Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for
it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I
will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me
to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being
used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we
have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always
easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are
very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some
disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and
makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please
do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during
Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsir...@gmail.com>:
> Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think
> that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
> It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a
> common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you
> probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image
> repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized
> than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and
> practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have
> carefully collected ourselves.
> Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in
> this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact
> run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden
> deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks,
> and we try to be as far from it as possible.
> Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting
> if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my
> free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests.
> Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working
> On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
> Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal
> procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and
> then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons
> can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the
> right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system
> comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once
> think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
> We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users
> who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other
> media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even
> created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review
> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every
> reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they
> found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk
> page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.
> org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for
> Nahid Sultan
> User:NahidSultan <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan> on
> all Wikimedia Foundation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation>'s public wikis
> Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh
> Twitter: @nahidunlimited <https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited>
> *From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org> <wikilovesmonuments-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org> on
> behalf of Alexander Tsirlin <altsir...@gmail.com> <altsir...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM
> *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition
> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
> Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
> Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for
> deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in
> EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This
> deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot
> of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to
> convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only
> a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
> Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century
> cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
> That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on
> Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list