Commons:Project scope/Update 2013/Guidelines

Scope Review 2013 links: Discuss stage 2 of this review Translation Help your community by translating the review Background Main review page: Background and process FAQ Links to current rules Project Scope Photographs of identifiable people Discussion: Introductory Scope wording Aim of Wikimedia Commons Excluded educational content Discussion: Files Must be a media file Must be an allowable free file format Must be freely licensed or public domain Licensing terms Evidence Precautionary principle 'Realistically useful for an educational purpose' PDF and DjVu formats Discussion: Pages, galleries and categories General pages, galleries and categories User pages, galleries and categories Discussion: Areas of particular concern Censorship "Neutral point of view" Discussion: Identifiable people Lead Legal issues Consent Moral issues Identification Examples Removal requests Other image sources Other proposals Other proposals

Guidelines for contributing to the review

• We like to keep Commons a nice calm and mellow place. Please read Commons:Mellow before you post anything, and keep things light. A little humour is good; anger is not.

• Put your comments in the relevant section and keep them short and focussed on the point being discussed. Comments that are in the wrong place or are off-topic may be re-factored.

• Personal attacks are never acceptable here (that includes calling anybody a 'troll'; please do not use that word - no, not even once!). Any posting that amounts to no more than a personal attack is liable to be removed.

• Please don't come here just to moan. We are looking for solutions and not simply problems. By all means point out any issues you see with the existing policies, but always make it clear what specific change you would recommend to deal with the issues you point out. Be specific in your proposals for improvement.

• Quantity of postings is no substitute for rational analysis. A user who feels it essential to challenge almost every post that sets out an opposing view is not adding anything useful to the discussion. Make your point clearly, once, and then stop.

• Some issues to be discussed are highly complex and will not be solvable by any simple-to-apply 'bright line' rule that is acceptable to everyone. Be ready to compromise and to discuss workable solutions that will improve things overall, even if they are not perfect. Don't try to pick at workable proposals on the basis that a few specific cases may still may be difficult to determine at the boundary. Slightly fuzzy boundaries that need some application of individual judgement are inevitable.