[Wikipedia-l] Require confirmed email address to upload images?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
A proposal is discussed that suggest that something "needs" to be done. 
This need is not substantiated but it is assumed to be there. The idea 
of a bell-curve is an argument that Jimmy used in one of his 
presentations to point out to alarmists that there is a perceived crisis 
but not much of an actual crisis. However, given the volume of pictures 
that end up on Commons, I can understand and sympathise with the people 
who deal with this to some extend.
Thanks,
   GerardM

Brad Patrick wrote:
> I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions.
> GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with
> actual numbers (won't you Greg?)  =)
>
> As to Tomasz' statements, I am equally interested in hearing what data, if
> any, could be marshalled support your broad assertions.  They don't strike
> me as valid, though I could be proven wrong.  I have doubts that will be the
> case.
>
> Erik's point is well taken; the deletionists have the better argument as far
> as Commons goes, so I lean in his direction on that point.  I do know that
> there is still a lot of garbage in Commons nevertheless.
>
> I still don't see, especially in the case of single login, how providing an
> email address is a net loss for those who upload images.  Nobody has
> answered why the balance should tilt in favor of single-uploaders rather
> than established users.
>
> On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Kat Walsh wrote:
>>     
>>> On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw at users.sf.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ?
>>>> This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single
>>>> contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
>>>>
>>>> We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users
>>>> have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles,
>>>> uploading pictures, moving articles, everything.
>>>> Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them.
>>> Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported
>>> by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an
>>> image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came
>>> from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for
>>> Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor
>>> who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
>>>
>>> This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any
>>> vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is
>>> intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We
>>> need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of
>>> images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things
>>> simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know
>>> how to reach them.
>>>
>>> Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and
>>> does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
>>>
>>> -Kat
>>>       
>> Hoi,
>> People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous
>> to suggest this
>>
>> The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and
>> pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable.
>> I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had
>> added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs
>> and these messages went, some time later people decided to check
>> permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after
>> I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in
>> which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the
>> high way, I became in many ways less interested.
>>
>> People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons
>> policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to
>> restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one
>> of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.
>>
>> I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the
>> problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes
>> up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the
>> same however the number of material that you still want to check
>> increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily
>> forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are
>> working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to
>> remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem
>> is not what is depicted.
>>
>> By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it
>> seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>    GerardM