- You must change. - Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how we can fix it. - No, you must change first.
Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a friend... This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking "why don't you want to be my friend ?" Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, > > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not > aware > > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where > > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a > > living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so. > > > > When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their > > only defence is "you are demotivating me" than that is exactly what needs > > to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their > misguided > > interpretation of copyright. When some hotheads leave the building, it > > will lower the temperature and we can start to talk. > > > > Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities. > > Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not > moved > > to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off > terribly > > and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted > > and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even > > more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good > > work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most. > > And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client > projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data. Wikidata > also has its own copyright issues. If Wikipedia data is migrated to > Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database > copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all > the data back. Exactly the same as Commons. Yet you've been a > proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues. > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia- > and-impact-factor-of-nature.html > > Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to > take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become > reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled > them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/ > > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764&action=history > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263&action=history > > Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several > times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you > believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors > caused by your hyper-productivity. That works in theory in large > wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata > content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large > batches of semi-automated edits. > > -- > John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
