For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must; - establish their authority to license the image - the license must be a free license PD or CC-by - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia - it needs a URL to associate the permission with If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons. Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on the commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work. OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on. In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs <mich...@maggs.name> wrote: > This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons > supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has. > > As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is > used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered > educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata. > > Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of > the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design > acceptable to Commons. > > If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not > acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for > self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence > the link to the image on Commons. > > Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise > educational). > > None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as > used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant. > > The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been > added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know > no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they > are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed. > > Michael > > > On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hoi, > > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support > > Wikipedia. > > > > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We > > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The > best > > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at > > Commons. > > > > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, > it > > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The > > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria > > different from English Wikipedia. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- GN. *Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
