> > Yes, lack of good administrators is a big problem, but the policies that > they administer would remain the same without regard to the number of > administrators. A simpler formulation of the rules could ease the > administrators' burdens. Alternatively, the solution is more administrators. > > When people tolerate copyright violation at featured processes in the name of "free culture" or "not being too doctrinaire", then that sets off a domino effect that worsens the problem everywhere else. If you'd like to help solve that problem by becoming a Commons administrator, please do.
> I don't see complaints to the press as a big cause for worry. > One word: Siegenthaler. I was really referring to deciding the edge cases where the existence of a > valid copyright is debatable. > > People are prone to a lot of convenient errors in that regard. This frequently happens with the European PD-70 rule. An editor locates a photograph of a German ship that was built in 1895, republished without photo credit. The absence of photo credit doesn't mean that the photographer was anonymous and a ship built in 1895 could have been photographed at any time it was operational. So if it was decommissioned in 1919 we can't assume that the photographer died within twenty years afterward...or we shouldn't. But we keep getting editors who use the PD-old template anyway as an exercise in wishful thinking. Too often, "the existence of a valid copyright is debatable" becomes a euphemism for "I've got a lousy source and haven't done enough research." -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
