Well, All of us who are or have been arbitrators are pretty much in the anti-cynicism business. Nothing the Commons administrators do would surprise me, but it's time we grappled with them. I'm not an active uploader of images but I do edit there.
Fred > Not to be too cynical, but I hope that doesn't get speedy kept as > well. I *had* mentioned that image of the badge earlier, at the > Commons Village Pump, but no-one seemed to be that bothered. I also > suggested adding the restrictions note that Fred also added to the > image, but again, the response I got was: "We may choose to add a > warning to the file description page, as we do for several other > types, but I don't personally think it'd be very useful in this > case.". > > This whole debate makes the point that when the WMF legal counsel gets > involved because some outside organisation has sent him a letter, and > this debate between lawyers then becomes public, the community > sometimes looks like a deer caught in the headlights, unsure whether > they should debate the issue, or apply what counsel has said, or ask > counsel for further advice. > > The problem with the first two approaches is that the debate might end > up with the wrong result, and if people say "but we followed the WMF > legal counsel's advice" (even if they misinterpreted what he said), > that might be bad for several reasons. The problem with the third > approach is that the WMF legal counsel doesn't scale, and you can't > ask him everything about every image (though if someone thinks it > worth contacting him, they should always do so). The best of several > poor options seems to be for the community to judge as best they can, > contact the WMF legal counsel in rare cases only, and take note if an > external request leads to the WMF legal counsel over-riding a > community debate and learn the lessons from that. > > On a completely different note (though I see Fred raised it as well), > is that badge really genuine? The source isn't that reliable, and it > would be nice to have a date, as I'm positive the design of such > badges has changed over the years. For all images, you really do want > to try and find the most reliable source possible, not some random > website. > > Carcharoth > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Fred Bauder <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Well, I tried that and quickly found >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FBI_Badge.jpg >> >> That is not a logo but a badge and fits right inside the statute Mike >> and >> the FBI are discussing. >> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000701----000-.html >> >> I've nominated this for deletion. There may be others. Also, this is a >> object not an image. It presents the same problems as an image of a >> statue. >> >> Fred >> >>> I think the "high resolution helps forgers and impersonators" argument >>> is >>> spurious. >>> >>> Let's assume the logo were to be used improperly. Most people don't >>> know >>> what the "right" logo is. A decent image quality (straight lines, etc) >>> would >>> fool most people if it looked "professional" whether technically >>> accurate >>> or >>> not. Social engineering does the rest (not everyone will argue with >>> someone >>> who claims forcefully they are FBI). Basic image cleanup is something >>> anyone >>> can do these days and any computer can tidy up a poor quality image to >>> look >>> "clean" (photoshop). If there was doubt asd to appearance most >>> impersonators >>> only need to google image: "fbi badge" to get close enough. >>> >>> In simple terms I don't see any merit whatsoever to a claim that a >>> good >>> quality copy helps impersonators. Any impersonator will easily be able >>> to >>> do >>> the job well enough to fool most people, and any capable impersonator >>> will >>> not be affected by Wikimedia's decision. >>> >>> FT2 >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8 August 2010 16:57, Charles Matthews >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I think I found the word, early in 2007. Misunderstanding that >>>> Gerard >>>> is >>>> > more g'day than have a nice is a poor basis for any such judgement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, the thread has been rather non sequitur all the way down. Assume >>>> some bad faith and why, it's a microcosm! >>>> >>>> >>>> - d. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
