, a link in the footer. And the special credits wouldn't only have image credits, so perhaps a link called 'Article and image credits'.
I must be dumb, cause I don't see why so much importance and thought is put into the relatively un-important images. I could stand a wikipedia with 0 images at all just fine, I go there for the text - yet there isn't all this hullabaloo over content copyrights ^^/
The number of requests for image deletions or permission to use an image from Wikipedia received at info@wikipedia.org is relatively high. There are many people who are interested in images and copyrights.
jens
On 5/15/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
I've been following this thread with some interest, both as a photographer (who has actually contributed original work to WP) and as a usability guy, who understands that icons should behave the way icons *behave*...
and I like Steve's suggestion here a *lot*; I think it's probably the best balance between people getting credit for their work, and websites working as websites are -- these days -- expected to work.
I've unthreaded this, so this proposal doesn't get lost in the noise.
Click for the big version (where copyright data is harmless) is the expected behavior for the common case of illustrations (vs navigational aids). I don't think we should change that behavior for most things due to usability reasons... so if we want something else for icons/navigational aids, and mainpage images then we still need to establish another kind of image tag.
I think a credits page is a good thing. Just like the mediawiki bottom credits which we disable due to performance reasons.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Without getting too bogged down in the "Image Credits" proposal, which as Gregory Maxwell points out is somewhat of an orthogonal issue, I'd like to propose Keeping it Simple and looking just at the image linking part of the idea, highlighting the distinction Elliott Cable pointed out between icons and images.
There's been no shortage of suggestions for syntax, so I won't rehash those here. The main objection is the loss or hiding of the copyright and other information to be found attached to the larger image. But proposals to try to make the link(s) go both ways quickly descend into a morass of complexities.
I suggest we do allow the optional linking of images to other content, with the following proviso: doing so is acceptable only the image is used as a navigational icon. Typically it will either be a drawn image (a button), or a thumbnail photo. So I would propose this formal specification of the proviso: "navigational" linking is acceptable if:
1. The image is 100x100 px or smaller, and ( 2a. the image is PD, or 2b. the same image also appears on the linked-to page and, there, has the old behavior of linking to the full-size image plus its metainformation. )
Whether to try to enforce such a requirement by policy or in software is an interesting next question.
On 5/17/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
1. The image is 100x100 px or smaller, and ( 2a. the image is PD, or 2b. the same image also appears on the linked-to page and, there, has the old behavior of linking to the full-size image plus its metainformation. )
2c. the image is GFDL or CC-SA with no attribution requirements.
(I don't see the necessity in providing readily accessible attribution info for an image where the author didn't request it)
Steve
This guy sees sense!
On May 16, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/17/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
1. The image is 100x100 px or smaller, and ( 2a. the image is PD, or 2b. the same image also appears on the linked-to page and, there, has the old behavior of linking to the full-size image plus its metainformation. )2c. the image is GFDL or CC-SA with no attribution requirements.
(I don't see the necessity in providing readily accessible attribution info for an image where the author didn't request it)
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
1. The image is 100x100 px or smaller, and ( 2a. the image is PD, or 2b. the same image also appears on the linked-to page and, there, has the old behavior of linking to the full-size image plus its metainformation. )2c. the image is GFDL or CC-SA with no attribution requirements.
(I don't see the necessity in providing readily accessible attribution info for an image where the author didn't request it)
And how do we tell that the image is "GFDL without requested attribution?".
... This will be a nightmare to police, and I don't see how we can easily get the software to enforce it.
Perhaps some kind of bit that only administrators can set on the image to permit this kind of usage? Still nothing easy to impliment.
Also, I've been checking, and many of these navigation icons have attribution requirements. Most seem to be LGPLed, taken from varrious free software packages.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
... This will be a nightmare to police, and I don't see how we can easily get the software to enforce it.
Does anyone have a sense for how much abuse is likely? If it doesn't end up being a big problem, we may not have to worry about policing it.
Perhaps some kind of bit that only administrators can set on the image to permit this kind of usage? Still nothing easy to impliment.
How hard would it be to write a background bot that scanned for image tags which used the hypothetical new "link to somewhere else" mechanism, then checked the corresponding Image: page to ensure that the license was one of those that don't require attribution?
Also, I've been checking, and many of these navigation icons have attribution requirements. Most seem to be LGPLed, taken from varrious free software packages.
So don't use those.
(In fact, if we're worried about proper attribution, we clearly *can't* use those as navigation links, since they would be the last ones we'd want to put some kind of little "credits" link next to! Boy, would that be a confusing user experience.)
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
And how do we tell that the image is "GFDL without requested attribution?".
By looking at the image description and seeing if they request attribution?
... This will be a nightmare to police, and I don't see how we can easily get the software to enforce it.
So is getting people not to upload copyrighted images, a far greater problem. There are many things we can't enforce. This seems a trivial problem.
Also, I've been checking, and many of these navigation icons have attribution requirements. Most seem to be LGPLed, taken from varrious free software packages.
What are their requirements? "Must show the following text when clicked upon?" There are lots of other ways of providing attribution information.
You really, really don't want MediaWiki to allow linkable images?
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
And how do we tell that the image is "GFDL without requested attribution?".
By looking at the image description and seeing if they request attribution?
Right but since we can't do this automatically there is no way to check.
... This will be a nightmare to police, and I don't see how we can easily get the software to enforce it.
So is getting people not to upload copyrighted images, a far greater problem. There are many things we can't enforce. This seems a trivial problem.
We do enforce that to a degree. We have tools, methods of detection, procedures... it's all rather complicated. I've had several tens of thousands of problem images deleted, issues detected via automated analysis, reviewed by humans gone..
It's harder to do with this... We have to constantly fight against the fact that many people's instincts WRT copyright tell them to do the wrong thing. "I made this screenshot of the starwars movie, I own the copyright, and I release it into the public domain".
We'll face the same problem with attribution-less images that anyone can create but it's even more obscure an issue. When you couple the fact that a minority of the navigation icons we're using are attributionless licensed right now, all I can see us doing is creating problems.
Also, I've been checking, and many of these navigation icons have attribution requirements. Most seem to be LGPLed, taken from varrious free software packages.
What are their requirements? "Must show the following text when clicked upon?" There are lots of other ways of providing attribution information.
The attribution requirements differ somewhat from license to license but overall we're in a good position if the attribution and license data (it's not just attribution btw, the majority of copyleft licenses require you to tell the recipient what license it's under) is 1) Easily and obviously accessable, not obscured or hidden 2) Uniform and approiate for our medium
You really, really don't want MediaWiki to allow linkable images?
Excuse me? I really want us to have linkable images which we can actually use, i.e. ones that don't create copyright problems.
I love the idea of the tiny automatic (image info) link, which works great for things like portal/main page images, but I realize that it presents problems for navigation icons. I'm sure we can figure out the right solution for those as well, but we won't make progress if you're just going to dismiss me with "You really, really don't want MediaWiki to allow linkable images".
Shall I say "You really, really don't want to behave legally and ethically in regard to the content we've taken from others?" and complete the cycle of pointless accusations?
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
It's harder to do with this... We have to constantly fight against the fact that many people's instincts WRT copyright tell them to do the wrong thing. "I made this screenshot of the starwars movie, I own the copyright, and I release it into the public domain".
IMHO this is not likely to be such a big problem. As many have pointed out, linkable images are likely to be very rarely used outside the article space. If they're abused, we can deal with the problem them.
The attribution requirements differ somewhat from license to license but overall we're in a good position if the attribution and license data (it's not just attribution btw, the majority of copyleft licenses require you to tell the recipient what license it's under) is
- Easily and obviously accessable, not obscured or hidden
Well we've suggested ways of doing this.
You really, really don't want MediaWiki to allow linkable images?
Excuse me? I really want us to have linkable images which we can actually use, i.e. ones that don't create copyright problems.
I feel that you're throwing an un-necessarily wet blanket on this. Having formed that opinion, I'll shut up about it now.
Shall I say "You really, really don't want to behave legally and ethically in regard to the content we've taken from others?" and complete the cycle of pointless accusations?
If you like.
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO this is not likely to be such a big problem. As many have pointed out, linkable images are likely to be very rarely used outside the article space. If they're abused, we can deal with the problem them.
I've missed that part of the conversation, because I can't quite figure out exactly what you plan on using the current proposal for...
We discussed (featured article) images on portals/main page which don't take you to the expected location. This proposal is a nonstarter for that solution because very few of them are under a license which doesn't require attribution, and no upsurge in such images is expected.
We also discussed little navigational buttons. I'm actually having a hard time finding any that are PD, most of the ones on enwiki are LGPLed or GFDLed, and most came from outside sources (not wikipedia user created). So I'm a little confused as to how the no-attribution linkable image proposal would be useful. Can you provide concrete examples (with hyperlinks to images where you would expect us to use this feature?
- Easily and obviously accessable, not obscured or hidden
Well we've suggested ways of doing this.
We've discussed an automatic image info link, which I support and you reject and we've discussed making it look like a redirect, which is in poor taste, and fails to meet the not obscured or hidden requirement.
I feel that you're throwing an un-necessarily wet blanket on this. Having formed that opinion, I'll shut up about it now.
Wet blanket?
Okay! Show us working code and the discussion can continue, right now this all appears to be hand-waving and speculation to me... and no compelling argument has been made why I should spend my time implementing anything discussed here.
"Gregory Maxwell" wrote:
Okay! Show us working code and the discussion can continue, right now this all appears to be hand-waving and speculation to me... and no compelling argument has been made why I should spend my time implementing anything discussed here.
I'd prefer some working code, too. Not an endless discussion between us about the best method. We ourselves are the ''enemies''! I may do it if i found time enough...
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We discussed (featured article) images on portals/main page which don't take you to the expected location. This proposal is a nonstarter for that solution because very few of them are under a license which doesn't require attribution, and no upsurge in such images is expected.
Ok for that case I think it's a non-issue. A main page article that uses an image from that article would surely qualify for "easily accessible", right? Take the example of "Philosophy of mind" currently on the main page. Click the image, it takes you to [[Philosophy of mind]]. If you still care who made the image, life could hardly be easier - click it again. We can simply ask people to ensure that the image is available on that page. Agree?
We also discussed little navigational buttons. I'm actually having a hard time finding any that are PD, most of the ones on enwiki are LGPLed or GFDLed, and most came from outside sources (not wikipedia user created). So I'm a little confused as to how the no-attribution linkable image proposal would be useful. Can you provide concrete examples (with hyperlinks to images where you would expect us to use this feature?
Ok, I concede.
We've discussed an automatic image info link, which I support and you reject and we've discussed making it look like a redirect, which is in poor taste, and fails to meet the not obscured or hidden requirement.
I don't think I've rejected anything but ok.
Okay! Show us working code and the discussion can continue, right now this all appears to be hand-waving and speculation to me... and no compelling argument has been made why I should spend my time implementing anything discussed here.
I apologise - I wasn't aware that you were a developer seriously considering implementing the thing yourself.
Steve
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 02:22:18PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Show us working code and the discussion can continue, right now this all appears to be hand-waving and speculation to me... and no compelling argument has been made why I should spend my time implementing anything discussed here.
It's my turn to have gotten lost, since I (re-)started the thread.
Was some good reason put forth why the Image Credits link/tab proposal was *unacceptable*, cause it seemed like a perfectly serviceable approach to me:
If a user clicks through to it, thumbnail up a 50x50px thumb for everything larger than that, and show the name and creator, with the image the traditional link-to-the-image-page.
That specific approach might create load issues, if care isn't taken about whether such pages would get spidered, but I suspect URL games could be played to preclude that.
Cheers, -- jra
On 5/18/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
If a user clicks through to it, thumbnail up a 50x50px thumb for everything larger than that, and show the name and creator, with the image the traditional link-to-the-image-page.
That specific approach might create load issues, if care isn't taken about whether such pages would get spidered, but I suspect URL games could be played to preclude that.
Just for the sake of argument, you could implement it in javascript in an hour or two just by scanning the document tree and pulling out all the images. To fancier stuff like redisplaying them all at a fixed size you'd need the MediaWiki engine involved. Technically you *could* do that by editing a non-existant article with some arbitrary new code and getting it previewed...
Just trying to envision solutions that don't involve an extension to the engine, for what it's worth.
Steve
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
And how do we tell that the image is "GFDL without requested attribution?".
By looking at the image description and seeing if they request attribution?
Right but since we can't do this automatically there is no way to check.
The licensing tag that an image has is selected from a constrained list, right? (I think that's how we're doing other kinds of automated checking.) So all we need to do is (a) create a list of those existing licenses that don't require attribution (PD, etc.), and maybe also (b) create one or two new variants (e.g. "GFDL but no attribution required").
On 5/17/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
The licensing tag that an image has is selected from a constrained list, right? (I think that's how we're doing other kinds of automated checking.) So all we need to do is (a) create a list of those existing licenses that don't require attribution (PD, etc.), and maybe also (b) create one or two new variants (e.g. "GFDL but no attribution required").
Not constrained. We provide a list, it's no where near inclusive. So it's not quite that simple, but yes we can test for certian things like that. But we would also need a way of findind which images are inlined in this matter. Walking a million articles isn't acceptable. :)
On 5/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Not constrained. We provide a list, it's no where near inclusive. So it's not quite that simple, but yes we can test for certian things like that. But we would also need a way of findind which images are inlined in this matter. Walking a million articles isn't acceptable. :)
Hell, just create a tag called "ok for linking" and people can set it on a case by case basis when needed, evaluating the arguments. But I don't honestly see much difference between saying "Only link if the image doesn't require easily accessible attribution, and be honest" and saying "You can only link if the image has been set with this tag, and be honest when you set it".
Steve
On 5/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hell, just create a tag called "ok for linking" and people can set it on a case by case basis when needed, evaluating the arguments. But I don't honestly see much difference between saying "Only link if the image doesn't require easily accessible attribution, and be honest" and saying "You can only link if the image has been set with this tag, and be honest when you set it".
There is a huge difference between ignorance and malice. "Oh I see how to get an image to do what I want.. lets just add this option tada!" or "I'll flip every possible knob until I get the result I desire" is vastly different from "Hey, lets screw over those wikipedia folks".
We need the right infrastructure to quickly locate usage, and the handy information needed to evaluate that usage. Ideally we'd also like a system thats hard to accidentally abuse... where people won't just copy some other image link and create a copyright problem. This is where set this tag makes sense, because it's a place where we can include BIG BOLD TEXT that explains when you can and can not set the tag.
I don't care what exact form the tools take as long as they are sufficient.
I'd be satisfied with a solution which stored an attribute in the imagelinks table that indicates when the link is a 'no copyright details' link, so long as that was coupled with a transcluded tag via policy it would be simple enough to run a daily query which reported the newly no-attribution-tag-needed tagged image and images used without attribution without the tag.. And then from that data send flaming bot death^W^W^W polite re-education to people using it in the wrong places.
I'm sure you think that I'm being stubborn expecting there to be problems with this... but I am speaking from experience. We've had huge problems with people using non-free images as decorations on their user pages, and those images are easy to detect (i.e. already meet all the criteria I'm asking for here)... but when there are hundreds added in a week it can be hard to keep up.
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
Hell, just create a tag called "ok for linking" and people can set it on a case by case basis when needed, evaluating the arguments. But I don't honestly see much difference between saying "Only link if the image doesn't require easily accessible attribution, and be honest" and saying "You can only link if the image has been set with this tag, and be honest when you set it".
Steve
Better as some kind of extra image flag (only settable by sysops?). I'd also like to have an uninsertable-flag for images waiting for deletion (there's already a MediaWiki mesage for doing this, but it's not good for a big usage).
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org