[Foundation-l] Re: Speedy deleting images w/o explicit license

[Anthere]

Dori wrote:

> On 9/17/05, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>>Dori wrote:
>>
>>>Jimbo I think it's a terrible idea to delete images w/o explicit
>>>license information because the default assumed license is the GFDL.
>>>The uploader may not know that the image needs to be tagged, and we're
>>>going to lose many images this way.
>>
>>It is far preferable to drop material of unknown status than to keep it.
>>It can always be resubmitted if it's genuine.
> 
> 
> It's not unknown, as the upload dialog clearly states that what you
> are uploading has to be under the GFDL. So we're now going to delete
> all the images of those who thought it was understood that they would
> be licensing them under the GFDL. I often didn't bother to tag (or it
> was during the time when we weren't tagging) an upload, and I'm sure
> many others have done the same. We'll now be undoing people's work
> because of a future rule that they had no way of knowing at the time
> that they submitted the work.
> 
> It can't be resubmitted if you don't know about it, or if you're no
> longer editing on Wikipedia. Like I said, many of these will also be
> incorrectly labeled as unknown when they are in fact GFDL. There is
> also possibility of mischief, and I believe deleted images are purged
> after a certain amount of time (is it true of deleted text as well)?
> 
> Dori

I agree with Dori.

I'll further add that even when the author is not gone, he is not always 
told the images lack label and will be soon deleted.
It is killing motivation to discover two months later than some of your 
images have been deleted, while they were uploaded LONG before tags even 
existed and while when uploading them, you explicitely agreed to put 
them on gfdl licence (according to upload message at least).

Ant

PS : I was happy of the existence of mirrors to retrieve my own deleted 
images.