Hi Dror Why not discuss this on wiki?
Michael Dror Kamir wrote: > I hear many time that people think this is a great project, but in fact > the Commons' administrators were quite hostile towards it from its very > beginning. Like in many other issues, most of the complaints were > technical, but I cannot believe that technicalities are the problem > here. None of the images lack source. The person who contributed the > images and relinquished his/her copyrights is always mentioned, but not > in the field where the administrators expect it. The fact that the > "description" template is produced automatically makes this minor error > very easy to ignore or fix. An administrator merely needs to look two > lines below, and if it is really disturbing, an automated process can > fix the error in the future. Many people upload images manually and the > risk of error there is much higher. The fact that these technicalities > were enough to block the project (not the bot, but the whole project, as > this bot is actually the door between the localized interface and the > Commons) makes me wonder whether these technicalities are just an excuse. > > > The Commons, the Wikipedias, the Foundation and the chapters are all > part of one structure. The Commons' administrators have more privileges > than any other element in this structure. They are entrusted with a huge > international project, seen by people from five continents, they are > selected for indefinite period of time, and they don't have to reveal > their identity. It is also unclear who they are accountable to. These > privileges mean that the administrators need to be extremely careful and > cooperative. The fact that none of the administrators ever thought of > contacting a chapter to consult it about local copyright arrangements or > to suggest project related to the Commons is an indication that most > administrators are not aware of the structure within which they operate, > and don't understand the way Wikimedia works. > > > Being an administrator at the Commons doesn't necessarily mean deleting > images whose source is unclear or approving controversial material on > the account that it is "educational". Being an administrator also, and > most importantly, means knowing the way the Wikimedia movement works, > being interested in new projects, offering help, and being fully > cooperative with new initiatives. Think about it - had one of the > administrators sent a template code to the email of the Pikiwiki > project, the whole "source issue" would have been resolved. However, the > administrators chose to take a passive approach, complain about the > minor error without explaining it properly, and blocking the project > eventually. This is not how things should work. The administrators also > must remember that the rules are there to serve the community. It is not > the community that need to serve the rules. The spirit of the project > always comes before the technical rules. If obeying the rules becomes > more important than the spirit of the project, then it's a sign that the > project is decaying. > > > Dror K > > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > > _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
