| Revision as of 06:33, 6 January 2008 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →Two questions: comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:27, 17 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)213 edits Undid revision 1269999479 by 102.88.111.42 (talk)Tag: Undo |
| (259 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WPFairUse}} |
|
{{Shortcut|WT:FUR}} |
|
{| cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px black; background:rgb(230,245,230);margin=5" |
|
|
| align=center|] |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free use rationale guideline/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fair use}} |
|
== Use rationale needs to reference US laws, not Misplaced Pages policy == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|small=yes|search=yes|index=}} |
|
It's not a question of what the rules are, it's the function of the use rationale. It's for external, not internal consumption. |
|
|
|
|
|
So please change it back to what it was and no revert warring, okay? ] 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't really agree that use rationales are for external consumption. External reusers need to have their own lawyers and make their own decisions; it's not our role to give them legal advice. As I see it, the point of us requiring written rationales is to ensure that there is a sufficiently strong reason to use the image and to ensure that ''we'' are following fair use law. I thought that is why they are now called "nonfree use rationales' instead of "fair use rationales". — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The doesn't give us any guidance here. My argument is that the text of this statement is for us and downstream users to justify to the outside world why the image is not infringing. So it's necessarily geared to a fair use defense. It's not to justify that the image complies with our policies. A court or outside lawyer considering suing someone for using these free images will not be swayed by what Misplaced Pages policies are. The only question is whether they're infringing. There's no such thing as a "non-free rationale" defense to copyright infringement. These two examples have stood quite a while. Is this a case where they were just overlooked when we changed the terminology from "fair use rationale" to "non-free use rationale"? Or is this one of those places where the rationale has to interface with copyright law? How is this treated elsewhere in the project where these rationales come up? ] 23:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree an outside lawyer is unlikely to be swayed by the fact an image meets our policies, but why would she pay much attention to our claims that the use is legal? If I were to hire a lawyer to consider suing WP, I would hope that lawyer would use her own understanding of the law, not rely on WP templates. Similarly, if WP is sued, I would expect Mike Godwin to use his knowledge of the law, with the help of some legal research, to craft a defense. So I don't see the templates as being particularly relevant in a legal setting. It ''is''important that our policies are tight enough that an image meeting our policies is not likely to be legally dubious, but that's a question for policies, not for licensing templates. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 00:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::A different reason to avoid saying "fair use" very much is that it may give people the impression that any use that meets fair use law is acceptable for WP. It isn't enough for an image to meet fair use requirements, it needs to meet our nonfree image policies. So it makes sense that the rationale should explain why the use meets those policies, not why it meets the requirements of fair use. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We should avoid the term "fair use" whenever we can when we are really referring to Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies. As someone who does a lot of copyvio patrolling, I get enough people telling me "you don't know anything about copyright law, haven't you ever heard of fair use?" as it is. It confuses the issue further if people think they can use images on Misplaced Pages to the full extent of "fair use" under US law. This is particularly true as most users don't understand what the "free" in "free content" means. Using the term "non-free" draws a much better contrast than "fair use". --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::None of that really addresses the question, though. Ultimately the policy is all about fair use, and making sure there is a fair use defense. The rationales themselves are worthless as a defense, true. But they are a check to make sure there is one. Back to my question, how is the wording of these rationales treated elsewhere? In my own use rationales, I try to say both when I'm in the mood to go all the way: "Use of xxxxxxx in the article complies with Misplaced Pages non-free content policy, and fair use under United States copyright law, as follows." ] 02:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::As I am constantly telling folks over at ], ultimately the policy is all about creating a free-content encyclopedia, and fair use, or any non-free media, don't contribute toward that goal. Otherwise why have a policy that's stricter than the law requires? As it is, an image might be perfectly justifiable by law under fair use but still fail the policy. Result? We get a deluge of questions over at MCR about people who don't understand why their uploads are getting speedied because they see "fair use" all over the place and assume that as long as they obey the law in that area they're OK. (Plus they don't read the links in the tags, but lets not go there.) Talking about everything in terms of the non-free media policy (which itself should reference the law) makes for less ambiguity. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::A couple of years ago it would have been hard to argue with you. "Fair use" was all anyone talked about. But I disagree that the resolution provides no guidance. They mention the law, but the policy is not made with respect to the law. It's made with respect to the idea of free content. The law enables the use of non-free media; it's the ''policy'' that tries to keep a lid on it and which determines which media will go and which will stay. Not that this hasn't been Misplaced Pages's goal all along, but this refocuses it. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I know all that (although your summary is a little off - the image policy represents a balance of competing goals on Misplaced Pages) but it still doesn't answer the question. I'm not trying to rehash the issue of why we favor free content, but more specifically, is the rationale explicitly supposed to argue there is no copyright infringement. We can't rest entirely on policy while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is copyright. Again, what is the current practice? If the rationale is expected to argue the legality of the use we're not going to overturn that in a discussion here. If the wording is an aberration as compared to other examples and standards of use rationales then we should bring it into line. The licensing resolution offers zero guidance on what the text of a rationale needs to say.] 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::My understanding (or possibly my interpretation) is that the rationale is supposed to justify the inclusion of a particular non-free image in our free content encyclopedia. It not only has to satisfy copyright law, but also overcome our presumption that non-free content is not permitted, which is a stricter standard. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I think it's a bit much to expect image uploaders to add a legal argument to the image pages, which is what it amounts to if they're going to "argue no copyright infringement". It's much more reasonable to expect them to argue conformation to the policy, which is written in such a way that any media that does comply with it should be within valid fair use. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 22:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::There's the rub. The use policy has a goal of keeping the images compliant with the law, but unless we worry about the law sometimes that's not necessarily going to happen. There's no practical way to make conforming with policy any easier or safer than conforming with the law - we run up against all the same subtle issues. In some aspects the policy stands in front of the law, but in others it simply restates or incorporates the law. We're not asking users to argue legalities, but simply to comply with the policy and assert that the image is legal. The US law on copyrights is still in the thick of ], mentioned many times both as background as also as operative rules. I think it would be a mistake to remove it entirely for a number of reasons. ] 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::We're not discussing removing it from the policy, but rather removing it from the model use rationales. There's no reason the policy can't mention fair use law on its own. I would say the policy should mention it somewhere, but not in the model rationales. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: On what grounds could users make this assertion? Determining valid fair use . The law itself is vague, and there's not much in the way of caselaw to clarify it apart from certain specific uses like parody. We'd be asking editors to make an assertion where they're not qualified to evaluate whether or not it's true. I know I wouldn't try to decide fair use on my own, aside from those instances where it's relatively clear. Conformation to the policy is no guarantee of fair use, but it's certainly less ambiguous than the law and as it's designed to be more restrictive it will actually result in valid fair use much more often than not. As you say, one of its goals is compliance with the law. Editors should only have to worry about complying with the policy, by virtue of which the burden of complying with the law can be left to Misplaced Pages. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Current policy and guidelines do currently ask people to mention the law. ] 10(c) says the use rationale is for when "fair use is claimed for the item" so that a "fair use defense" can be built for the item. The "acceptable images" section of the ] guideline mentions that images must satisfy ''both'' Misplaced Pages policy ''and'' copyright law. |
|
|
::We ask people to comply with the law all the time. Saying that you believe your actions to be legal is not asking for a legal argument. It's asking for an assertion. Masking the law behind a blanket of Misplaced Pages policy may fill in a few valleys of intricacies but it doesn't affect the broad question of what is legal. People must face the same issues of what is public domain, what is a panorama right, substantiality of use, what does it mean to interfere with commercial opportunities, etc., whether we call it the law or our policy. Users should never lose sight that there is an underlying fair use issue here. If you say they should forget about the law and pay attention only to policy, you lead them astray. You can't ask people to do something by rote without letting them know why they're doing it. If you do, they will step over the bounds of legality because they have no basis for interpreting policy. ] 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I looked for the first quote on the guideline but couldn't find it. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 04:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:(ec) If it says that, it was probably missed when other instances of fair use were replaced. I don't think it's intentional. I would think both of these instances of "fair use" should be replaced with a reference to the non-free content policy. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It ''would'' be clearer if everything were consistent on this point. However, if we take "fair use" out from all these places, we need to add a strong statement that although the policy is designed to go farther than fair use, when interpreting or applying the policy we cannot lose sight of the fundamental issue that use must be legal on Misplaced Pages, and designed to be free of significant legal restrictions for downstream users.] 04:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Policy is designed to ensure two things: (1) make sure the usage is clearly within the legal terms of fair use; (2) make sure no fair-use content is used that might inhibit or compete with the creation of free content. And that's really as much as there is to policy. Everything else is commentary. |
|
|
:::These rationales are scarecrows, designed (at least in part) to make busibodies go away. Our basis against such tiresome make-nuisances is U.S. law, not the internal minutiae of Misplaced Pages policy. Mentioning US Law is therefore no bad thing. But there's room for both. ] 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Standard == |
|
|
|
|
|
What is the standard editing on this: |
|
|
*=== Fair use in ] === |
|
|
*=== Fair use rationle for ] === |
|
|
*=== Fair use for ] === <br> |
|
|
Please clear. I've been editing this stuff and some users might react. ] <sup>(]•])</sup> 12:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is no particular standard, as long as it's clear what article the rationale is supposed to apply to it's all good. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== tag for missing rationale? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a template that I can use for ]? It's missing a Fair use rationale. I'm asking this here because I feel that non-sysops should have clearer instructions for how to deal with a missing rationale. for the time being I will add a notice on the talk page.-- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: It was uploaded before 2006, so new tag won't work-- ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It would be more helpful to[REDACTED] to simply provide a fair use rationale (after some judgement), than "tagging" the image because it lacks formal statements in accordance with "current" policy. The persons who worked with that article in 2005 (and uploaded the image) might not be active on Misplaced Pages today. (Tagging new uploads is of course fine, if they fail to adhere to the current policy). ... For this image the fair-use criteria is rather obvious, so I provided one. ] 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Oh for god's sake == |
|
|
|
|
|
What is supposed to be the problem ? It is a play. It is the poster for the play. |
|
|
] 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Fixed it. ] 22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:The problem is that it is missing a "use rationale", which is required once for every time a copyrighted image is used in an article. There are perhaps some better places to ask, but you've found the page here where the requirement is spelled out. Read this page and it will tell you what you need to do. Or if you would rather work by example, find an article about a play or a film where there is a poster used, and take a look at how it's been done. We've all learned. It's not that hard. ] 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It would also not have been that hard for whoever noticed that this obviously legitimate fair-use image was not in compliance with the letter of whatever latest version of pointless, energy-sucking rule-duplication is current at the moment, and add the rationale themselves - a rationale so standardized as to be easily cut and pasted. That would have been a good-faith action, and a one-step process that annoyed nobody. But that's not the point, is it? The point is to make sure that ordinary editors are aware of and inconvenienced by the pointless squabbling that goes on here. Well, success. |
|
|
::] 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Misplaced Pages has decided to require a use rationale even for obvious cases. At least if it's such a routine case, it's easy to add one. Just copy it from somewhere else. Yes, someone could fix that. But you uploaded it, so the logical person to do it is you. I could have done it but if you're going to be uploading more images it's best that you know - you know, teach a man to fish.....It was tagged automatically by a bot and the bot is not in any position to fix the image, just notice that the rationale is missing and add a tag.] 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
When you selectively delete my text, you distort its meaning. ] 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Would you rather I deleted the whole thing? I don't see any change in meaning, just a removal of vulgarities directed at Misplaced Pages policies and whoever is enforcing them. A "thanks for the explanation" would be welcome. I am trying to explain all this, you know. It's a simple bot that's being used to help enforce a rather fundamental policy decision. There's been a lot of contention over it. You're hardly the first person to think it's unwarranted. But there's been a lot of bad will over it, and if people don't make an effort to be civil it tends to erupt in flame wars. Take a look at the bot managers talk page if you want to see some more, ]. He gets five or ten angry comments a day for the past few months. ] 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yes, he certainly attracts a lot of anger, as most disruptive editors do. Do you really think a couple of curse-words have any prayer of being as corrosive to the civil atmosphere on Misplaced Pages as his bot has been? Betacommand is harming collegiality on Misplaced Pages every day, and he knows exactly how. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: The problem would not be difficult to fix if he (and others who are as fussed as he is about media that obviously satisfies fair-use, but was uploaded before their small club of rules-lawyers decided to needlessly complicate procedure) would simply take a little more effort themselves to resolve the problem that they created. Instead, they continue making Misplaced Pages a little more unpleasant every day, in the same way, for months. At this point, it's difficult for me to assume good faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ] 00:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I can sympathise. As one heavily affected by this process I can see Dybryd's point. In fact even though I went through the pain to convert to the new rationale templates, presto!, someone got the bright idea to add the article field. I then had to repair the newly installed templates all over again. It was déjà vu all over again, like a bad case of ]. Although extreme expressions elevate the temperature of the debate and normally are not recommended, in this special case they serve to remind us about the pain of a hard working wikipedian as he is being rolled over by robots running amok. Not only running amok but backtracking and changing direction in mid-play for good measure. I think this must be ]. Too bad it had to manifest its ] side first. ] 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If you just want to vent, fine, as long as you do it without cursing at other Wikipedians. But it's unproductive. Misplaced Pages require use rationales, even in obvious cases. Allowing images to omit the rationale would mean that there is no automatic way to tell whether someone actually has an obvious rationale or simply failed to add a rationale for a non-obvious case. The presence of the rationale ensures that the user actually has one, and also helps categorize the images. That's the reasoning behind it, and whether you like it or not that's the consensus decision of the community. If you don't like it you can take it up as a policy matter but I don't think you will get far. I can understand a concern about disrupting images. To fill you in, to avoid disruption to old images the two main image bots are ''not'' tagging images uploaded before 2007. It's only the newer images, and I think it's reasonable to ask anyone uploading a new image now to comply with the policy. There are also efforts afoot both to simplify the rationales for common situations and also to go back and fix as many old images as possible. I'm the one who proposed the article field, incidentally, and it is a very good idea. If your image already had the article name indicated on the use rationale, the bot will not mess with your image. But if the rationale was missing the article name that makes it noncompliant and the bot would have tagged your image sooner or later if you hadn't fixed it in the template. None of this is new policy, it is only enforcing old policy, which the Board that runs Misplaced Pages has ordered us to do. I'm actually on the side ''against'' deletion of old images, which is very harmful to Misplaced Pages. But to avoid that, we have to make sure we get the old ones into shape, and that people aren't uploading new images that are just going to get deleted later. What we can't do is just ignore copyrights, or leave everything as is. There are 350,000+ copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages, and several thousand image uploads every day. Although many or most are legal, quite a few are copyright violations and quite a few more simply don't have data they require. ] 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Incidentally, the bot is not currently runing amok. It has run amok before (in my opinion) and what it's doing now is nothing commpared to its amok behavior. Just stick around and you'll see how upset people get when that happens (emoticon).] 04:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You don't have to convince me. I did all the work at an earlier time and did not complain about it, (save for a single edit summary back then, when I complained about someone playing with the template, although I didn't know it was you!). I actually extended the template use to pre-2007 articles because I like the new look as well as the more organised and uniform rationale it provides. The only thing was that when you introduced the article field the template started complaining that it was missing the name, even though the name appeared in another field, so I had to manually install the article pipe and name retroactively. That took some effort but I did not complain even then. I would have stayed clear of this had I not noticed this outburst. I took it as an indication of frustration of a user who seems eloquent but frustrated. What drove him to those expletives? I don't really know but in his outburst I detected a frustration with the system. I then understood that not all people take to this so calmly. I don't know what the answer is but maybe he has a point. Not in the way he expressed himself. That is always counterproductive and if it goes against other hard working users it is unjustified. But he may have a valid point in that he needs someone to retroactively fix the rationales for him. Maybe we can institute a task force to help copyright-stressed people instead of demanding of them that they do it. A group can retrofit these rationales for them so that they don't have to blow up like this. Outbursts should act as a call for action. They should serve as a red flag for corrective action. Not all people like or want to deal with legalities. A copyright template placement assistance task force could ease their frustration. The robots can then appear a bit tamer, or at least appear to more closely obey Asimov's ] instead of making their own at their whim as they roam unchecked through images and user talk pages wreaking havoc with automated and menacing messages; (place your own emoticon here). ] 05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I think Dr.K.'s task force idea is good. I have had Betacommand's talk page on my watchlist since I left messages there, and I think part of the problem is that it may appear to some that Betacommand is on some sort of private mission, when in fact it's important that the images comply with policy. Betacommand has to answer the same questions repeatedly, which I guess becomes tedious for him. He can't edit 24/7, so somebody in a different time zone to him might not get a speedy answer to their questions. Also, since Betacommand is not the only editor who adds {{tl|di-no fair use rationale}} or {{tl|di-disputed fair use rationale}} to images, perhaps if there was a centralised page where people could ask for help with fixing rationales, or even just vent a little without offending a particular editor, it might help editors learn about ] and reduce their frustration. I'm not an image expert, but I'd be willing to help out with it. ] 14:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I could help in such a project, although on a part-time basis. I have actually used the template for some images that were not mine such as posters from ] article etc. As far as the private mission of the robots etc., I know better than that, so I hope it is clear that I said these comments in jest. On the other hand the robots do possess a scare factor especially when making repeat visits on your talk page. In that case is it reasonable to think: am I being stalked by a robot? I know human image inspectors that were accused of the very same thing if they examined more than one image from a single user. This experience can be unnerving for some new users. Maybe we can set up a help desk type of task force dedicated to image problems with robots and help with template placement. Bye for now. ] 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I got the joke :) and I think it reflects the way some editors feel, eg comments to Betacommand along the lines of . ] 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===Comments regarding image fixing tasks=== |
|
|
Some comments: |
|
|
*A task force would be great. There is a lot of work to do. The two most obvious are chasing behind the bots to fix the images, and fixing the images that use the template but omit the article field. |
|
|
*Most of the discussion on this topic takes place at ]. |
|
|
*For reference there are bout 350,000 non-free images on Misplaced Pages, of which 150,000 to 170,000 do not comply with the image data requirements. Many of these images have been here a long time, some before the policy requirements were put in place. Most of these, say 60-90%, comply with the underlying policy on which images we can use, they simply don't have the data. Unless we do something to save them, all of these images will be deleted within the next few months. That is what makes people yell and scream, more than the inconvenience of having to comply when they upload a new image. |
|
|
*The Bot tags can all be found at ]. There's a background of about 200-300 per day from by-hand nominations, but after the bots cranked up they're nominating a few thousand per day so the total count/backlog is probably something like 5,000 to 10,000. When all this dies down we'll go back to 200-300 per day, which is the approximate rate of people uploading images without the proper information (out of a total of 3,000 daily uploads, perhaps 500-1000 of which are non-free images). |
|
|
*Currently there are administrators who follow behind the bots after the required notice period and check the image. If it's been fixed to their satisfaction they remove the tag and move on. If it's not fixed, they usually delete the image. Few administrators are bothering to fix images that are saveable. |
|
|
*Some images can be fixed. Others are simply against policy in the first place, copyright violations, or there's no way you can find the information without knowing where the image came from. If you save an image, remove the tag. If you can't, you should leave a conspicuous note that you tried but couldn't, or a message to someone else. That way the next person doesn't duplicate your efforts. It can also be a signal to the deleting administrator that they can go ahead and delete the image. |
|
|
*There would have to be an organized way for people to divide up work. Otherwise everyone is going to be working on the 0000 to 99999 group at the same time and nobody will ever get to the letter A, much less Z. Maybe some kind of central talk page where people can "check in" and "check out" chunks of images. You could leave a note saying "I'm working on P through R of the October 27 images" and that would let people know to work somewhere else. |
|
|
*For the template / article field issue, there are almost 30,000 images you can find at ]. For nearly all you can find the article name, either somewhere else on the page (just cut and paste!), or more likely, nowhere on the image page but it's in the "file links" at the page bottom. In that case you should click on the link to verify that the rationale makes sense for that particular use, and then add the article name. In the rare case where there's some confusion, multiple article uses, or some other obvious problem you can fix that too. |
|
|
===Regarding the proposal to change use rationale requirements=== |
|
|
Regarding the upcoming changes. |
|
|
*A little while ago a proposal was made and accepted (see ]) to change the ](c) use rationale to allow pre-written templated rationales for the most obvious common cases - album covers, book covers, logos, and pictures of artwork. Between them that's about half of the non-free images. Doing this requires making some technical changes to the way the copyright tags (10a) and statement of image source (10b) are done. Now we're working on the templates. |
|
|
*You can see an early, kludgy, attempt I made to automate the process. ] for logos (about 1000 in use) and ] for album covers (about 1,500). The deletion bots know about these and leave them alone, just like the main template. The final version will work completely differently but if you can figure out these two you can use them now. |
|
|
*To get the proposal implemented five things have to happen in sequence. 1) We have to finish designing the image data requirements, templates, messages, use rationales, etc, then get final consensus approval - the earlier approval was an approval in principle. 2) We have to enact a transition to the new format. The bots, upload procedures, and instructions have to be modified, and we have to get the word out. Right now we're targeting 1/1/08. 3) We need to rescue as many old noncompliant images as we can in an organized way. 150,000 or more of them, as I said above. 4) We may or may not want to upgrade old compliant images to the new format for consistency. 5) Any noncompliant old images that we can't or don't fix are subject to getting deleted, the latest by next spring. |
|
|
*The new format will make it a lot easier to comply with the image policy when uploading new images, easier for the bots to detect noncompliance, and also easier to fix old images. If you get fast at it, you can currently fix 30-50 an hour using a browser to fix images using ]. If and when the new templates are in place you can probably fix 120-150 images an hour to the new standards using an editing tool. |
|
|
Hope this info is useful. Feel free to ask questions here or on my talk page ] 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not only useful. It's a how-to manual. I'll try to absorb it as soon I get the chance. Great work. Thanks. But I think the first priority of a task force should be dealing with frustrated or anxious users that don't want to, or can't, re-tag their images. The task force would then help them do it on a per request basis not as a general mopping up operation, (even though that is worthy as well). ] 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks from me also, Wikidemo, and kudos to you and the other editors who are working on the templates. Presently, I can add rationales to about 35-50 images in an hour, and being able to speed things up would be great. A re-tagging taskforce is sorely needed so that things like ] don't happen. However, like Dr.K. I'm also concerned about the stress that some editors experience when they have problems with their image uploads. Perhaps a direct link to ] in the {{tl|di-no fair use rationale}} and {{tl|di-disputed fair use rationale}} templates? Or if there was a template similar to {{tl|Helpme}} that an editor could add to their talk page or the image page? Maybe a way for new image uploaders to ask if someone could double-check their uploads before they get tagged by a bot? Part of the problem I think is that editors might not know that they have done anything wrong until their image ends up in ], and proposed deletion can put people on the defensive even if the problem is easily fixed. ] 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just so you know, given the background and based on the Steve_Eifert example (hundreds of images uploaded 2 years ago by editor who is now mostly inactive, deleted wily-nilly on 2-7 day notice) I am going to propose by bold change to ] formalizing our de-facto temporary suspension of deletions for images loaded before 1/1/07. I'll announce that here, on ], and on CSD (where the discussion will inevitably take place) as soon as I do it. If you have any other strong examples of recent large-scale deletions of old images, I would appreciate knowing about it so we can keep an eye on it and also use it in discussion. Onesies and twosies are an annoyance and lead to cursing; hundreds of old images all at the same time, times dozens of times this seems to be happening simultaneously, is a significant problem we need to deal with lest our efforts to clean up the images falls apart. ] 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The idea of Blathnaid for a help tag is great and along the lines of my original proposal. Kudos to Wikidemo as well for his proposed moratorium on large scale deletions. Let me know how I can support both ideas. And since we are on the subject, is there any way to adjust the bot reaction time before they put a deletion notice and a related talk page notice on newly uploade pages? I uploaded a few logos recently and before I had the chance to construct a fair use rationale the bot had tagged the image within 2 minutes and spammed my talk page at the same time as in . Could we make it wait a few more minutes? ] 21:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::] anonymous editor tagged a lot of images for deletion on 22 October. Some of the images were uploaded by ] as far back as 2004. Humus sapiens is apparently on a wikibreak, and no notice of the images being tagged was added to his/her userpage or the talk pages of the articles the images were on. I've added rationales to some of the images, but they are due for deletion in a few hours and I don't have time to catch them all. Another example I've come across is the ] of ]. There are more examples I've come across, so I'll dig through my contributions and provide some more tomorrow. ] 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Thanks. It would be useful to keep track of mass taggings in one central place. I'll give that some thought. Well, as per my changes to CSD none of the post-2007 images are deletable, but I doubt people will get the message quickly and there's a chance people will revert it and it won't stick. To be clear, the "moratorium" is a temporary stay on deleting ''old'' images while we try to fix them. In the end they will all have to be either fixed or deleted, we just need more time to do it in an orderly way that gives us a chance to save them first. ''New'' images are still subject to tagging and deletion as before, no immediate change there. 2 minutes seems awfully fast. I noticed that. At least it's better than 3 months, which means you might be off line, have uploaded another two dozen before realizing the bot would reject them, and miss the notice and come back after a short wikibreak to find them all deleted. Instant feedback is good, but 5-10 minutes would be better because it gives you a chance to finish what you're doing before the bot points the finger. I would just ask the bot owner if they could institute a little buffer - politely please, because they get a lot of flak and tend to tune out when a message starts with an accusation. You can help by participating in the project mentioned above and by a task force to save images. If you care to discuss the moratorium, I can't tell you to support it because that would be canvassing, but I'll provide the link to that in a subsection below.] 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for all the info as well as the input about bot timing. I'll ask the owner and don't worry, even though spammed a few times I think I understand bots well enough not to get upset, not by a long shot. I think at this stage of their development they are just trying to say hi. ] 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
==== Formalizing temporary suspension of I6 and I7 for legacy images ==== |
|
|
Per the above (and loosely cross-posed from ]), I have updated ] and started a discussion on its talk page ] to formalize the de facto reached at NFCC to focus image tagging and deletions on the 2007 images while we put in place ] to update the image data requirements and save the old images. I'd encourage people to keep the discussion in one place - probably over at CSD. ] 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Great idea and even better action. Kudos. ] 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Help, please == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone explain to me what precisely do I have to do at Image:Plakat03.jpg (the problem is the subject of this article)? Thanks in advance. --] 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi PaxEquilibrium. For the fair use rationale, copy and paste ] onto the image and fill in the fields. Since the image is used in two articles, you will need to use the template twice, once for each article. You also need to give the source of the image (eg the address of the website that you got the image from). ] 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Done PaxEquilibrium. Please have a look. ] 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. Believe it or not - this is '''the first time''' I've actually come to apply this, so please sorry for my inexperience. Every day Wikipedian learns. :) --] 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No problem. That's why we are here. :). ] 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Two questions== |
|
|
#Is a rationale for using a high-resolution image as opposed to a low resolution image required, or is it only recommended? {{tl|Non-free use rationale}} says, ''"If you are using an image of higher resolution, please explain why."'' It doesn't say you ''have to'' explain why; it only says "please" explain why. ] says, ''"If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original?"'' It doesn't say anything about providing a rationale in cases where the item is not reduced in quality. It only requires that you state the fact that the item is of lower quality. ] (]) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you do not heed the "please" you are at risk that the image will be nominated for deletion or, more likely, simply reduced by someone. I don't think reduced audio quality is desirable or necessary to mention. The equivalent, though, is to include only a short sample. Many people get lazy and simply say "yes" for reduced/low resolution. It doesn't hurt to be more explicit but I don't think it's necessary, except in borderline cases where you may have to make a strong argument why the image use is transformative/does not compete with the original. ] (]) 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
#Is the recommendation for using low resolution images as strict for video game screenshots as it is for posters, cover art, paintings and other single-image works? As I understand it, the rationale for using low resolution images is that only a portion of the original work is used (low resolution = portion). Using a single screenshot as opposed to a full-length movie of the game would seem to qualify as a "portion" of the whole, and thus meet this requirement. ] (]) 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
