While Michel Vuijlsteke's points are excellent, and I agree that editors should be encouraged to be patient and welcoming to new editors, there may be a problem with the file. That said, a deletion nomination is not a good way to respond to a file problem.
I find that Safari does not display the preview of File:Van_istendael675.jpg correctly. It displays as a dark negative image. Camino does not display the preview and comments as follows on the file itself. "The image “http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Van_istendael675.jpg ” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." Google Chrome displays the file and preview properly. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_istendael675.jpg Walter Siegmund On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:32 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Food for thought. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Michel Vuijlsteke <[email protected]> > Date: 22 February 2011 16:29 > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness (was: Missing Wikipedians: > An Essay) > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[email protected] > > > > > On 22 February 2011 14:14, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> We have to make a profound choice in the culture here: >>> 1) we continue with the whacking and scaring the newbies away >>> (content >>> priority #1, people #2), or >>> 2) we embrace the newbies and we let some spam through (people >>> priority >> #1, >>> content #2). >>> >>> So far we are steadily moving along the first route. I believe, it >>> is >> time >>> we switch the priorities. People are important. It's the people >>> who will >> be >>> creating content in the future, and not the other way around. >>> Wikipedia >>> will >>> inevitably fail without participation. And content... we are >>> already the >>> largest and the best... >>> >>> Renata >> >> To me it sounds too much black and white. Indeed, there are points >> you >> better not stumble across as an editor: engaging into battles over >> disputed >> content (like Middle East conflict), writing articles on smth with >> disputed >> notability, pushing POV or not getting immediately the image upload >> rules. >> But I assume this is a relatively minor fraction of editors (though >> of >> course it still represents a problem). I can not recall that I ever >> got any >> templates in my articles (I have written over 500 of them since >> 2007), >> except for a couple of times from a bot that there are no links to >> the >> article, and that I ever got any angry comments from admins/other >> editors >> concerning the articles I have written. >> > > I don't think it has to be as obviously annoying as slathering > templates all > over pages or wikilawyering the newbies away -- it's often much more > subtle > how content/data seems to be considered more important than people. > > One interaction I encountered recently is typical. Michiel > Hendryckx, one of > Belgium's best-known photographers, started uploading fairly > high-resolution, good quality images to Wikipedia (well, Commons) on > 3 July > 2010. Stuff like this 1983 Chet Baker portrait: > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chet675.jpg > > The first message on his talk page was a request to confirm his > identity > (which he did). > > The second message was a complaint by Nikbot (no valid license for one > particular image). A couple of hours later, at 10:51 on 4 July, the > next > message is from CategorizationBot, asking Hendryckx to add > categories to his > images. > > The third message, not six hours later, was this: > > *Please categorize our images !!!* > You already have been asked by a bot to categorize your images. > Therefore I > don't understand why you keep on uploading images without categories. > Uploading images without categorizing them doesn't make sense. Only > categorized images can be found! > > > I'm pretty sure the user in question meant really well, but *this* > is what > that focusing on content over people means to me. It's in the small > things, > the interactions that experienced Wikipedians take in their stride, > but that > can end up scaring people away. > > It's like the last message on Hendryckx' talk page, dated 1 February > 2011: a > notification that one if this images is listed at commons:deletion > requests, > and to "please do not take the deletion request personally... thank > you!". > Follow the link to the discussion ( > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Van_istendael675.jpg) > > : > turns out the requester couldn't see the image. His/her first action > was to > nominate the image for deletion. Took about three hours for someone to > confirm that no, the image works perfectly fine for them, and about > five > hours for the original person to close the deletion request > ("thanks"). > > Again: content over people. No personal interaction with the > photographer, > no message on the photographer's talk page after the deletion > request was > closed, nothing. The last interaction Hendryckx had on Commons -- on > 19 > February, almost three weeks after the deletion request was closed > -- was a > baffled question ( > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/File:Van_istendael675.jpg) > > , > asking what on Earth is wrong with the image, and that he'd like to > at least > know why it needed to be deleted. > > Again, I'm sure the user in question meant really well again, but > here too: > content over people. Drive-by templating, shoot first, don't ask > questions, > don't even provide feedback, trust people will read every last word > in the > templates, etc. > > Michel Vuijlsteke > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _______________________________________________ > 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
