[Foundation-l] Commons request for input: policy on automatic image replacement

[teun spaans]

Basically I think it is a good idea to have some kind of automated warning
when a photo is superseded by a new version or renamed.

ad 1: I do not understand this
ad 2: It can also be safely done when the image is renamed (pls do! I run
into articles ruined because the images on commons get renamed!)
ad 3: only if they are technical identical, not if someone regards them as
indentical. As an obvious example, one person may view two pictures of the
Big Ben as identical, because they both show the Big Ben in the sunshine,
while another views them as different because ons is from the south, the
other from the north.
ad 4: It can imho be safely done when the new version is a technical upgrade
from the previous version, such as .svg instead of .png. There should be a
proces that makes sure that the conversion was a technical conversion, not a
new version from scratch, such as with (some of) the flags. Basically, this
is the responsibility of the uploader, but I would like to see some kind of
check by a second person.

If these conditions are met, I see no reason for a timedelay.
kind regards.

teun

On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> (If your project doesn't have a CommonsTicker... GET ONE...
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker
> and if nobody maintains it... well don't complain you were never informed
> :P )
>
> CommonsDelinker is a Wikimedia-wide bot designed to remove image
> redlinks from pages after an image has been deleted at Commons.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
>
> At the moment it is in the "testing" stage of image "relinking" --
> replacing one image with another. I want to get some input from
> communities about under what circumstances it would be acceptable for
> Commons to use the bot for "relinking".
>
> There are several reasons why replacing images might be desired:
>
> 1. Avoid conflicts with local image of the same name (bug 889, 2717)
> [although usually this would be done at the local wiki rather than
> Commons, but if the Commons image is poorly named, it can be
> appropriate]
> 2. Rename images: as redirects don't work, the only option to upload
> under the new name (bug 709, 4470)
> 3. Consolidate use of duplicate images at just one of them
> 4. Replace an image with a distinct, "improved" version
>
> I guess (hope) 1 and 2 are not controversial. So I want to talk a bit
> about 3 and 4.
>
> Regarding 3: some people feel that there is no need to consolidate
> duplicate images together. While it is true that there is no argument
> to do this for "disk space reasons", consider it like a 'fork' of the
> image. We don't allow forks of articles. One reason, for sure, has to
> do with NPOV, but another reason is just about efficiency and the
> natural human tendency to sort, collate, collect and organise. It
> makes sense to have all the info about one thing in one place, whether
> that is a topic (article) or an image.
>
> Now regarding 4. This is the first point where the image being
> replaced is not a true duplicate to the original. The most contentious
> point has been where images are converted from raster (GIF, JPG, PNG)
> to vector (SVG) format.
> I don't want to hash out the details of a PNG vs SVG debate here. Some
> PNGs are superior to SVGs, some SVGs are superior to PNGs. I want to
> establish: what process should take place before a bot replacement
> like this is acceptable?
>
> Because it's a bot, I want Commons to have really clear guidelines
> about when it is OK to use it, to avoid disrupting local projects.
>
> Currently, such images are tagged with {{superseded}} and listed at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Superseded
> . This page is quite backlogged (nearly 5 months, over 5000 items in
> [[category:superseded]]) and almost no-one works on it (since our
> copyvios are also backlogged, and they are more urgent, this is OK,
> IMO).
>
> Note: we have {{superseded}}, which usually means the old one will be
> nominated for deletion, and we also have {{vector version available}},
> which merely advertises the existence of a vector file and does not
> imply the old one should be deleted.
>
> So basically my question is, assuming someone putting a {{superseded}}
> tag on an image appears on your local CommonsTicker, how long is it
> acceptable to wait before we replace such images? A week, a fortnight,
> a month?
> What should consensus look like in such discussions? Since we don't
> have to delete things for copyright reasons, is *one* person objecting
> enough to keep the image? What if that person is the uploader? What
> reasons should ensure an image gets kept?
>
> Here are some main ones I know of:
> * Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
> TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to
> rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all
> and let local projects decide which to use.
> * Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
> in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but
> without special treatment).
> * Errors in SVG rendering (there are many in bugzilla)
> * PNGs as source files - should be kept for historical record (luckily
> we can undelete now, this is not such a big deal, but still something
> to keep in mind)
>
> So, please take this as an opportunity to describe the most open and
> accessible way Commons can work with your project, and how you would
> like to see it operate to best benefit your project in this regard.
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>