Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Magnus Manske
<magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett
<stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image
fair use? No? [[Move it to
Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various
Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently
restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by
anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic.
Many
images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the
Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point,
rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up
later.
I have some support for this position :) see
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
Suggestion:
1. Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
{{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag
2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description
3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease
tag has been removed on commons
All I can say to that is "please for the love of God no". People
should take responsibility for verifying the source if they are so
eager to have it on Commons. Commons admins have more than enough to
do...and this method would just cause unnecessary duplication. Just
verify it in the first place, in the first place it was uploaded! What
is the rush? Commons isn't going anywhere. Let's take the time to get
at least this right, 'cause God knows Commons has enough copyvios
without needing to import old ones.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding; I didn't propose to "dump everything
into commons on sight", but to ease the transition for both parties (if
there are indeed two, and not just the big happy wikimedia family;-)
IMHO my suggestion makes it easy for the wikipedia "party" to transfer
an image believed to be suitable to commons, easy for the commons
"party" to find such an image (via template and included category), easy
to approve (remove the template) or disapprove (delete), and again for
the wikipedia "party" to finalize the move (delete if approved on commons).
As for "verifying the source" - a picture of a building with "took this
myself, GFDL" is as easy/hard to verify for someone on wikipedia as it
is for someone on commons - either believe it or ask the original
uploader yet again (pointless IMHO). Of course, obvious non-free image
should not be uploaded to the commons in the first place.
Finally, when it comes to judgement about the "freeness" of an image, I
would imagine that people from commons have more experience with that
kind of thing than the average wikipedia person. OTOH,a wikipedia user
might know the original uploader and place better judgement on wether
his/her claims of GFDL etc. are likely or not.
Magnus