2014-06-27 5:57 GMT+05:30 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Erik Moeller <e...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> than aggressively purging content in the fear that a single byte of
>> potentially non-free content may infect the repository.
> You're attacking a straw man. I hope you do not sincerely believe anybody
> acts out of such a childish fear. Rather, we have committed volunteers at
> Commons who take seriously our commitment to the world, to provide a
> repository of files that can be (pretty) reliably reused under a free
> license, or as public domain materials. Maintaining the integrity of the
> collection, in the face of literally hundreds of problematic uploads every
> single day, is a big job, and certainly some less-than-ideal decisions will
> be made along the way.
> Apart from the moaning I see on this email list, I generally hear good
> things from those who visit Wikimedia Commons. "Tragedy?" Citation needed,
> for real.
> I think it's absolutely crucial to maintain that aspect of its identity.
> So what is your proposal for how to effectively curate the firehose of good
> and bad content that is uploaded to Commons day by day, hour by hour,
> minute by minute? We have a collection of processes that has been good
> enough to get us to where we are today. I don't think anybody believes it's
> perfect, but it's gotten us this far. What, pray tell, would be the better
> approach? Do you really think that if you present a better idea, it will be
> rejected? Do you think we *enjoy* sifting through the details of a zillion
> files, and comparing them to a zillion copyright laws, personality rights
> laws, FOP laws, etc.? I guess I can only speak for myself, but I'd much
> rather be creating content than curating it. But curation is the glaring,
> everyday need at Commons, so I pitch in.
> It's also absolutely crucial to keep my house from turning into a garbage
> dump...which is why I take the garbage out every week.
> But maintaining that commitment requires that we also maintain a  capacity
>> for nuance in how we enforce it, or we turn into a club of zealots nobody
>> wants to be part of rather than being effective advocates for our cause.
> Good God, Erik. Seriously, with the name-calling? Seriously? I don't know
> why you did it to begin with, but since you have, please share with us who
> the zealots are, and give some evidence of zealous behavior. If the
> "zealotry" is as obvious as you seem to assume, we should have no trouble
> running those ne'erdowells out on a rail.
> But the reality, I think, is much more straightforward: this "club of
> zealots" is a figment of your imagination.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Pete, Erik is exactly right here, in this precise case.

Here LGA tagged, and Fastily deleted 50 years old images from the
Israeli government and army on the reason that as no proof of
publication were given, these images were unpublished, and therefore
still in copyright in USA. As several contributors have explained,
these famous images were given to the press for publication 50 years

At the same time, Russavia wrote a request for deletion for recent
images from the Israeli government or army, which were copied from
Flickr, on the claim that a proper CC release was not provided. A
letter from the Israeli government was uploaded to Commons, saying the
Israeli government does not claim on copyright on these images. This
letter was speedy deleted by Fastily, again.

So clearly these requests for deletion, and these deletions are spurious.



Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to