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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Kat Walsh wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw(a)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