I concur with WASs appraisal of the situation, and agree that the policy sounds like it needs to be formalized -- or if it already exists and was merely flouted, that that situation needs to be cleared up.
I specifically concur that a complaint ought to be necessary. Cheers, -- jra ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email protected]> > To: "Wikimedia developers" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 9:11:08 AM > Subject: [Wikitech-l] Overzealous Commons deletionists > I've noticed a problem with overzealous deletionists on Commons. While > this may be something of a legal and political issue, it's also > operational and affects multiple *[m,p]edias at the same time. > > I've spent some time over the years convincing public figures that we > need official pictures released for articles, rather than relying on > fan (or publicity or staff) produced pictures. Because of my own > experience in the academic, computing, political, and music > industries, > I've had a modicum of success. > > I also ask them to create an official user identity for posting them. > Since Single User Login (SUL), this has the added benefit that nobody > else can pretend to be them. From their point of view, it's the same > reason they also ensure they have an existing facebook or linkedin or > twitter account. > > This week, one of the commons administrators (Yann) ran a script of > some sort that flagged hundreds of pictures for deletion, apparently > based on the proximity of the word facebook in the description. There > was no time for actual legal analysis, at a rate of more than one per > minute. The only rationale given was: "From Facebook. No permission." > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sharon_Aguilar.jpg > > In this case, timestamps indicate the commons photo was posted before > the facebook photo, and the facebook version is somewhat smaller, so > there's not even the hint that it was copied "From Facebook." Besides, > many public figures also have facebook accounts, so it shouldn't > matter > that a photo appears in both places. > > A bot posted a link to the notice on the en.wiki talk page that used > the photo, where in turn it appeared in my watchlist. > > Then, despite my protest noting that the correct copyright release was > included, the administrator (Yann) argued that "The EXIF data says > that > the author is John Taylor. The uploader has another name, so I don't > think he is allowed to decide a license." > > That appears to be post-hoc explanation, as the facebook one obviously > wasn't applicable. Self-justifying strawman argument. > > In this case, as is usual in the most industries, the *camera* owner > appears in the EXIM file. A public figure who pays the studio for > headshots owns the picture itself. The photographer would need the > public figure's permission to distribute the photo! > > After pointing out the nomination didn't even remotely meet the > deletion policy nomination requirements (that I cited and quoted), > this > administrator wrote: "I see that discussion with you is quite > useless." > > Then, minutes later, another administrator, Béria Lima, deleted the > photo without waiting for the official 7 day comment period to expire. > That indicates collusion, not independent review. > > There are a number of obvious technical issues. YouTube and others > have had to handle this, it's time for us. > > 1) DMCA doesn't require a takedown until there's been a complaint. We > really shouldn't allow deletion until there's been an actual > complaint. > We need technical means for recording official notices and appeals. > Informal opinions of ill-informed volunteers aren't helpful. > > 2) Fast scripting and insufficient notice lead to flapping of images, > and confusion by the owners of the documents (and the editors of > articles, as 2 days is much *much* too short for most of us). We need > something to enforce review times. > > 3) Folks in other industries aren't monitoring Talk pages and have no > idea or sufficient notice that their photos are being deleted. The > Talk mechanism is really not a good method for anybody other than very > active wikipedians. We need better email and other social notices. > > 4) We really don't have a method to "prove" that a username is > actually > under control of the public figure. Hard to do. Needs discussion. > > 5) We probably could use some kind of comparison utility to help > confirm/deny a photo or article is derived from another source. > > If there's a better place to discuss this, please indicate. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [email protected] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
