Hoi,
Benjamin is it fair to expect that you are a Wikipedian first and a
Wikimedian second? The problem with perception is that it differs from
where you stand. One of the easiest things to solve on all the Wikipedias
are false friends but hey I stand with data and the Wikipedia perception is
that
This is a slight tangent, but please let's be slightly more precise
with wording about what free media content Wikimedia Commons
legitimately hosts.
The scope of Wikimedia Commons is to host all free media with any
rationale for "reasonable educational reuse".[1] The vast majority of
content never
Lets move this along towards a solution;
Maybe the simplest solution is to create a delinker type bot that flags
images which were used on Wikidata but the data item has since been deleted
thus flagging the file for review on Commons.
This addresses the concerns over spam Wikidata id's being crea
Thanks for this clarity Paulo.
Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki
rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion?
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The OP is misleading. The issue is
The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with OTRS.
As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in
any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios. Otherwise,
use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
Apparently some OT
Hoi,
Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that
fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability
standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This
is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not fo
Scope is a Commons community decision,
OTRS is solely about licensing
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do
> what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT
> covered b
Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding.
Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a
way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have
with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different
perspect
Hoi,
No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do
what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT
covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the
notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the orig
YEs Commons does have it all laid out at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS so that everyone can follow
those steps.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Gnangarra wrote:
> to quote Gerard
>
> There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
>> forward, rules and r
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
> forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Ever
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons?
This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is
jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related.
For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not
think this is
Hoi,
Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I
understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines
permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipe
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports
ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used
in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and
hence is in s
I see. If I am reading it right I think that in that case I would never tried
a direct OTRS , mostly because I know how the system is designed and its
possible rigid reaction. IMHO it's not designed to minimize these points of
stress but to encourage them. It looks more like a play when some pe
I'm not that familiar with the photosubmissions OTRS queue, and I've no
idea if we have that rule internally on OTRS.
But it surely seems a weird rule. Anything that is on scope to Commons -
which is the case for anything used in Wikdiata too - should be accepted in
photosubmission, period.
That cl
Hoi,
This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%22Global_Young_Academy%22
This is the chat at Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:4
Can you provide some links?
I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any
issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct
(all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that
very much.
It's true however that
19 matches
Mail list logo
