And this is more or less exactly what I see on top of the front page
of Commons: "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a database of 4,584,458
media files to which anyone can contribute and be sued about 10% of
the time".
The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to
find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our
content, utterly lack the proper links to our galleries and
categories.
Furthermore, I sometimes have the feeling that contributors of
Wikipedia expect us to host all sorts of unacceptable media in return
of the service that they provide; while we of course appreciate the
service projects, this is a problem, particularly when these files are
copyright violations.
In the particular case of Pikiwiki, it would of course be very
caricatural to say that all their images are copyvios. There are lots
of out-of-scope party snapshots, too.
-- Rama
On 15/06/2009, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
> [foundation-l added back to cc: as well as commons-l]
>
>
> 2009/6/15 Gnangarra <[email protected]>:
>
>> Sysops on Commons arent just handed the tools they first must seek a level
>> of trust from the community that trust is because there are times when a
>> person must act in the interest of Commons. As a long term sysop on
>> Commons
>> and one the higher end contributors sysops do have a level of authority
>> and
>> need to exercise their judgement more frequently without discussion then
>> other larger projects (like de,en) one the problems is that at times there
>> arent the experienced people around to enable a thorough discussion before
>> acting.
>> This is a particluar problem with local copyright issues as an Australian
>> I
>> got a good understand of OZ law and know where to get more info, I also
>> gained a fair understanding of US over time and out of necessity but I
>> have
>> a very limited smattering of it for elsewhere when there is the necessity
>> to
>> make a move if I cant get independent opinions/help then I would defer to
>> safest solution for Commons
>
>
> Yeah. The problem is that to be an admin on Commons requires you to be
> a copyright law edge-cases nerd way beyond the point where any
> reasonable person would just say "bugger it, just sue me." And the
> persistence to deal with, what is it, 10%? of uploads being
> unacceptable for one reason or another.
>
> So you'll get people - and it's fewer and fewer - who tend to be
> interested in Commons as a standalone project and are
> indifferent-to-hostile to the service project angle.
>
> The bureaucratic obstructionism - not active hindering (well, maybe
> just a bit), just passive not-caring - accorded the recent Pikiwiki
> problems is a perfect recent example.
>
> Possible solution: active recruitment drive on client wikis of
> underrepresented languages. Get interested sysops on those wikis to go
> through suitable training to become Commons.
>
> This requires setting out precisely what a Commons admin needs to
> know. Establish clear and somewhat objective criteria for Commons
> admins.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
