Mark Williamson a écrit:
ht.wikipedia has a grand total of 0 images, and its
number of articles
is SO negligible that gfdl probably isn't much of a concern, plus the
fact that none of them are linked from the mainpage (see for example
http://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominikani or
http://ht.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayiti - reasonably good articles, but
neither is linked from the mainpage).
Evidently.
This language was started a few days ago. I made the guy a sysop and
gave him a couple of quick tips. Meanwhile, I made myself a user page (I
might have over 40 user pages now) and put a picture I uploaded on
commons a couple of days ago.
However, GFDL information SHOULD be added by a
competent editor in the
target language (ie, not in French), and if that is not possible then
perhaps a secondary language is acceptable.
Except that practically, it is not done.
People just link images without COPYING a license and description that
someone already provided. We ain't machines. If that can be done by an
automated process, why should we bother doing it ourselves ?
But the chances that somebody will steal content from
such a small
Wikipedia are infintessimally small, and even so not all editors are
likely to even KNOW that their submissions are by default licensed
under the GFDL (this requires a working knowledge of English, as
opposed to the basic knowledge of English nessecary for editing pages
in general).
Generally, I give my work under gfdl.
I write about twice a month to a website to request that they comply to
our license, which requires mentionning the licence type and the authors.
I feel that if I require from outside websites to comply with our
licence (sometimes, I have to hint at legalistic issues), I think
1) we should start by complying to our licence ourselves and
2) we should provide websites with means to comply with our licence as
we request.
As an editor, I would like that the images I gave to the project are
kept under the licence I gave all inside the project. Right now, on ht,
there is no author, and no licence, that is PD.
I cannot be sure there are other wikipedias where it is the case as
well. It would be nice that the commons description page link to a page
where all the cases of uses of the images are listed.
As a board member, I cant contact people to complain they did not
provide information when we fail to give them the information.
Do you see my problem Mark ?
And all these problems, we can solve. Imho. Just need time and energy :-)
Mark
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:50:51 +0100, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Magnus Manske a écrit:
Anthere schrieb:
Hello,
Not sure exactly where to write about this.
I may have not understood something very well, if not, please explain
to me.
When someone upload an image to wikicommons and place it under gfdl
license, I would tend to say that re-using this image would have to
follow gfdl license. We know that we do not respect well gfdl license
for text, since it is very difficult to follow all authors, but for an
image, it should not be a lot of problem to respect it, since there is
only one author, the one who took the picture.
So, normally, to follow gfdl license, when we use the image we should
1) mention the gfdl and 2) mention the author, no ? So that anyone
reusing the image would be able to follow the gfdl in turn.
What bugs me is that if I upload a picture to say the french
wikipedia, it is written in the image comment that I took the picture,
so I am granted the authorship of my work, and anyone using the image
could either mention wikipedia or myself. But at least, he has the
information available. Besides, the reader can see a description of
the image.
When I upload an image on wikicommons, I can write this information
over there, but this information is no more directly available to the
guy using the information.
Neither is the GFDL or the author list on any wikipedia article. You'll
have to click a link (GFDL or "history", respectively).
Possibly. But it is not because we poorly respect the GFDL on articles
(where it is hard to respect it) that we should poorly respect it, if
none at all on images.
Between the moment you see an image and the moment you see the
description, there are at least two links (at best). I think it is not good.
Those who care about license information will find
the link. Those who
don't care wouldn't be helped with the text in plain sight either.
Magnus
Well, on the case of the ht wikipedia, even with the best of intention,
no one could see the license and no one could cite the source.
In effect, that means that Wikipedia is not respecting the sort of
contract it has with the editor. Somehow, we agree to give our work
under a certain license, but in exchange, we could expect that at least
within Wikimedia project the license will be respected. And it is not.
Somehow, how could we complain that others do not respect the gfdl when
we do not respect it either ?
Hence my suggestion for an automatic and mandatory message leading to
the right description on commons and hence my suggestion that the
description is also available on local projects.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l