The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_undeletion as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process. So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are; - notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate - when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of delreview or transfer locally. Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when > Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a > project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when > Commons decides to remove access. > > When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still > refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it > from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the > people to grant a local right to use that image. > > In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained > the ability to do whatever fits their policies. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other >> Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide >> encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons. >> >> Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain >> users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from >> there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around >> is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work). >> There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt >> to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails >> they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from >> people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious >> authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to >> wp.he to "treat it as a problem"? >> >> That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, >> they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as >> "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons >> into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object. >> >> -- Rama >> >> >> >> >> On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Rama, >>> >>> Sorry, but you have it all wrong. >>> >>> 1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its >>> primary mission. >>> >>> 2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the >>> opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them >>> first-class IMHO. ;oD >>> >>> Yann >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[email protected]>: >>> > Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of >>> its >>> > own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as >>> much as >>> > it is there to serve other projects. >>> > >>> > It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as >>> some >>> > sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the >>> word >>> > -- it is an error and an injustice. >>> > -- Rama >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much >>> antagonising. >>> >> > The >>> >> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone >>> >> > blocked >>> >> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at >>> Commons? >>> >> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the >>> impression >>> >> > that >>> >> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a >>> >> > power >>> >> > play. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem >>> >> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> - 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 >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > > -- GN. Vice President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
