On 2 March 2014 16:35, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Indeed. The extreme paranoia over images people created themselves > versus the ridiculously sloppy standards for anything on Flickr (a bot > can't meaningfully "verify" an image) makes Commons merely seem > capricious. >
No the same standards are applied to flickr images. The bot is verifying against later changes of license not that the license claim is correct. The reality is though that flickr images tend to be either fine of straightforward copyvios so arguments over less known areas of copyright law tend not to be an issue. Its mostly a matter of spotting the stream has an unlikely range of images or cameras. > > tl;dr Commons is behaving like damage that needs to be worked around. > If people who consider themselves part of the Commons community don't > like that being noted, they're the ones who need to consider changing; > their intransigence up to now is *why* Commons appears to behave like > damage. > Because you and various other members of the project seem to view insisting on free content as damaging. Fundamentally there isn't much that can be done about. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
