Carcharoth wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Matthew Brownmor...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently a user can upload a photograph themselves to the Commons,
claim they are the author, and no proof is needed.
Yes, you are right. So how did we get to OTRS instead of directing
people to the
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It rang perfectly true to me.
Our de-facto policy is that we utterly prefer having no photo at
all to having an improperly licensed one, and we utterly reject
any of the opportunities that fair-use law would easily
The premise that the only photos on Wikipedia are absolutely awful. E.g.
exaggerating how bad the photos of Janney, Bonds, and Beckham are.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie.
Was it? It
Durova wrote:
The default action that people take when they discover Wikipedia would
publish their photos is to offer permission. When we try to answer 'that
doesn't work, you need to go to OTRS and...' nine times out of ten their
eyes glaze over and they wander away. They simply don't
Policy changes are usually slow and difficult. Right now we have the
public's attention. Wikipedians, collectively, have a habit of responding
to real world attention with onsite process and discussion. That can be
useful up to a point, but it fails to appreciate two factors:
1. There are
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Don't write that as an essay on Wikipedia; write it as an article for a
photography trade magazine.
Exactly. Might be worth seeing if anyone on Commons has contacts in these areas.
Carcharoth
