On 10/17/07, samuli(a)samulilintula.net <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote:
On 10/16/07,
Samuli Lintula <samuli(a)samulilintula.net> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:15:26 +0300, Magnus
Manske
<magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
OK, state of the union:
* WatchFlickr now adds {{flickrreview}} again
* CommonsHelper has a "direct upload" switch (off by default)
* Direct upload by CommonsHelper will add {{BotMoveToCommons}} with
the appropriate source language, so things will end in subcategories
of [[Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review]]
An example of how it looks:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ARosemary_Clooneys_ho…
I'm a bit lost in this conversation. Did any human review the license
information and such before or right after the image was transferred to
Commons?
Well,
* /presumably/ it was checked when it was uploaded in the original
wikipedia
* /presumably/ the guy who transfers it checked (how else does he know
the name?)
* /presumably/ the guy who transfers it checks the end result
* /presumably/ the good people at commons check it when it is transfered
IMHO that's an improvement over the "normal" upload to commons ("oh,
I
found a pretty image on the web, I'll upload it to commons!";-)...
If the original wikipedia image has a valid license tag, how should
one check anyway? The obvious criteria are:
* Image is too large to be a thumbnail stolen from some webpage
* Image does not contain borders, logos, or "(c)" texts
* Image either has a source given (eg.,
nasa.gov), or
* looks amateurish enough to be made by the original uploader ;-)
Yay for reasonable doubt!
Do I detect a bit of a mocking attitude here?
Just a little, maybe :-)
I don't see any reason for
that. Why would we want to lose a chance to check images that are being
uploaded on Commons? It is very good practice that we check if source is
provided, if the source seems plausible, if permission is provided, if
there is anything dubious about the image etc. We should try to check
these things with fresh uploads and transfers from other projects.
Absolutely. And there's nothing to stop anyone from checking the
uploads through the bot account. They are no different from "normal"
uploads, except many (most?) of them will already have been checked on
a wikipedia, as well as by the "transferer", and they all have an
{{Information}} template.
If we are to presume something, I presume that local
projects have at
least as many copyvios or sourceless/permissionless images as Commons.
That is, within the range of 10-30 %.
Probably. But by that reasoning, even if we were to blindly transfer
every image from, say, en.wikipedia that has {{GFDL}} in it, 70-90% of
the uploads through the bot would be acceptable for commons. Is that
the case for "normal" uploads? I'd think that the upload rate of
copyvios on commons through "normal" means will increase with the
popularity of the project.
I'm not saying that all images on en.wikipedia that are tagged
{{GFDL}} are good for commons. All I'm saying is that most of it is,
and that the average copyvio rate will likely be lower that what we
get through "normal" uploads. /Especially/ for en.wikipedia, where it
is (relatively) easy to call something "fair use" instead of GFDL, and
be done with it. Those won't even make it through CommonsHelper in the
first place.
Cheers,
Magnus