[Foundation-l] Fair use images

Fri Mar 10 01:26:02 UTC 2006

On 3/9/06, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you expect any user whose images have been removed to know this?
> Can I send all users who are looking for old lost images to you?  Is a
> list of users who keep copies of old image dumps?

They should start by talking to the person who deleted it.
Obviously an obligation to help correct mistakes rests on the person
who took an action.

Why do we need a list? *We* provide access to the dumps. It's on our
servers. Anyone can access it.

> >From a wiki standpoint, where 'reversion' is normally as a <30-second
> process, it's pretty irreversible.  One admin's moment of passion can
> lead to days or weeks of searching for an old file.

Days or weeks? Due to a "moment of passion"? Cite?
To me this sounds like hyperbole.

If the images source was correctly stated it is generally trivial to
replace the image (unless it was clearly stated that the work was
created by the uploader, but if thats the case we should be talking
about deadminship not deletion policy).

> > It is also true that we've had images tagged with things like "non commercial use
> > only" and included in featured articles for over a year.... some of these with tags
> > saying they would be deleted right away... and they remain completely
> > ignored until someone deletes them.
>
> Why don't we fix these extreme, unacceptable cases first?  No need to
> fix a different problem using this as a reason.

I don't see where anyone is arguing that we change our behavior except
due to these cases. They might not be extreme but they aren't rare at
all.

> Rather than having people fret about "waiting for people to comment on
> the deletion tag" -- everyone, admins or not, should be free to remove
> an infringing image IMMEDIATELY to quarantine.  We should be firm in
> protecting the freeness of the project, while being polite to
> contributors and assuming the best of them.

And how do you propose we do this?

> > Worse, perhaps, is that fact that images which [are fully orphaned]
> > sometimes even caues you problems [where users treat you like
> > crap because you're removing their favorite picture]
>
> If someone notices when you remove the picture, it's not "orphaned" in
> the sense that noone cares for it.  Someone certainly does care;
> though s/he may not visit the site more than once a month.  I don't
> know how you're checking for orphans, but I sometimes find images used
> in someone's user space, however productively, called orphans and
> listed for deletion...

When I say fully orphaned I mean images which are not used inline, and
not called via any obvious external link in all the Wikitext. I don't
know how much more orphaned than you can get.

We also tag fair use images as "orphaned from the main namespace" (the
template is quite clear about it) because we do not permit, and
usually can not justify 'fair use' illustrations outside of our
articles. This is the only case that I'm aware of where an image used
on a userpage would be tagged as any kind of orphan. Can you cite an
example otherwise?

> > If the user is still on Wikipedia then a week
> > is long enough to get them to confirm the source,
>
> This is not true for the majority of Wikipedians, who do not visit the
> site every week; and doesn't even apply for the myriad image deletions
> which wait a week... but never notify the original uploader.

The vast majority of users who upload but don't edit weekly never edit again.

> > For what it's worth, in the over 20,000 media objects I've caused the
> > deletion of, I've only had to restore one, and I've restored 4 others
> > for other people.  Thats it.
>
> Most contributors have no idea how to track down a deleted image; are
> upset and offended by its removal, and simply come to the project less
> often, or complain to one or two friends on-wiki.

Most uploaders never notice when their upload is removed.
Some notice, but most of them are complete assholes about it.

> For what it's worth, of the few dozen media objects I have uploaded,
> three that were pretty clearly images taken by me were put up for
> deletion and could easily have slipped by a less active editor.  Two
> images that did not merit deletion and which I had uploaded into my
> own user space, for working with later, were deleted without any
> comment to me (presumably under a draconian "orphaned" criterion).

Sj, "Three that were pretty clearly images taken by me were put up for
deletion". I don't intend to claim you to be dishonest, but I just
looked at the histories of all the images you've uploaded to enwiki
with your account, both currently existing and deleted.... and no such
images exist.

You've did have one orphaned fair use image which also lacked source
information deleted, it wasn't in use in any articles for at least two
months at the time I tagged it, two weeks later it was deleted by
Petaholmes. I don't see that you ever contact him about it, so I guess
you didn't have an issue with it.

Of the two other images of yours which have been deleted, one was
deleted by you.. The other deleted by Angela when she moved it to the
commons.

None of the images (other than the fair use one I mentioned) have been
tagged for deletion.

Can you explain?