On 14/07/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
I just have to say that if this pans out it'll be
the best
accomplishment to date for the foundation. Great job, and thanks for
keeping us up to date.
I agree. This sounds like a really fantastic development so thanks a
lot to the WMF team who have pulled it together.
I wonder if it would be a good idea for the Commons to develop a
policy regarding an historical archive, ie. being one, or not, or a
bit of both. At the moment there are no official policies but we kind
of say 'don't rely on us to be a historical archive' because:
- if you upload a blurry picture of your dog that you took on your
mobile phone, there may not a lot of value in that to Wikimedia (also
replace 'dog' with 'genitals' :))
- images may be re-uploaded under a more descriptive name and the
originals deleted (because of bugzilla:709, can't rename/move images -
note I think this is relatively rare, but the flag people in
particular seem to be very anal about name conventions)
- admins are only human, thus make mistakes and sometimes even go
rouge (well, potentially) - although a deleting rampage isn't the same
threat it used to be, thanks to image undeletion
ANYWAY... these are just the reasons why we would never promise to be
a historical archive. But obviously we aim to preserve informative and
unique data and these collections would pass on both points.
regards
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise