Hello,
We now have a new mechanism for starting to clean up some of the
categories that are regularly abused by newbies, such as {{copyrighted
free use provided that}} (CFUPT) , {{copyrighted free use}} and
{{PD-because}}.
I have only started with CFUPT so I will just describe how it works.
If other people would like to, they can extend the system to the other
licenses/categories mentioned.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyrighted_free_use_provided_th…
Template:Copyrighted free use provided that
The template now has an optional parameter, reviewed. So if you look
at an image and you check the reason given, and if the reason is OK,
you can add reviewed=yes and then the image will be put in a
subcategory, [[Category:Reviewed copyrighted free use provided that]].
To make this review process much easier, I asked Magnus to put
together something for it and he came up with this excellent tool -
Image Review Tool:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/imagereview.php
Try it out and you will see it is very easy to work with. The "PfC"
links to Magnus' version of that user's "gallery". The PushforCommons
gallery gives you a nice overview to quickly see if that user has
uploaded lots of problem files.
At the moment each image has five options which I suggested:
* Mark as reviewed
* Mark as no source
* Mark for deletion
* Change to {{attribution}}
* Skip
It would be preferred to change this license to a better one, if one
existed. I went through about 20 photos and I noticed a good many
should actually have been {{attribution}}, so that's why that option
is there.
There are two common problems with images in this category:
1. the extent of 'free use' is not clear. In particular:
* conditions equivalent to {{notify}} are not acceptable [that is,
images must NOT require that the copyright holder be contacted before
any use of the image]
* Wikipedia-only, non-commercial, educational, non-profit etc
permissions are not acceptable
Commercial use and derivative works tend to be the killer
requirements. So... I am not really sure what to do with such images
(and there are a LOT). Possibly we could mark as subst:nld - as the
extent of the license is not clear. Thoughts???
2. The permission is not clearly available.
Permission tends to take the form of a website general release
statement, which should be linked to, or personal contact with a
webmaster, usually through email. This permission should ideally be
forwarded to OTRS. However, informally, we have also accepted copies
of emails on talk pages or user subpages. I think it's OK if we accept
these that already exist, but all future permissions should be very
strongly encouraged to be sent to OTRS.
Anyway what to do with these images, is clearer at least: mark as
subst:nsd. (Please also write somewhere WHY this applies, otherwise
you will mystify the uploader.) Maybe it would be nice to have a
template {{OTRS required}} to go with NSD, which could say something
like:
"The license information of this file asserts a permission release,
but does not provide a verifiable source. Please follow the procedure
described at [[Commons:OTRS]] and when the permission has been
approved, replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}}."
LASTLY......
Please don't mention the reviewed=yes thing on the template page, the
template talk page, the category page or the category talk page. We
don't want newbies 'reviewing' their own images. You can't exactly
keep secrets on a wiki... but how many newbies do you really think
read COM:AN or the mailing list? :)
So!
Try out the tool!
Any comments, suggestions, please make them.
If you want to extend the other templates mentioned, or create {{OTRS
required}}, go ahead and then reply here.
Yours in the fight against the tsunami of copyvios,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
(PS. Magnus rocks)