[WikiEN-l] Re: Use of noncommercial-only images

[Jimmy Wales]

Michael Snow wrote:
> It is immediately possible, but I question its effectiveness. For about 
> the past two months, the upload text has included, "If you are uploading 
> an image under the doctrine of fair use, please place the text 
> '{{msg:fairuse}}' in the image description and give the source of the 
> image." Adding a warning about the risk of deletion for not citing the 
> source would be nice too, but somebody else needs to do it because I can't.

It sounds like a good idea.  I think that it should be made bold face,
and should say 'you must' instead of 'please'.  After that it should
explain the potential penality for not doing it -- deletion.

We're not going to do anything radical and sudden and frightening, but
at some point in the possibly distant future, we hope to have our
image-tagging sophistication to the point that we'll just delete stuff
that doesn't suit our needs for freedom and transparency.

> Nevertheless, my impression from scanning recent uploads is that many 
> images, including those claiming fair use, do not provide source 
> information. This is almost certainly because the upload page has two 
> fields (plus the checkbox for affirming the license). Those fields are 
> called "Filename:" and "Summary:". And the content provided with most 
> uploads is, not surprisingly, a simple summary of what the upload is. 
> Sometimes the source is mentioned, but often not.

Perhaps we could ask the wikitech-l list to add a field for "Source:",
and the text there could say "Source (required!):".

> Many people who upload stuff probably do so regularly, and are unlikely 
> to read the upload instructions carefully every time, or notice if they 
> change. They *will* notice if we add fields where they are expected to 
> input information.

I think that's an astute observation, yes.

> We need to add a field specifically called "Source:". I realize that may 
> not happen immediately, but it needs to be done. It would be nice if 
> this field also did not allow null content, although I realize that's 
> not very effective against the joker who says his source is 
> "df39rhjufuasl2".

That's true, but our main purpose is to keep good people happy, not to
concern ourselves too much with jokers.  Once we firm up our policy
here, if a joker writes 'df39rhjufuasl2' for the source, we'll just
delete the image on sight.

My primary concern is not to offend and annoy the many good people who
have made perfectly valid contributions to date, and whose failure to
give proper source attribution is not *their* fault, but rather mine,
for not seeing to it that they were properly guided all along.

> I would expect that even stuff without proper attribution should go 
> through a deletion procedure with community involvement, in case 
> somebody can provide the information needed. And any large-scale effort 
> to clean out non-compliant images should wait until people are more 
> aware of the need to provide attribution.
> 
> But I reiterate that the way to let everyone know what's expected, so 
> that we have people trying to do the right thing, is to have a separate 
> field that requires source information.

I agree absolutely.  Let's start irritating the developers.  :-)

--Jimbo