On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote: > Really all we need to do is impliment a review process for uploaded media > that way we address not only scope but copyright, derivative wroks, FOP, > permission and licensing issues before the image is available for use, > something like a flagged revisions. Providing it has an auto review for > approved contributors so as not to create unmanagable back logs it should be > a relatively fast process.
I haven't seen any evidence that we've got a significant eyeballs-to-images problem on commons. Can you suggest some? Lack of immediate gratification would be a big turn-off... e.g. at least a flagged revision change is atomic: you make your edit and forget about it. But for an upload, if you're planning on putting it in a specific article that would pretty much stink. Many of the recently deleted (but now restored) images came from users with long contribution histories. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
