On 12/11/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
They
aren't reviewed however. It takes the flickr page for granted...
better than nothing but still.
What do you mean it takes it for granted? You mean it assumes the
flickr page is correct? Well... that is all we humans do as well...
No it's not.. hopefully you are also sanity checking in other ways...
For example, the human readable flicker comments sometimes make it
clear that the image is a copyright violation. Sometimes the image is
of a movie poster or is something else that is clearly a derived work.
People do catch these sort of problems in flickr review.
I guess people who manually upload Flickr images are
not
double-checking the photographer's intent, so I don't know why an
automated process should.
The current review process asks the reviewer to leave the flickr
contributor a comment thanking them for freely releasing their image.
As above...it is hard to imagine why a flickr user
would stop using
flickr and start using Commons, though. We offer basically no benefits
for them over Flickr, superior species classification is about the
only thing I can think of. Without even using Commons, their images
are already being used in Wikipedia, so why would they switch? ;)
For the same reasons that anyone else would contribute.
Many people don't know that Wikipedia is user submitted content.
Thanking a photographer whos work we are using is a great opportunity
to educate and solicit participation from a wider collection of
people.
Having said that, it would be cool to extend an
invitation, but I
don't think that necessarily has a lot to do with an extension like
this. As you said it's more of a review process.
I only replied because your prior post caused me to think that you
considered this tool a replacement for a review process.
I think an uploader tool is great, especially if we can figure out how
to make it facilitate the review process, for example by pre-tagging
the image for review and by collecting as much data as possible.