Mark Williamson a écrit:
ht.wikipedia has a grand total of 0 images, and its number of articles is SO negligible that gfdl probably isn't much of a concern, plus the fact that none of them are linked from the mainpage (see for example http://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominikani or http://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayiti - reasonably good articles, but neither is linked from the mainpage).
Evidently. This language was started a few days ago. I made the guy a sysop and gave him a couple of quick tips. Meanwhile, I made myself a user page (I might have over 40 user pages now) and put a picture I uploaded on commons a couple of days ago.
However, GFDL information SHOULD be added by a competent editor in the target language (ie, not in French), and if that is not possible then perhaps a secondary language is acceptable.
Except that practically, it is not done. People just link images without COPYING a license and description that someone already provided. We ain't machines. If that can be done by an automated process, why should we bother doing it ourselves ?
But the chances that somebody will steal content from such a small Wikipedia are infintessimally small, and even so not all editors are likely to even KNOW that their submissions are by default licensed under the GFDL (this requires a working knowledge of English, as opposed to the basic knowledge of English nessecary for editing pages in general).
Generally, I give my work under gfdl. I write about twice a month to a website to request that they comply to our license, which requires mentionning the licence type and the authors.
I feel that if I require from outside websites to comply with our licence (sometimes, I have to hint at legalistic issues), I think 1) we should start by complying to our licence ourselves and 2) we should provide websites with means to comply with our licence as we request.
As an editor, I would like that the images I gave to the project are kept under the licence I gave all inside the project. Right now, on ht, there is no author, and no licence, that is PD.
I cannot be sure there are other wikipedias where it is the case as well. It would be nice that the commons description page link to a page where all the cases of uses of the images are listed.
As a board member, I cant contact people to complain they did not provide information when we fail to give them the information.
Do you see my problem Mark ?
And all these problems, we can solve. Imho. Just need time and energy :-)
Mark
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:50:51 +0100, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Magnus Manske a écrit:
Anthere schrieb:
Hello, Not sure exactly where to write about this.
I may have not understood something very well, if not, please explain to me.
When someone upload an image to wikicommons and place it under gfdl license, I would tend to say that re-using this image would have to follow gfdl license. We know that we do not respect well gfdl license for text, since it is very difficult to follow all authors, but for an image, it should not be a lot of problem to respect it, since there is only one author, the one who took the picture.
So, normally, to follow gfdl license, when we use the image we should
- mention the gfdl and 2) mention the author, no ? So that anyone
reusing the image would be able to follow the gfdl in turn.
What bugs me is that if I upload a picture to say the french wikipedia, it is written in the image comment that I took the picture, so I am granted the authorship of my work, and anyone using the image could either mention wikipedia or myself. But at least, he has the information available. Besides, the reader can see a description of the image.
When I upload an image on wikicommons, I can write this information over there, but this information is no more directly available to the guy using the information.
Neither is the GFDL or the author list on any wikipedia article. You'll have to click a link (GFDL or "history", respectively).
Possibly. But it is not because we poorly respect the GFDL on articles (where it is hard to respect it) that we should poorly respect it, if none at all on images.
Between the moment you see an image and the moment you see the description, there are at least two links (at best). I think it is not good.
Those who care about license information will find the link. Those who don't care wouldn't be helped with the text in plain sight either.
Magnus
Well, on the case of the ht wikipedia, even with the best of intention, no one could see the license and no one could cite the source.
In effect, that means that Wikipedia is not respecting the sort of contract it has with the editor. Somehow, we agree to give our work under a certain license, but in exchange, we could expect that at least within Wikimedia project the license will be respected. And it is not.
Somehow, how could we complain that others do not respect the gfdl when we do not respect it either ?
Hence my suggestion for an automatic and mandatory message leading to the right description on commons and hence my suggestion that the description is also available on local projects.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l