Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?

From: Wikimedia-l <> on behalf of Lane 
Rasberry <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.

It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget <> wrote:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett <> a
> écrit :
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget <> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> >
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to