Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget <> ha

> 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.

For EU citizens upload at Flickr could actually reduce our
GDPR-responsibility as platform.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 16:03 Lane Rasberry <> ha scritto:

> 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.


Il giorno lun 13 mag 2019 alle ore 21:42 Isaac Olatunde <> ha scritto:

> Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think
> allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons
> community works in general to delete\undelete files would be
> counterproductive.

I still think they can just left performing actions at their own

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:25 Paulo Santos Perneta <> ha scritto:

> Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
> since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
> filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
> now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
> and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
> but nothing is perfect.

 I agree, but most of abusefilter effectiveness lies in 'block' option,
which is not so common among wikis.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to