Dear Lodewijk,
If normal processes are followed, a deletion template/category would
be added to the image, and this is actually something that could be
reported by a bot. You'd only need to find someone to write that for you.
I see that you want to keep everyone busy - person A adds the deletion
template, person B writes the script, person C analyzes its output. But
we certainly have better things to do, and the problem should be rather
prevented from the very beginning. Namely, one should not add the
deletion template without a good reason and without thinking about the
consequences. Given the current situation at Commons, it is much safer
when they simply do not touch any of the WLM images.
And if we are talking about general tools (as Lily just said), the
problem of someone removing the valid license template is by far more
general. It concerns not only WLM images, but every image on Commons. So
this should be solved (or, basically, prevented) on the Commons level.
Best,
Alexander
On 30.01.2017 23:55, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for sharing your experiences again. It is appreciated.
There are (at least) three issues playing in parallel here, and while
they interfere, they require different approaches:
* Sometimes admins move too quickly or don't follow the right process.
This is something we have to sort out through the regular channels on
Commons - because it affects all uploads and not just Wiki Loves
Monuments. I don't want to downplay this, but to some extent, this
will always happen.
* We need to find good pathways to identify photos that are not
matching criteria. Sometimes we can make the extra effort to fix it
(like in this case, where someone has removed information that was
already there). Someone could make a tool to identify these images,
and make a report. This seems to be what you're asking: to be
informed. If normal processes are followed, a deletion
template/category would be added to the image, and this is actually
something that could be reported by a bot. You'd only need to find
someone to write that for you.
* What I was concerned about, is that an image gets deleted after the
jury process is finished for a valid reason. This happened a few
times. There is nothing we can do (or should want to do) to avoid
these deletions. However, what I can imagine, is a better process to
detect these images earlier, so that they are not nominated in the
first place. I went through the top-50 manually, and checked for all
kind of suspicious activity. If the metadata looked suspicious, or if
anything was missing, I would contact the author. I know that at least
one national team also checked each image through google images to see
if it was available elsewhere on the web. However, that doesn't scale.
But, I'd like to collect approaches here, and then maybe someone can
come up with a good way to automate :)
I hope that clarifies.
Best,
Lodewijk
2017-01-30 23:09 GMT+01:00 Alexander Tsirlin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
I think that I have raised this issue back in September, and at
that time Mr. Lodewijk told me that Commons admins are special
people who are not supposed to read and check anything. They
simply delete an image if they want to do so, while the rest of
the community should shut up and comply. I am not sure whether Mr.
Lodewijk is going to reconsider his opinion now, but at least it
is good to see that others find such behavior of Commons admins
detrimental.
Regarding our own license checks, we of course do that for Russian
WLM, and we also tried to take care of no-FoP images by
systematically tagging them and transferring them to other
projects under fair use. However, we quickly found out that
Commons admins take advantage of this process and delete the
images before we have a chance to transfer them (the notorious
sysop Jcb was also part of that story). From that point on, we
had to adopt a different strategy and make sure that no-FoP images
simply stay on Commons, because there is no reasonable way to
organize the file transfer without the danger of having the files
deleted before the transfer occurs.
More generally, I am sure that the Commons community has to
reconsider their attitude toward the WLM photos. These photos are
not regular uploads, and there are always people who are ready to
take care of them if problems occur. It will be very natural if
WLM organizers get notified about potential problems and have
their say before(!) the files are nominated for deletion. I
believe that the international organizers should seriously push
forward this idea. Otherwise, we can easily face a situation when
all winning photos are inconspicuously deleted under weird
pretexts like 'no license', and none of us would even understand
what happened, because files have been deleted, and all evidence lost.
Sincerely,
Alexander
On 30.01.2017 17:28, Lodewijk wrote:
Thanks!
OK, so in this case the information was apparently removed
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%EB%B4%84%EC%9D%B4_%EC%98%A8_%EC%88%98%EC%9B%90_%ED%99%94%EC%84%B1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=230157217>by
someone unrelated to the author - very odd - and deleted by an
admin without further checking. I restored the image on the list
of winners.
The general question for best practices stands though -
especially given the deletions that sometimes happen with regards
to freedom of panorama. It would be nice if we could at least
catch those earlier.
Best,
Lodewijk
2017-01-30 17:17 GMT+01:00 Ciell Wikipedia
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
I restored the image, the info still there in the history.
Ciell
2017-01-30 17:07 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
People can also upload images manually. As I'm no longer
an admin, I can't check the history of the file - and
there was no page with deletion request created. The
recent file I noticed was 봄이_온_수원_화성.jpg
Best,
Lodewijk
2017-01-30 17:06 GMT+01:00 Alexander Tsirlin
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
The WLM upload wizard adds the cc-by-sa-4.0 license
automatically. Therefore, it is hard to imagine that
a WLM photo had no license. It rather means that
someone removed the license, and then someone else
deleted the file. Was it the case here?
Sincerely,
Alexander
On 30.01.2017 11:51, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey all,
As I noted that two of the national nominees have
been deleted after their nomination, I was curious,
are there any process improvements we could consider
to avoid this to some extent?
I would be curious to hear some best practices that
countries have implemented to check for formalities.
For example, I noted that one image from Korea was
deleted apparently because the licese was missing.
I'm guessing that this is something we could check
for semi-automated. Are there countries that do this?
I do some manual checking for the top-50
internationally, just before we enter the final
round. But it is very hard to scale that, and it
eats up a lot of time. Any other ideas?
Best,
Lodewijk
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
<http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________ Wiki
Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
<http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________ Wiki
Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
<http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves
Monuments mailing list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
<http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves
Monuments mailing list [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
