[Wikipedia-l] Use of images (again)

Wed Jun 28 13:28:06 UTC 2006

Hi!

> I would strongly encourage /not/ doing that... in fact I would
> strongly encourage going the other way and disallowing fair use and if
> possible, gaining community support to turn off local uploads (only
> use Commons images).
I'd support that for a number of reasons:
1) less administration (most of us are small communities and even without
images we have more than enough trouble)
2) a wider image bank
3) a larger image reuse
4) no fuss with copyright laws for local admins

But... my aim is to attract as much traffic and active users as I can. Now,
the main problema I see with using commons are:
1) you need to open an account on it, if you want the interface to start
with your language. I.e: you must be able to cope with an english interface.
2) there is no way for a local edition to use commons as an "included"
service (that is, one page as another, inside the edition).
3) file categorisation is 100% :en. (let alone file description)
4) file descriptions should have a sort of "fallback language", so that once
they are uploaded on a language any number of tranlations maybe added
without loosing the original version. Failure to do so would really mean the
risk of me publishing an image from Thailand in an article on a chinese
emperor (how on earth can I read that?) and the chinese publishing a
Rotterdam pic in an article about the Alps.
5) commons interface is quite out of wiki standards, and the localisations
distributed by Betawiki do not seem to cover the whole UI, part of which
remains in english anyway.

Point 5) is quite irrilevant for me as an individual, but *not* for an
average user. Pls note that small language editions mostly cope with very
low alfabetisation levels (less than 2% for pms). Our average user has
trouble enough in learning how to properly read and write his own language,
if we add up unnecessary tech-related steps we will simply frighten them
all.

Besides, I have all my trouble in explaining users how to use wiki pms, I
doubt that I will end up in reducing my workload, if I have to teach them
how to use commons, too.

Now, talking about "how real all this can be": I guess solving 1) and 2)
would take a lot of work, 5) is probably only a matter of building a better
integration of commons into the betawiki environment, so it could possibly
be solved without much waste of resources.

As per 3).... People @ nap.wiki are experimenting with templates for instant
multilingual translations for calendars. It could be a way to solve the
classification problem and to give commons that much wider accessibility it
really needs to become what it aims (and needs) to be.  Point 4) is a riddle
buried into an enigma, AFAIK. Providing the server space to store such
descriptions would not be a big fuss, but who on earth is going to make the
translations? 8-)

IMHO not just pms, but *all* local uploads should be switched off, if these
problems could be succesfully adressed. And it would really free a lot of
resources.

> I also find the notion of passing all responsibility onto the uploader
> pretty bogus.
The legal responsibility is *not* passed over to the user by wmf, it's
passed over because this is what law says. Unless you can have a generally
accepted convention transfer the whole legal responsibility to wmf (and I
agree that no matter how drunk wmf lawyers might be, they'll never sign such
a decision), you must respect the laws of the country in which you perform
the upload action, *no way* out of it.

You guys can check as much as you want, but if the country I am in does not
agree with your criteria I am going to deal with the local cops anyway. No
matter what our/mine/your definition of Open Content is, because the only
definition that counts is that given by Law, which is *always* local. Let's
face it. Commons is a great solution to build a shared file bank (and it's
already very good for many editions as it is), but it cannot be a global
copyright police, lawyer or whatever. Neither can it serve as an Open
Content Certification Center (because this would mean that wmf maybe liable
because of a decision made by anyone of you). I know it's unpleasant, but
that's how life is. Anyway, even just a central repository is far from being
useless.

Pms.wiki has very little files on its own. 98% of it are copied from foreign
(mainly en) wikis when we import articles, for the simple reason that they
appear to be local en files, instead of being from Commons. Now, we do
believe that offering an image gallery from commons would end up in making a
better edition. Will you help us in solving the 5 named accessibility
problems?

The only contact I got from commons was a communication saying (more or
less) "Hey guys, shut your stuff down and switch it all to commons". I asked
the guy (more or less) the same questions I am asking you now. At the time I
still was very new to the whole thing and I got the wrong impression that
this alreadly was a global shift towards a unique common repository.
Anyway...

I was asked to translate my questions in italian because he had trouble in
using english (see what I mean? Not the whole planet has an EN-3, even among
the admins). I translated them and... never got back any answer. It's a
couple of months now. As you certainly understand, opening a new edition
with a small user base means so much trouble that I simply forgot about it,
until now. I guess he did exactly the same.

Hopefully you won't forget about me :) It's an important issue, but it must
be carefully addressed.
Bèrto