Wikimedia Commons

Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 12

< Commons talk:Featured picture candidates
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Jebulon in topic Information

Rule Amendment

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments15 people in discussion

I propose that the 50+ minimum edits should not apply to FPC nominators - it sets the standard higher for beginners than for the rest of us, which is silly. Thoughts? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

the propose of JJ Harrison is not about voting but about nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

How do I relist?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I nominated File:"An MP on motorcycle stands ready to answer all calls around his area. Columbus, Georgia.", 04-13-1942 - NARA - 531136.tif in August. People liked the image, but wanted it restored first. This had now been done, but when I try to relist the image, I get sent to the rejection discussion. How do I list it for consideration again?--agr (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Trick: Replace "File:" with "Image:" on the nomination page. They work the same way but will give you a new unique subpage name for the nomination. I think that should work. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That worked--agr (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Delisting candidates

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I feel that a lot of delisting candidates don't get enough participation. For instance, the delisting nomination of File:Aivazovsky, Ivan - The Ninth Wave.jpg received no responses. As there are so few delisting nominations, it might be a good idea to move them to before the listing candidates, so more reviewers see them and contribute to the review. I also feel that it's wrong that we require 7 opposes for a delist to occur. It would be better to treat the delisting as a re-run of the featured candidacy, and require 7 users supporting featured status to keep the image featured. Any thoughts ? --Claritas (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that delisting existing FP should be an extraordinary occurrence, only justified by obvious errors of judgement at the time of their promotion, for example, due to poor participation and/or canvassing. It makes no sense to permanently adjust our FP galleries just because the quality of the pictures and the height of our promotion bars are naturally raising with time. Doing that is a endless job which only contributes to kill the memory of the FPC process. The FP star is not only a stamp of quality which identify the best Commons has to offer but also a award attributed to the pictures and their creators. Those awards made all the sense at the time they were given. Taking them away is not elegant and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I wonder if it would be worth notifying those who voted in the original nom of delisting either as practice or policy - it certainly should be an "extraordinary occurrence" but should have participation when it happens. --Herby talk thyme 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • To answer Alvesgaspar, the problem is that featured pictures are supposed to represent the best work of Commons, and many early featured pictures simply do not. Notifying those who voted in the original nomination is a sensible idea, and prevents the delisting candidacy being an opportunity for opponents to forumshop. Claritas (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I can't see how showing older FP of relatively lower standards in our galleries can affect such goal. As suggested a long time ago (or maybe decided?) when discussing this same subject, a date should be added to all FP templates, to give context. Anyway, people viewing our showcase for pleasure or business are perfectly capable of mkaing their own choices. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
          • As Claritas, I think the purpose of the FP gallery is to present the best we currently have in our image repository at Commons. It is in my opinion not the purpose to preseve a history of FP for the sake of the creators. However, I think we also need the "hysterises" we have in the current vote count policy. That just as it is hard to get obtain FP status, it should be hard to delist as well to avoid revenge delistings and too much administrative burden. For some creators it is a real turn off to get their photos delisted, especially if they are informed about it after delisting has been decided. They feel like being stabbed in the back. I understand that feeling, and to counteract that I have been bold and added the phrase As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader, and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. to the guideline. If you disagree feel free to refactor it or remove it until we have reached consensus (I just so often experience that after consensus we "forget" to implement changes). For instance the way it is formulated now it is stated as a mandatory action. One could phrase it softer as an optional provision with something like It is considered good practise to leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader, and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. Since this is something which can be easily overlooked when delisting, another user may notice in the process and make the courtesy notes. --Slaunger (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Claritas that it is problematic, that the mentioned delisting candidate never got any attention. Personally I had completely forgotten about the delisting section, and it appears also other users had. So thanks for the heads up. However, I do not think we should change the order and how we do it. I think that we just need to be reminded from time to time. --Slaunger (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I my opinion is a delisting candidate a "NO GO". The FP status is a timestamp from the past. Not more, not less. We can not revert back the time. It is simply a bad habit for me. Only as a value and an extraordinary occurrence we can nominate as a current image for a delisting. It must be a very good reason to do this. We cannot still renominate all our FP images. This is absolutely stupid for me! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful reasons

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are three reasons as stated in the intro under "voting", if one opposes a candidate.

I wonder why not examples for supporters are listed. Oftentimes, also unhelpful reasons like "I like it" ("good picture") or no reason at all are stated.

So I suggest to change this into

Unhelpful reasons for opposing/supporting include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" or "Good" and other empty assessments
  • You can do better" / "Better than xxx's works" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Opinions? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On the organization of highlighted (FP/QI/VI) media in Commons main category structure

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion regarding some thoughts about getting a better integration and display of FP/QI/VIs in the main category structure at Commons:Village pump#Highlighted content in main category structure. Feel free to join the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Review called into question...

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apparenly a fervent photo editor on Commons thinks reviewers here don't know what correct white balance is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Featured_picture.3F . - Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FPC information for uploaders

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FPCBot informs only nominators about the voting result. Authors or uploaders are not informed, they "automatically" take notice only about successful cadidates / promotions via their watchlist. As I understood the FPC system it is quite welcomed if candidate images are optimized during the voting period. In my opinion it would be fair in comparison to self nominated candidates to let all authors (or uploaders) know about a candidature of one of their pics. Even if the candidate is rejected they can perhaps learn what to make better next time. For these reasons, I asked "FCPBot's dad" Daniel78 on his talk page if it would be possible to run such a notification when an image is nominated by somebody else. He said that additionally notifying the uploader (where he's not the nominator) could be done. Does anybody see a problem in such a notifictaion for uploders? --Martina talk 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidate archives

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, there is an archive of featured pictures, but is there an atchive of featured picture candidates, i.e., inclusive of not-passed pictures? When I look at the page history, on the first fifty, I can see right back to 18 months ago... any advice, if there is not an archive, how I might go about finding older nominations? 83.71.97.64 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log --Tony Wills (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Minimum voters for delisting

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I think it's time to lower the minimum number of voters for delisting. Obviously less people are interested in the delisting process, and as a result many pictures which don't follow nowadays standards aren't being delisting when suggested for delisting, and other times obvious cases end up nearly undelisted. Recent examples (of obvious cases undelisted): 1 and 2 (there are others). I suggest lowering the minimum to 5 voters (no need to change the delisting-supporters/opposeres ratio though, imo). Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One reason why fewer people participate in the delisting process is because it is located at the bottom of the page. I think moving it to the top would be a good way to increase participation. --Jovian Eye storm 23:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree to this solution. If this solution isn't applied, I think the minimum number of voters should be decreased. Tomer T (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the minimum number of voters should be decreased. We need to find other solutions. Moving to the top would be a good one. Yann (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's time to scrap the delisting process. It is some sort of deluded maintenance task that most participants in featured picture candidates are not interested. It is an unnecessary process, Featured pictures are pictures that have been honoured here as some of the best and are of course of their time and will not meet future standards based on technical considerations. Lowering the number of votes, just lowers the validity of the process. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Low visibility might be an alternative explanation to the low participation in the delisting process, other than questionable validity. Tomer T (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is an alternative hypothesis, I don't know of any evidence, as far as I can see it is a hopeful stab in the dark :-). If you do insist on having a delisting process, it is unreasonable to have the promotion/demotion processes unbalanced in terms of voting - if we lower the threshold to delist, then lower the threshold to promote. Personally I think delisting nominations should only be as a sort of quality control of recent FP promotions, for cases where there was some apparent bias or vote soliciting or other irregularity. Featured pictures can simply be tagged as "Featured in year 2nnn", no further maintenance is required. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is unbalanced already - to promote an image a two-thirds majority of supporters is required. Hence, it would be reasonable to require a two-thirds majority of delisting-opposeres to keep an image's featured status. But it's the opposite way - a two-thirds majority of delisting-supporters is required for some reason. As for the reason of low participation, there is no reason to assume low visibility is in any way a lesser reason comparing to the validity argument. Tomer T (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It is called hysteresis and is needed in a system for stability otherwise you get oscillation. You are essentially advocating that the delisting process be a second bite at the cherry, if someone doesn't like the result of a promotion they just have a second go at the vote by putting it up for delisting (which appears to be what is being advocated by User:Perhelion below if "here" means "FPC"). So you add a dampening factor to the process for stability.
Yes, I do not really know what the effect of higher visibilty would be, but to put it at the top of the FPC page is to attempt to hi-jack the FPC project, with this little maintenance sub-project. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I will now help delsting I see to many crap images here, which drag down everything. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 18:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion

What do you think about not putting all FP delisting candidates at the top of the page, but putting it as normal candidates with an appropriate title ("Delisting: File:..."). New nominates for delisting will be put on the top of the page, and new nominations for adding FPs will also be put at the top of the page... Tomer T (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Licensing??

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How does a file get Featured without having a license tag? (File:Albrecht Dürer, Adam and Eve, 1504, Engraving.jpg). And can someone fix it please (I presume it's just PD-scan, but someone should confirm this)? Rd232 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it with PD-scan-100. I presume it's a scan, not a photograph, but haven't confirmed this. --Avenue (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative versions

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Hi everybody.

I have a problem with the concept of "alternative" nominations.
To me, there is a problem here, because the "Alternative" version is another shot, even if showing almost the same place with almost the same point of view.
In my opinion, an "alternative version" should be another version of the same file (like for the Salzburg's Panorama for instance), with improvements like light, crop, contrasts, colors, but only out of the same aboriginal file. In this case it is not, but formally speaking another nomination of another picture.
It is not very important, but I think it needs a clarification, maybe only because of the consequences regarding the rule of the "only two active nominations per nominator".
Thoughts ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This is similar to this case, where Alvesgaspar said "this should be a new nomination, not an alternative version... Not a question of preference, the rules say so". I couldn't find the relevant section of the rules that refers to this issure. Maybe Alvesgaspar will know... Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is not a problem of rules. It is a fact. It is not an "alternative version", it is another picture !! Where is the bar, the limit ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The rationale behind the opinion that it is an alternative version, is that the differences are slight. There should be a rule referring to it, because it may be a fact that the pictures are different and one is not an edit of the other, but it's not a fact that they can't be considered alternatives for each other. Tomer T (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Again: where is the bar, the limit ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
These two images.. [1] are approximately the same image.. I don't find any "cheat" - it is a clear example good use of the alternative version. The limit of 2 nominations per user.. was a rule in order to avoid a flood of several images by the same nominator. Using common sense you can understand when a user tries to "cheat" the rules and tries to nominate more than 2 images. Ggia (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't worry about my common sense, and I don't talk about any "cheat". I have supported the second picture. But the discussion is about your "approximately", which maybe is not the same as mine...--Jebulon (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info -- Please find and check the discussion we had before approving the new rules (sorry, I'm quite busy now). This was discussed ad nauseum and the clear consensus was that an alternative version always pertains to the same shot, with variations in light, crop, etc.. That has been the common practise in FPC and the only interpretation that makes sense. I remember that there was a single user (Mbz1) defending a broader interpretation, but her cause did not prevail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The last discussions I recall about this rule (Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_10#Proposal_to_change_the_rule_#12, Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_10#Changing_General_Rule_12) did not show clear consensus. If anything, we had more people supporting a weaker rule (two alternative shots of the same subject are okay) than the strong rule (alternatives must be two versions of the same shot) - 10 votes vs 8. The rule was removed shortly afterwards as a result.[2] --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad flickr crops

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have come across two images recently that were not featured because of tight crop at the flickr site. Would it be worthwhile to add these to a new category in case someone wants to contact the flickr creators and possibly get a better crop or original images? Category:images from flickr that are cropped type thing. Some editors may find this useful to track down better images for commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not featured file in FP/2011-A

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2011-A there is File:Bürstegg 2011-01-30 edit ggia.jpg, which is really not FP but has been categorized as FP. Why this happened?--miya (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fairly simple, there were multiple versions so it was left to a human to confirm/count the votes. The last version was assessed as been featured (7:1), and the bot promoted it as such. But two days later someone realised that the last vote was after the closing time so it should have been 6:1, not featured, so he amended the closing summary to not-featured. But that was a little late as it had already been processed.
So what to do about it? Nothing is the easy option ;-). It was processed, featured and even POTD - so we featured it despite the rules, no one objected, it's only our rules so we can break them - not really a huge problem :-). We could just quietly remove featured status as an error, but at this late stage it would be more transparent to simply nominate it for delisting and see what people think. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Walters Museum images

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The Walters Art Museum has donated loads of images to Commons. See Category:Media contributed by the Walters Art Museum. They are generally professional quality shots of their collection items. The resolution generally around the 2MP level so many of them scrape above our minimum threshold. Back in April we had one failed nomination: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Byzantine - Box with Scenes from the Fall of Adam and Eve and the Story of Joseph - Walters 71295 - Three Quarter.jpg. We have two current nominations: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chimú - Erotic Couple - Walters 20091314 - Three Quarter.jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mixtec - Polychrome Standing Figure with Raised Hand - Walters 482812 - Three Quarter.jpg. If we assume many of the images in this collection meet the requirement of "high quality reproduction" (though limited significantly by the resolution), they should be judged against our artwork criteria:

  • Notable in its own right
  • Of high artistic merit
  • Of high historic merit
  • Of high illustrative merit

These terms are explained more in the Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines. According to the website, "The collection presents an overview of world art from pre-dynastic Egypt to 20th-century Europe, and counts among its many treasures Greek sculpture and Roman sarcophagi; medieval ivories and Old Master paintings; Art Deco jewelry and 19th-century European and American masterpieces" So a minority of the collection might meet the above criteria but nearly all of it does not. The information supplied by the Museum, on the image description page, doesn't make the task of judging these criteria easy. Essentially, unless someone nominates an item so famous it has its own Wikipedia article, we'd have to be art historians or archaeologists to know.

My current feeling is that this collection is a great addition to Commons, but unlikely to deliver a Featured Picture unless the nominator makes an effort to explain and justify. And most Commons FP nominations contain no comment from the nominator at all. Thoughts? Colin (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. Why do you oppose these FP nominations? These are very good quality images of interesting and unordinary subjects. That's enough to be FPs, IMO. And whatever you think these are works of art. The fact that this is not famous art is not a valid criteria. Yann (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going by the criteria. These state clearly that ordinary art just isn't featurable simply by taking a competent photo of it. I think the rationale for that would be that otherwise FP would be filled with thousands of professionally shot but unexceptional images of ordinary things that just happen to be in museum collections or minor art galleries. There's got to be a threshold somewhere to make FP the "finest on Commons". If we set the bar for artwork to be merely "competently shot", then you might as well put most of the above collection into FP without wasting our time voting. We do have examples of relatively ordinary objects/art that are FP but many of these are exceptional photos in themselves (such as interesting lighting, or high resolution). Colin (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, your interpretation of ordinary art is different than mine. Simply, this is not ordinary. It is not famous, but if the criteria mean that we can't feature images if the work is not famous, then the criteria is wrong. This is quite different from e.g. a simple small painting from an unknown artist. This is old and rare, that in itself is sufficient to make featurable, providing that the image quality is adequate. Yann (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting debate, if I may interfere. I agree totally with Yann.--Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I wish more would contribute, because I'm not hoping to win any debate, but for us to come to some understanding. I suggest the criteria at present do not explicitly deal well with ancient art. Clearly such specimens, if found at your local seaside art-for-tourists shop for £9.99 wouldn't be featurable as art. But how to we judge ancient art and artefacts? Some is really not as rare as one might think: museums can have drawers and cabinets full of some stuff, and only put one decent example on display. On the other hand, quite ordinary looking objects might be valuable in extreme to those in the know. Perhaps it would help if the Walters folk selected which specimens they are particularly proud of, and could be persuaded to upload a larger, more detailed image version of those. Colin (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting reviews

Latest comment: 11 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

I know this has been brought up several times, but I think I'm going to ask in a slightly different way.

I think the FP bar has lowered down, and some user have complained about careless reviews. Also, talking unfavorably about a picture can upset its author, so I'm personally just sick of opposing now (even though I have objective justifications). I have the feeling many user don't oppose simply because it's just their temper (which is fine).

So why not revisiting the promotion criteria, and turn it into something à la "Flickr" or "Facebook". We promote only the most popular ones, based only on the supports count, which would have to be fairly high for this to work.

Also would like to bring back the idea of a "unified" canvas for reviewing picture (all pictures are scaled to the same size for fair review). Only panoramas would be given larger canvas. This would force users into looking more the composition rather than judging the picture at 100% (which I personally do too often, and like to think I'm not alone). Also will avoid the "sharp" comments on small pictures or "unsharp" comments on the big ones.

Any feedback ? Thanks. - Benh (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I really hate this idea. And I don't think there are enough reviewers for it to work. If I wanted folk to "like" my pictures in large numbers, I'd post somewhere more popular than Commons, like Flickr. I want to take great pictures. I want them to be useful for educational purposes like Wikipedia. I want to improve. I need the feedback I get from people thoughtfully considering them and not necessarily agreeing with me. Without negative comments, how would you know that reviewers had looked at this "unified canvas" rather than the preview/thumbnail and just supported on that basis. We need folk to say that it isn't focused, or the sky is all blown, and what is wrong with the composition. I want to encourage careful reviews. And reviews that reward generous donations over measly ones. The negative comments are vital. I don't know what particular situations have caused you to become sick of the grief you get for opposing, but encourage you to review critically. Perhaps we need more notes in the FPC submission process to remind nominators that if you can't handle your work being criticised then don't nominate it (and to consider this too when nominating someone else's pictures). And to take a stiffer line with nominators who are disruptive. Colin (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Except that it is readily apparent many people vote with other agendas than just quality. It is this that drives people away from participating or even critiquing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk • contribs)
If there are bad apples, then it doesn't help if the good folk leave or restrict their comments to just "like!" so as never to cause offense or risk a revenge vote. Colin (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Some nominators (I have one or two names in my mind...) do not accept, never, any negative opinion, here or in QIC page. If you decline or oppose, you have to provide more and more endless explanations, with at the end offensive comments against your vote or opinion, or, sometimes, against yourself... Critiquing is byself difficult, and it happens that user's behaviour does not help...--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Not being a regular reviewer any more, I feel less affected by the heat and ressentment of the FPC discussions, which may diminish our objectivity. I believe that our assessment system is close to the best possible, considering the limiting circumstances. Those are, among others, the large spectra of the knowledge and experience of the reviewers, the vulnerability to canvassing and other external influences and the promiscuity between the roles of reviewer and nominator. However the system pays in choosing the best images among all the others (too many, imho), which is its primary goal, and it also pays as an effective (and free) school for reviewers and creators. I understand that Benh feels tired of fighting the complacence of some reviewers, as I have felt many times, but I don't sympathize with his "Flickrish" model. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not thin skinned by any means and can handle criticism well. I just got fed up with dealing with the petty dramas and being subject to whims of people for whom I had little knowledge or respect. I didn't need the angst given how little I was getting in return for the contributions. So I will find somewhere else to "peddle" my pictures.

  • And I'm really personaly very sad of this decision, Saffron Blaze...--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Me too. But if an important reason for contributing to WP/Commons is the recognition received from QI/FP then I think ultimately you will be disappointed and frustrated. There aren't enough contributors to these forums to average out the rather random (or biased) reviews that can occur. If your main purpose is contributing great free images to the project, and see these rewards as a bonus, I think you can shrug off the losers and be happy with the winners. Saffron took great, valuable photos and had lots of "winners". I hope you change your mind. Colin (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please notice that the numerous QI, VI or FP awards my pictures get are not for my personal glory, but only something like a help to the other users or visitors for find good pictures for their personal projects, or for the illustration of articles etc... That is the main reason for me to nominate pictures in FPC or QIC pages. I think good images of Commons must not remain anonymous. Labels are a good way to avoid this. That's why I'm sorry when a great contributor leaves.--Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Btw, my comment about why folk are here wasn't directed at you or Saffron, but trying to explain that FP/QI are somewhat flawed and one shouldn't rely on them as a reason to be here. That said, they sort of work. I find it really hard to find good images on Commons because the categories lump all pictures big and small, great and crap together. Is there a tool or option to try to group or organise the pictures better? Colin (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe we need something new for keeping the present regulars interested and calling back the old sacred cows (Benh included). The truth is FPC alone is no longer challenging for the most talented creators. The overall quality has increased dramatically in the last years but not the degree of exigence, and getting a FP star has become almost a routine for some. For several times we have tried to raise the bar and failed. Some eons ago, when the first POTY contest was being discussed, someone had the idea (Simonizer?) of organizing thematic contests. I'm not making a formal proposal, just throwing the idea into the air again and trying to get some reaction. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Can I suggest this section be closed/archived. A new section can be created by editors who wish to continue participating in the project, and have something constructive to say. Alvesgaspar and Benh's ideas have got lost here. This page is for discussing improvements to the FP/PFC process on Commons, and should be frequented only by Commons editors who wish to improve the PF/PPC! Colin (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have collapsed the off-topic discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Going back to Benhs original proposal, I am not fond of it as it stands, but I do think we could improve the process in a manner, where we keep the promotion standards high, yet avoid to some extend both careless reviews, and also make it a more positive experience to participate in for nominator/creator, even if nomination fails to get promoted.
  • I lack a more nuanced way to assess a candidate a give a more fine-grained feedback than just support, neutral and oppose. If you place an oppose vote your assessment has a lot of weight in the final vote count at its weigth is the twice of a support. You may want to oppose even if the image is quite, quite good, but just not good enough to become one-of-a-thousand images on Commons which is featured. But the oppose word sounds very negative as if it is really a bad image, and this is off-putting to some nominators, especially when we also add language barriers and cultural differences. Some take it as a personal attack, although we are assessing images. This also means that you always have to be very carefull when writing the oppose reason, as you can get some very nasty response from some participators if you dare oppose (especially after a flood of happy-go-easy support votes). This can be a barrier for opposing, especially if you don't "dare" providing an oppose reasons in your own native language, but feel like you have to stick to English, as it is the de facto language used predominantly.
  • So I have a proposal for a different review system, which I have been thinking about for years. This is not a fully mature idea, but here goes

Proposal for a new review process

  • The review process will be assisted with a wizard, which guides the reviewer through three mandatory and an optional step.
  • In the three mandatory steps, the candidate image is given a score within the following three pillars of featuredness
    1. Composition (is it eye-catching, balanced, does it have wow)
    2. Technique (sharpness, exposure, light, color, basically QI-related matters)
    3. Value (information/educational value, categorization, file page information, geocoded, references, basically VI-related matters)
  • Each step is evaluated individually by a scale with four values as a selection of radiobottons (maybe we need other terms)
    • FairHas issues (0 points)
    • Good (1 point)
    • Very good (2 points)
    • Excellent (3 points)
  • There will be no default value, you actively have to select one of the four.
  • The wizard could contain image examples of what is considered fair, good, very good and excellent for reference for each of the three steps.
  • The fourth optional step will include the possibility to add a review comment, and then finish the review.
  • The wizard shall be multilingual, presenting text and accompanying guideline material in the users preferred language
  • The wizard will be smart and assist the user is evaluating the image quality in a fixed review resolution (for instance 2 Mpixels).
  • The wizard is basically a helper for generating a multilingual {{FPCReview}} template, which contains the votes within the three subject areas and the review comment.
  • The generated template also calculates the accumulated score within the three areas and displays that (there could be a fancy graduated color scale from red to green spread over the score values 0-9).
  • Following the wizard is optional. You can also just write the template yourself, if you are experienced.
  • Promotion will be based on the average score of reviews. E.g., if the average score is six (very good in average) or higher, the nomination is promoted.
  • As today, there can be speedy fifth-day rules for closure and promotion.
  • Obviously, rolling out such a process will be a lot of work. Making the wizard, doing the translations, adjusting FPC bot, rewriting the guidelines. To test the concept I would propose to setup some informative test reviews on previous FPC nominations, to see if such a review process makes sense. For this we do not need the wizard in the first place, but could just start out with an review template in English only. We went through this process originally, when the VI project was started, and I think it was very helpful in improving the process in an agile manner. While these experiments would be ongoing, the FPC process would continue as normal.
  • I see the following advantages with such a process
    • As a reviewer you are forced to actively consider matters of relevance for being featured through the three pillars of featuredness. Maybe, we can get rid of some of the happy-go-easy reviews in that manner?
    • By presenting relevant guidelines material along with each assessment in the localized language it becomes easier to to review an image
    • Feedback is more nuanced.
    • It is emphasized that an image can be "good", but an FP needs to be better than good.
    • The multilingual review template will make reviews easier to understand independent of the reviewers native language (except for the optional personal review comment).
    • By using a wizard, users do not have to bother with understanding the weird syntax of Mediawiki templates and template arguments.
  • Please do not vote for this proposal (yet). First, let us discuss possibilities. Feel free to alter and tweak the proposal, and let us see if we can find consensus. --Slaunger (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this idea is worth exploring. I particularly like the idea of trialing it on a variety of existing images to see what works (better than folk just imagining what might or might not work). Some initial ideas:
  • I think a score lower than "fair" is needed, unfortunately. If something is out-of-focus or badly exposed, then "fair" isn't really an acceptable comment. I do appreciate the need for language that does't come across as an insult. Something like "Has issues" rather than "Poor". Also then I'd say the wizard should require the reviewer fill in a comment on that section about what the issues are (rather than leaving this optional for the end). Otherwise we could get a review that got 0 (say) for technique but no reasons given to help the nominator improve (which might be achievable with the current image, or by taking another).
    • "Fair" point:-) I like your "Has issues" proposal. A comment could be made mandatory at the end, if "Has issues" is selected for one or more steps. I do not think it is helpful to require three comments if you think the image has issues within all three areas. One should suffice. --Slaunger (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • For some users I know, every picture "has issues". Here is the place for controversial and (too) warm debates. My two cents for the moment--Jebulon (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think higher resolution images have higher "Value" than low resolution ones. There's an issue with full-sized images that pixelpeeping leads to folk opposing over mild CA, sharpness and noise issues that simply wouldn't occur if the image was downsampled 2x or more. This issue will only become worse as 24MP/36MP cameras become the norm and lenses fail to resolve that detail: meaning unless you have Zeiss optics it will always look less than perfect at 100% RAW. We do need to encourage and reward nominations that have large resolution and discourage folk from heavy downsampling simply to avoid pixelpeeping comments. I don't think a 2MP image is that great these days. It can't be printed very large and with "retina" displays starting to appear, it won't look great for much longer on a computer either. Also some consideration of image format might mean a 2MP panorama fails to show much of interest and a larger size is required to appreciate it. On the other hand, I suspect some bird photos are heavily cropped (I don't know, I don't take them) so would perhaps struggle to achieve the image size we might expect of a scenery picture, or studio portrait.
    • I agree with most of what you say. I would probably be inclined to say though, that a higher resolution is more coupled with higher "technical quality" than "value" (informationnal/educational). Although, of course, if the image resolution is too lousy it may compromise the educational/informational value. The objective with the fixed quality review size is not to encourage downsampling, but that review of technical quality at the pixel level can be assisted by an xMpixel quality review. My hope would be that then there would be no driver for downsampling prior to upload, because images would be evaluated equivalently. The reason I selected 2 Mpixels for the technical review size was because it is the current minimum file size. But maybe some special handling of panoramas (as you mention) and vector graphics is needed. --Slaunger (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Consider a section on "How could this image be improved". This would be helpful for images that may fail to pass but also for great images. For example, a mild CA issue or using a mask to denoise the sky without affecting detail, etc, or an alternative crop.
Colin (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Another time, we have to congratulate Slaunger for his wise proposal. It needs obviously further developments, but the ideas of 1)a wizard, and 2)the three/four steps (with mandatory for the three first) are really new and interesting.
  • (The usual debate about downsampling and size is a bit out of scope for the moment IMO. Maybe 2mp is not enough now, but in real life, who prints pictures (please, save the planet !!) ? How many of FP are printed, at what size ? We have no statistics about that, I'm afraid. Printed FP pictures, or "Commons" pictures in general are mainly used in books Furthermore, have a look on the overall very bad technical quality of printed images/posters on the walls of our western cities)
  • Obviously, rolling out such a process will be a lot of work. Indeed. It will be the main difficulty, I'm afraid. But I'm ready for translations in French, for instance.--Jebulon (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm beginning to regret the choice of "Has issues" for the reason Jebulon suggests. Some people's nature is to find fault and to expect higher standards than the community has agreed on. We can't avoid that, it is just human variation. Also it could be abused by editors who have fallen out with someone. So I think "Has issues" will be a magnet choice for someone who has found some small imperfections (such as a minor stitch issue in a panorama) but who fails to grasp that overall, the image is technically excellent. Would adding "significant" to the phrase help? Or have folk got a better phrase? For 0 score, we're looking at issues that should (in the reviewers opinion) mean the the picture should not pass FPC. The minor issues can be raised at the "How could this image be improved" stage.
  • I agree we don't want to get bogged down in a downsampling debate. I'd say resolution becomes a technique issue if the resolution/sharpness is insufficient to see the detail one would expect in such an image. For example, a bug photo taken with a kit lens rather than a macro. Otherwise it is a value issue because it prevents certain reuse of the image. I think stock photo sites won't accept less than 6MP for this reason. Given that the FPC should drive the "best" rather than merely "sufficient", we should be considering upping our standards here IMO. Colin (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I do agree on the significant issues thing, I'm especially thinking of sports FP which are often taken in difficult conditions and which will often have few issues (noise at least). Adding the word significant is a good idea to cover this for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Slaunger for, once again, having made a constructive proposal at the right time. I agree that we should try to clarify what are the basic parameters in an assessment and try to reduce its subjective parts to a minimum. However maybe the model is too simplistic, in the sense that it is very far from our mental process. My feeling is that we only use these parameters, in our subjective assessments, for deciding if a picture is featurable or not, not actually for promoting it. And we do it very often in the negative way, that is, not accepting an image because it fails one or more of the minimumm requirements. In many cases the picture is so extraordinary in one of the aspects that we just ignore, or give a little weight, to the others. How to simulate this process with a model so simple as the one proposed? For sure, we cannot give the same weight to all parameters. On the other hand, using this approach for just rejecting nominations will be nothing more than a sophisticated FPX template. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The last thing we need is yet more bureaucracy and due process. Besides, I'm almost certain that making such a thing mandatory would probably kill this process from a participation point of view. Leaving aside all the other problems, particularly with beginners, I would never !vote if my rationale was inaccurately shoehorned by an irritating and condescending wizard. Adding a min{2Mpix, image size} preview button automatically to each nomination somewhere would help reduce stupid pixel peeping, and is a good idea. The wizard could be made available to help people judge pictures, if they want it, but I don't think it'd see much use. If you think the bar is too low, just do the simple thing and raise the number of support votes required. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Different people like different things. Experienced reviewers might well be annoyed by a wizard. There is an issue with folk voting without considering all aspects and simply raising the number of support votes is absolutely no way to deal with that: you don't solve a problem by throwing more people at it. If this proposal gains any support, it could work alongside plain voting. Colin (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, the proposed Wizard is just a helper for filling out a review template with three mandatory number arguments within the three pillars of featuredness and an optional comment argument. Using the Wizard is an option. The proposal does not have so much to do with raising the bar, but making the review experience better for inexperienced reviewers (who can be guided as for what to look for) and nominators. A nominator may end up having an image which is reviewed as 'good', yet not promoted as it has to be at least 'very good' (preferably 'excellent') to be promoted. It is less off-putting to be told that the work was good, than simply getting 'opposed'. --Slaunger (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with JJ Harrison and advise not to arrange more bureaucracy. I was committed for many years in the German featured pictures so the proposal of Slaunger is nothing new to me. I understand the need of objectivity in voting; especially when votings look very incomprehensible. But complex votings pattern are not the solution for this problem. Bureaucracy will restrain users from the votings, the majority wants not to study a complex rating system. Beside of code of practice: every image can send out s.th. special so that you vote for a picture which has maybe not so a good technical achievement. And this you cann`t consider in a "voting formula". The best think we can do is: keep respectfully, especially those who write the ratings. Be open minded for any questions. When I put a picture of mine in the votings I don't understand some comments so I question the logic of some users. This kind of dialogue may be valuabele for both sides, presupposed each user is honest. A more jointly voting will make more fun than a persevering behaviour. Take pictures and don't waste your time in searching a formula for featured pictures, because this is a mission impossible. Have a good light. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not see the proposal as introduction of bureaucracy myself, but rather a little more assisted rigor and a more positive experience for the nom/creator for the often occuring case that the nom is not a one in a thousand. And a tool to help the reviewer consider important points. But it is not easy to relate to all these words. As I have also proposed we could try and setup some trial reviews on previous noms using something along the line of the proposal and see how it works and identify possible paths of improvement. One point Wladyslaw has, which I do acknowledge is that it is somewhat articifial to break the review of an image into three different minireviews and add the results. There is of course a point of seeing things in its entirety. For instance the recent heavy rain FP by Tomas would be difficult to assess fairly at the technical level due to the B&W and the grain, it is the resulting photo, which really matters. But I think this will be easily addressed as a review comment. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding tree pillars (Composition (is it eye-catching, balanced, does it have wow) - Technique (sharpness, exposure, light, color, basically QI-related matters) - Value) in the voting procedure as Slaunger propose is not a bad idea. Of course a "hate vote" is always a hate vote and assuming a good faith should always apply. The idea programming a wizard may-be is also good idea (specially for new users: describing with a clear scheme how we vote etc). Ggia (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • An issue with non-photographic media: How are we supposed to judge the Composition, Technique, and Value of File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif? ;-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Easy :-)
      • Composition: Is the animation properly layed out and balanced? Are the elements well proportioned relative to each other with logical colors?
      • Technique: Consistent use os colors, fonts, line widths, symbols, shadow effects, transperancy, articifial lightning?
      • Value: How valuable is the animation in illustrating the proportionality of π between the diameter and circumference of a circle?
    • --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Assessment template

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please check: this discussion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What to do with invalid votes?

Latest comment: 11 years ago38 comments12 people in discussion

Recently this nomination was closed with 11 'supports', 5 'opposes' and a 1 'weak oppose' votes, as 'not featured'. But if we are to apply the rules strictly, the 'weak oppose' is an invalid vote and should not be considered. That was precisely what the bot did. However the decision was reverted by the closer, who considered the result to be 11/6. I have two questions. First (and less important): what to do with this nomination? The wisest solution should be, as I proposed in the nomination page, to ask the editor who used the 'weak oppose' to correct his vote. But the opportunity was lost, as the nomination was quickly closed and removed from the FPC page. Second question (the relevant one): what to do in the future? In my opinion, the problem should be explicitly considered in the rules, either by considering those weak and strong votes invalid or to automatically change them to plain 'support' and 'oppose votes'. Keeping things unclear as they are may lead users to invoke the letter of the rules, as I am doing now . -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything is clear from the present guideline. {{Weak oppose}} is not on the list of approved voting templates. Of course some reviewers may not be aware of that, and the best thing is to contact the voter in such cases and ask for clarification. If this is not done and corrected before the vote closes, the invalid vote shall be discarded. So the FPCBot vote count was correct in the specific case and should not have been overturned by the closer. --Slaunger (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, due to the fact that my vote was the cause of a disputed result, I would like to express my opinion, although I don't know if is still relevant. If I would have had to choose between oppose/support/neutral I would have gone for oppose but it seems that I took an invalid template for that. So, you can decide whether the voting was successful / unsuccesful or even invalid and should be repeated (this would be maybe the best to do). I must say that I am disappointed by the fact that nobody drew my attention to this anormal situation before the end of the voting period. By the way, this is the attempt to stress this topic in the future, since it seems to be the common understanding. Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Slaunger, what do you mean by "not one of the approved voting templates"? If Poco a poco was using {{Oppose|Weak oppose}}, as some reviewes sometimes do? Then it would have been okay and approved? Is it just all semantics? Just to clarify. Tomer T (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Using {{Oppose|Weak oppose}} would be ok as would   Extreme oppose- the bot would just look for the template name and consider it as an oppose. Of course one could also include all the other template variants like {{Weak support}}, {{Strong support}} in the list of approved templates causing an increased complexity for the bot for a number of variant, which result in the same vote impact. I think that is rather silly. That is why you have the possibility to express a nuance in the support or oppose as an optional argument to the standard {{Support}} and {{Oppose}} templates. By including the weak/strong versions of the templates in the list of allowed templates you could be tricked into thinking it actually mattered and gave different weight. --Slaunger (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
What is important here ? The template, or the opinion of the reviewer ? Weak or not, it seems obvious that Poco a poco decided to oppose. But I agree, we should avoid the use of any other templtes than the three "officials", and in case of need, draw the attention of the reviewers using others about this.--Jebulon (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
@Tomer and Jebulon: it is not just semantics because the use of {{Oppose|Weak oppose}} implies the understanding that this vote counts exactly as a plain oppose. The problem is that an editor using {{Weak oppose}} may be convinced that his vote only counts 1/2, as in the Wikipedia FPC. I would ban both forms all together. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A FPC reviewer with some experience knows that "weak oppose" counts exactly as "oppose". That doesn't mean he knows that "{{weak oppose}}" "isn't valid" as even a vote - I, for example, knew that "weak" doesn't indicate a different counting of the vote, but I didn't know it "isn't valid". It's nice that you say it's against the rules, but you can't really deduce 100%-sure (and logically) from the phrasing "You may use following templates" that any other template "isn't valid". That's called an interpretation. If the guidelines would have said "any other template isn't valid" or "do not use {{weak oppose}}!" or "Only the following templates are valid", that would have been a different case. Tomer T (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...But Slaunger is right. According to the rules, the "weak oppose" vote by Poco a Poco is "invalid", and therefore cannot count. Therefore the picture is legally featured. IMO. Dura lex, sed lex. We have to apply our law. If not, no need of laws... Maybe it is not fair, but it is the law. And we have now to be very careful with this in the future. My two cents.--Jebulon (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the problem. In general weak oppose is an oppose voting and weak support is a support voting. The add on "weak" for weak oppose means that there may be some small improvements that have been done that the voter could change his mind to neutral or even support. A weak support means I am not convinced 100 % but I think this picture should be supported. This is a normal language use and I see no tolerance for interpretation and change a clear voting into a "invalid" voting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, everybody may have his own interpretation on how to read a weak vote. This should not be an issue for us, regulars, who know perfectly that all votes have the same value. The problem is when people consider that a weak vote has half the value of a normal one. Strange interpretation? Not at all, that is the normal way in Wikipedia! I really don't see the need of keeping those nuances here, as we can always provide a detailed explanation of our assessments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Wladyslaw is right, and I agree with his interpretation of what are "weak" support and oppose. As for me, I don't know the tell of the "half value" in English wikipedia's FP. In my opinion, the problem is not about this expression of opinions, which are free of course, but about the use of templates. The current rules says that using the {weak oppose} and the {weak support} templates makes the vote invalid (I guess it is due to the bot, which cannot "read" or interprete such templates). Solution: 1) let's make the bot run with these templates, or 2) avoid to use them (the best, IMO), or 3) change the rules. But for the moment, the rules are clear.--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Jebulon, please notice that the fact that the rules say anything about "weak" is due to a recent addition by Poco, because of this discussion. Tomer T (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Tomer T, my mistake. But it does not change the thing that the controversial templates are not on the list of approved voting templates, as noticed by Slaunger... BtW, I've written a recommendation in order to avoid the use of these templates in the french translation of the guidelines.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the "approved templates" thing - I wrote my opinion about it above. (14:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC) time comment). Tomer T (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Luckily I am still here and can reveal the intention of the vote and what my expectation was. I assumed (wrongly) that a weak vote in FP has the same consecuences like those in the CR of QIC where I often participate. I wanted to stress that my vote was an oppose but not so categorical. Still, I assumed that it would count as the regular oppose votes, because that is the way it works in QIC. Maybe it would be a step forward to harmonize the different evaluation sites within Commons. Poco a poco (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, of course it's better not to use "weak" at all, so I support the edit Poco made in the guidelines. But if someone uses it, his vote should be regarded as a full oppose/support, as it was until now. Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The Venetian voted with black and white balls. Elective system simple and robust, the republic lasted 1000 years. I wish COMMONS; lasts as long. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
@Wladyslaw and others: Yes, I agree that it should be allowed to express a weak or strong opinion in the vote, but that can be done by adding that as the optional argument in the normal vote templates. That is, instead of {{Weak support}} which renders to   Weak support, use {{Support|Weak support}}, from which you get   Weak support. In that way the FPC bot can get the votes right, and a nuance to the vote can be expressed. Alternatively, just use "{{Support}} State why you are not fully supporting after vote." Now, of course it is only a few more templates FPCBot would have to know about if allowing the weak/strong vote templates, but it gives it just invites for a plethora of new possible "funny" vote templates, like {{Lovely}} and {{Furchbar}}, and it is not fair for the bot implementer to maintain all these flavours which all means the same thing in the end. It is good to have a list of valid vote templates. I agree with Tomer that the present formulation could be more unambiguously formulated, like in the manner Poco just did, to clarify that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info -- I have reverted the two changes made today in the rules, which appear premature. We should first decide on two different matters: (i) what to do with invalid votes (i.e., the use of templates not allowed in the rules), before and aftwer the voting period is over; (ii) should we allow the use of {{oppose|weak oppose}} and alike? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


OK, some historical info was found here (2011) and here (2010)
Copy of old messages about FPCbot:

Hi Daniel!
This nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Faro_du_Portzic_a_Brest.JPG discussed with this   Oppose = {{o}} voting template. Please add it to bot. With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
This templates was used several times:

  •   Support - {{Υπέρ}}
  •   Oppose - {{o}}

Please add it to FPCbot processing.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 10:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, {{o}} should already be recognized by the bot, are you sure it's not working ? /Daniel78 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I not sure, it is old problem. All OK now? -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I added {{Υπέρ}} now. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
{{WSupport}} =   Weak support, new template. Please add it to FPCbot processing.
With best regards --George Chernilevsky talk 06:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added it now. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
This new template was used several times now:

Thanks, added it now. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel!
This new template was used several times now, please add to bot processing:

  •   Weak support - {{Weak support}}

--George Chernilevsky talk 22:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. I apologize for the time it took. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
There were still other my messages about new voting templates for the FPCbot, however this far enough IMO.
As you can see, weak templates processed by FPCbot. So, no reason for dispute and/or change result.
With best regards -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment On the contrary, there is serious reasons for concern because the bot has been instructed ... to disrespect the rules! So, George, please stop pretending that everything is all right and that the use of the "weak" templates (in general as well as in the present case) is justified by the rules. It is not! The more I read, the more convinced I am that the best system is, like our dear Archaeodontosaurus said above, to use just black (oppose) and white (support) balls. Maybe it is time to organize our discussion and reach a decision on two topics: (i) the continuation (or not) of the system with equal value votes; (ii) the use of "cosmetic outputs" associated with the normal support and oppose votes (e.g. weak, strong, etc.). Thoughts on this proposal? Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    The main is the sense of {{oppose}} or {{support}}. We can also say {{Pro}} and {{Contra}} or what slse ... Only the bot must to know it. All you arguments are a bit "small minded". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And when someone votes {{Oversaturated}} (  Oversaturated) is that then a comment or an oppose, and should the bot know about that? {{Support}} (  Support), {{Pro}} (  Support) all use the same pictogram. It is the pictogram, which ives the meaning of the vote. Using templates with all kinds of alterations of the standard pictogram leads to confusion, not so {{Awesome}} (  Awesome! ) in my opinion. Just increases the amount of maintenance work on the bot side with increased code clutter making it harder to maintain. Lets keep the stones black and white, please. Then there is nothing ambiguous in the meaning of the vote. --Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the decision by George is correct by rule and logic. The ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ templates are valid in English Wikipedia; so making then invalid here will result in a lot of invalid votes even from experienced users. Instead, the bot can be easily programmed to consider weak and strong also equivalent to normal votes (as done here by George). I’m sure that the FPCbot sometimes processes the weak templates; it counted ‘weak support’ = ‘support’ in one of my recent promotions. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

I object this nomination as it just a plain repetition of the former nomination (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Public drunkness.jpg).

One cannot withdraw the nomination because of false arguments ("problem with the filename") and re-upload the same picture starting a new nomination in the hope that enough "friends" have been found to vote for this image. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes one can withdraw a nomination and renominate whatever he wants, even if that doesn't please you. Your accusation is disgusting at best. We know that Commons is not like you want it to be, but that's life. Yann (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assumptions border on insult. To begin with, I acknowledge that the original file name "could" be misleading, speaking from a technical perspective, and I address that particular concern by uploading the same image with an unequivocal name. The previous nomination still had many days to go, so it had a fair chance. I withdrew that nomination, per my prerogative and common practice in the forum, done by many. Another version is that is when people submit alternatives. No different here. You state that I used false arguments, well, there is a deletion request on the image because of the file name and its implications, an action initiated not by me but by someone else. Is that an illusion? And your assumption of my "hope" to find "friends" to support insults not just me, but every single participant that voted their opinion freely. I do believe that you should apologize to them at the very least. I wonder where your crusade comes from.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This accusation of Yikrazuul is unfounded. Tomascastelazo did not violate the rules of FP. We may not agree, but stay within the limits of ideas. Our discussions are public and we do not give a good image of our community. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm shocking by these attacks, I fully agree with Yann and Archaeodontosaurus, and I do support Tomascastelazo in this occasion (and I'm not a "friend" of this picture)--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC).

Ok, really shocking: I nominate a picture -> wrong outcome -> withdraw it -> re-nomination -> wrong outcome -> withdraw it -> -> until one day the outcome fits.

Yeah, this is terribly insulting. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What is insulting, man, is your assumption that votes are motivated by what you call "friendship" (again: I opposed this picture and supported the deletion request)--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Reading quotes from Mark Twain, one of my favorite writers, I came across a great quote that says:
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my line, bub. And where is now your argument? --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We (or me at least) are supporting or opposing the point of view only; not blindly any people including friends and enemies  . BTW, Archaeo and Jebulon are the best friends of me (see our talk pages); I've little interaction with Tomas so far. It is meaningless to raise any accusations against the supporters of a nomination that they support only because of friendship. See this. Yikrazuul also has the right to tell his opinion boldly and I am no way against it. Friendly to all, including Tomas and Yikrazuul. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Someone redirected the file "Man sleeping on a sidewalk.jpg" to "File:Public drunkness.jpg" in a move that it is at best unfair. Since the deletion request was based on objections of the file name, I uploaded the new file under a neutral name, therefore the new file should not be subjected to the same deletion request. This is really a sneaky move. I request that an admin remove the redirect and treat both files as separate. This move compromises the integrity of the voting process of FPC. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong: 1) Who claimed that only the file name was inappropiate? 2) You did not upload a new but the same file. 3) The deletion request is not about the file name. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it best if this section is archived or marked as closed. It is just a source of angry bickering. Tomascastelazo, your acusations of malice wrt the redirect are unfair. This is a simple mistake made during housekeeping activities (see this list). Yikrazuul, editors differ in their views as to whether the file rename helped at all or enough or was useful. We don't all agree. Life would be boring if we did. Let's move on now. Colin (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment My comments unfair??? How about tampering with a process? I do not have objections to playing by the rules, but between censorship, "routine" maintennance, linking unrelated issues to files to the detriment of the public perception, etc., etc... What would an unbiased observer opine of this situation? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The renaming to the old name is certainly not appriopriate at this time. If a renaming should be done, it should be to the new name. Yann (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, the vote for the image is over, and it is really a shame that the process was tampered with and corrupted. I love Commons and the idea of Wikipedia, and it is a shame to see that petty and short sighted interests are preferred over the entire project. This goes to whomever fits. And this is not about my picture. This is a matter of principle. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Size for portraits

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thumbnails size for portraits used to be 300px, while it is x300px for landscape. Now it is 1200x300px, which looks much smaller. Could it be fixed please? Yann (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: Question moved from Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. We should redirect this talk page here. Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it should be changed to:
  • 300x400px for portrait (makes no sense for the first dimension to be greater than the second)
  • 600x300px for landscape (if it's any longer than that, you should be calling it a panorama; as currently implemented, panorama mode allows it to display less tall but not more wide)
  • 1200x200px for panorama (unchanged)
  • 350x350px for square (add the other dimension)
Under this system, if the aspect ratio is less than 6:7, portrait orientation is optimal (i.e. largest). Between 6:7 and 7:6, it is square. Between 7:6 and 3:1, it is landscape. Above 3:1, it is panorama. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems OK for me. Yann (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the changes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bot malfunction/error?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why this image File:Seebrücke_Sellin_abends_crop.jpg hasn't the FP-tag, but this File:Seebrücke_Sellin_abends.jpg? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It has happened before, as far as I remember. When the bot doesn't recognize initially that there were alternatives (you can see the false vote count, and the fact that the bot didn't leave the field "alternative" for the reviewer to fill), it doesn't matter if the reviewer specifies an alternative - the bot will feature the "original" file. That's what I think. Tomer T (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Color scheme of closing template

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Currently, unconfirmed results are shown in pink, confirmed successes are shown in green, and confirmed failures are shown in grey. I think it would make more sense to have unconfirmed results in grey and fails in pink. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I have made the changes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Change minimum vote requirement to net votes

Latest comment: 11 years ago43 comments12 people in discussion

Currently, a nomination with 7 supports and 3 opposes will pass, while one with 6 supports and 0 opposes will fail. This is ridiculous, as it is essentially saying that 1 support is worth more than 3 opposes in this case. I propose that instead of a minimum support vote threshold (currently set at 7), we use a minimum net support (support votes minus oppose votes) threshold instead. Assuming that an oppose vote should be worth at least as much as a support vote, the equivalent of 7 supports is 4 net supports (as 4/0 is strictly better than 7/3 according to this assumption). Now 4 seems a bit low, so I propose that the requirement be changed to 5 net supports. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree for the moment. Please consider this: 6 pro and 0 contra means only 6 votes. But 7 pro and 3 contra means 10 votes, which is more representative of the "community". So the question is not only a matter of differences, but of total voters too. Let's discuss.--Jebulon (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, 7/3 is more indicative of the community, in particular that it thinks the image is not so great. Our goal is not to include as much of the community as possible, but to increase the confidence that we have an FP on our hands. See below table + explanation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The proposal seems interesting when there are few votes and we should discuss it. However it has a preverting effect when there are many. For example, a nomination with 25/20 shouldn't be promoted imo. Of course, we could adopt a hybrid system but it would make the system maybe too complicated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Re to Alvesgaspar: Of course not! I am saying replace "minimum 7 support votes" with "minimum 5 net support votes." The 2/3 requirement stays. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The scientific way to do this is Reddit's comment-sorting algorithm. It gives each support/oppose combination a score between 0 and 1, and then we can choose a cutoff for the minimum. Example:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 N/A 0.2065 0.3424 0.4385 0.5101 0.5655 0.6097 0.6457 0.6756 0.7008 0.7225
1 0 0.0945 0.2077 0.3006 0.3755 0.4365 0.4869 0.5291 0.5650 0.5958 0.6226
2 0 0.0615 0.1500 0.2307 0.3000 0.3589 0.4093 0.4526 0.4902 0.5230 0.5520
3 0 0.0456 0.1176 0.1876 0.2505 0.3057 0.3542 0.3968 0.4343 0.4677 0.4974
4 0 0.0362 0.0968 0.1582 0.2152 0.2666 0.3127 0.3538 0.3906 0.4237 0.4535
5 0 0.0301 0.0822 0.1368 0.1888 0.2366 0.2801 0.3195 0.3552 0.3876 0.4171

The columns are support votes, and the rows are oppose votes. If you want a few extra values: 15/0 is 0.7961, 15/5 is 0.5313, 20/0 is 0.8389, 20/5 is 0.6087, and 20/10 is 0.4878.

A cutoff somewhere between 0.45-0.6 seems appropriate. Actually, the fact that even 3/0 is higher than 10/5 makes us question: Should we really be promoting things as marginal as 10/5? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article you linked to. Certainly things would be simpler if loads of people voted and loads of people were compelled to vote one way or the other. As it is, we have not enough reviewers IMO and lots of reasons why no vote is entered rather than a + or -. The 6/0 example you open with isn't as ridiculous as you state: lots of "reviewers" looked at the image and went "meh". So it failing for lack of reviews showing a passionate opinion is valid. The 10/5 vote isn't "marginal" because 10 reviewers loved it and thought it should be featured. If it had been nominated the previous week, two of the opposers would have been on holiday. We have to set a threshold somewhere. And then there's the issue that of the 5 against, two had a personal grudge against the nominee, one opposed because the histogram showed 0.5% blown pixels in the highlights, one opposed because he's tired of butterflies and the other because the 36MP image wasn't sharp at 100%. Ok, I'm joking a bit. But the sort of tiny numbers we are playing with don't lend themselves well to "fairness". Really, one should nominate an image and hope the roulette wheel spins in your favour. Win some; lose some. It is better than that, of course, and a lot of poor images are rejected and excellent ones succeed. But in between is so variable that it is best not to worry too much.
What are you proposing? Some formula like the table above, with a cutoff number. Or supplement this with minimum votes too? Or what? Could you draw a table like above but colour it so we can clearly see the winning and losing permutations? I don't see that comparing 3/0 with 10/5 is useful and a score that shows 3/0 higher than 10/5 is faulty IMO. The former didn't have enough votes to be meaningful in any way. There has to be a point where the scores are so low that its just noise. Colin (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not exactly proposing we use the table, so to color it wouldn't really be meaningful. What I'm saying is, here's what a perfectly rational person who is willing to tolerate 5% false promotions (but possibly more false rejections) would do. However, the current system feels better because a nomination with very few votes, all positive, seems like it shouldn't be promoted, which is highly irrational behavior (no matter how you argue it, 3/0 is objectively better than 10/5). So I am proposing a compromise between the two extremes: not too irrational, but also more acceptable to the FPC community (so that 3/0 wouldn't get promoted over 10/5). Namely that is keep the 2/3 support ratio but change "7 supports" to "5 net supports."
Indeed, 6/0 could imply a "meh" from many voters. But still, regardless of the supposed intentions of the voters, it makes no sense to treat a "meh" as worse than an oppose. 6/0 is not very different from 7/0, or at the very least not as much as the difference between 7/0 and 7/3. 10/5 is more dubious, but there is no reason why 7/3 should be promoted over 6/0.
Additionally, sometimes a batch of nominations all get 10+ support votes in a row, sometimes a batch all get less than 5. Based on my personal opinion and experience, the first batch was not better than the second batch, at least not enough to justify so many people saying "meh" to the second batch. It is far more likely that there was simply less traffic during the second batch, and to say, sorry, your nomination didn't get enough votes because you didn't nominate it at the right time and have them go through the whole process again is just a waste of time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Following your "rational" argument, the statistics in this assumes that you are always expressing your opinion. It does not take into account the conscious decision to abstain from voting. Nor does it take into account the extra burden of opposing. Abstaining gives rise to a lower number of votes. When do you abstain? I think when
  1. You do not feel qualified to review an image
  2. You are fed up from voting on a long series of images with almost the same topic (e.g., critter on flower, mountainscape)
  3. When you do not get so ethusiastic about a nomination that you care to edit the page and support.
  4. When you actually feel a little that an image should not be promoted, but you abstain, because when you oppose you should provide a reason, and you may not have the good arguments at hand, and you are not willing to spend resources on commenting when other users challenge your oppose.
  5. You feel a little for opposing, but knowing that an oppose has double vote you feel you negative impact on a promotion is too excessive.
Therefore, for me, it is good to have the minimum vote count close to where it is today, as a low vote count is also information - most lacks of votes indicates that a nomination is not among our very best photos (exceptions being when voter does not feel qualified or is fed up with a given topic). That said, I appreciate the urge to discuss this more rationally. It is just difficult to find a model, which adequately grasps the real-world situation. --Slaunger (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is good to discuss this and am not opposed to changing things. But let's remember that this isn't the same model as Amazon reviews or Likes on some forum. The product on Amazon that only got 3 x 5* reviews was probably not bought by many people but everyone who bought it loved it. The product that got 10 x 5* reviews and 5 x 2* reviews was bought by more people and appears to have some significant drawbacks to a good third of those who bought it. In contrast, every FP here can be viewed by everyone: you don't have to buy butterfly pictures in order to review them. Obviously some subjects are more popular than others so some subjects may be flicked past without much care but there's no physical reason why every image couldn't be seriously looked at by the folk who hang out here. Wrt the +/- vote some forums use, again our model is different. Perhaps there are some people who support just as casually as one might "like" a funny story or a useful comment. But generally most people here are trying to judge what is our very best and passes some minimum thresholds. Leaving aside the psychological reasons for voting patterns that Slaunger lists (which are very real and significant) our assessment model must mean that there is a grey area between the points where reviewers are certain they are looking at an FP and where reviewers are certain they are looking at something that shouldn't be an FP. In that grey area you will get reviewers who vote one way or the other anyway but generaly that grey area strongly discourages opposes (due to conflict, reasons must be given, etc) and strongly encourages a no-vote.
If we assume for the sake of argument, a model where everyone looks at an image and must indicate their decision, then for 20 reviewers you might get 3 support, 0 oppose and 17 abstain. Another image might get 10 support, 5 oppose and 5 abstain. In this case the 3/0/17 example is much worse than the 10/5/5 example. Reality is somewhere less than this but also not close to the Amazon example with 3 unanimously happy customers.
The proposed change from 7 min to 5 net support (keeping 2/3) doesn't actually change that many voting ratios. The 10/5 case you class as "marginal" is still a marginal pass. The 3/0 case you consider better is still a fail. The 6/0 vs 7/3 case is one of only a few examples where one might query the logic of current vs the proposal. But Regardless, the 6/0 case still failed to inspire 7 people to think "this is the best on Commons". And if we set a threshold somewhere then that's as good as any. I'm sure we'd all love a situation where we thought the minimum should be 20 and images typically had 30 votes. The 5-net rule would also allow 5/0, 6/1 to pass that would currently fail.
I disagree with the perceived problem of "5% false promotions" (or rejections). What makes it "false"? To the person that opposed a picture that ended up promoted to FP anyway, is that FP "false"? Clearly they thought it shouldn't be FP. Same for the other way round. We're not sending innocent folk to jail or releasing criminals. Most of the pictures nominated at FP are good pictures. They would't be nominated otherwise. Colin (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This may amuse -- Colin (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Didn't read through all the discussion, but again, I'd like to raise that à la Flickr or à la Facebook style promotion; that is popularity over consensus. Our consensus system encourage conservatism and not taking risk. If a picture gets 7 supports, it will get promoted. If a picture gets 30 supports and 16 opposes, it won't get promoted. But we can safely assume that the latest has attracted more viewers and interest, which should be what we strive for imo. Latest case was Tomascatelazo's drunk men, which wasn't promoted but surely attracted attention than many picture on FPC. Consensus is how we stagnate, and no formula like what is discussed above will change anything about that. - Benh (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To be thorough, and after reading more, the net support idea looks good, but I would combine it with a higher number of vote requirement, like 10 or 15 votes. This would lower the consensus weight and emphasize popularity. - Benh (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm making a mistake with maths, the proposed net-support change only affects the low "number of vote" cases such as 5/0, 6/1, so having a "number of votes" threshold of 10, say, combined with the unchanged 2/3 ratio, already produces a minimum net support of 5. Higher values only increase the net support (e.g. 12/6).
I wouldn't support replacing "minimum support 7" with "minimum votes 10", say, as that would give the bizzare situation where a picture had 7 support and 0 oppose and failed, but another had 7 support and 3 oppose and passed.
So currently, I'm not seeing a proposal that improves things. That doesn't mean there isn't one... Colin (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's the purpose of the change I propose: pictures with 20 supports and 15 opposes would pass. Sounds good to me in some way. 35 people giving opinion on a pictures over 7 (even though all supports) looks more worth being featured. - Benh (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you proposing removing the 2/3 majority rule then? Replaced with just a net support of 5 (say) and a minimum voting of 10 (say)? For bigger numbers that tends towards being a simple majority (1:1) system rather than two-thirds (2:1). That might be reasonable if opposes were as equally likely to be given as supports but that isn't the case. I don't think 20/15 should pass but I'm sure we all agree that if you could get 35 people regularly voting for images then that is better than just 7. To achieve that we either need more participants or some way to encourage abstainers to vote one way or the other. Colin (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
We could close noms only when a threshold of votes is reached (not including neutral ones)... Something like 15 votes, either supports or opposes. ?? - Benh (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting idea. However, I think there is some merit in the idea that an image can fail due to lack of enthusiasm for it, without folk needing to explicitly oppose. Colin (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You've hit a spot... I'd like people to explicitly oppose. Even though it's to say "it's boring, I don't care". Or, we extend minimum number of votes (not support) to 15 (to debate) in addition to the previously discussed, and if this isn't reach by 2-3 weeks, it's a fail. - Benh (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I've thought of an alternate plan: Make it stupidly easy to vote "neutral," say write a script that can do it with one button, to indicate that the picture lacks "wow" but is not so unfeature-worthy that you would oppose. Make it so that if a nomination fails to get 10 votes in 9 days, keep extending the deadline by 4 days until it does get 10 votes. Then require support/(support+oppose) >= 2/3 as currently as well as 7 support votes. This way, something will fail if it gets 6 supports and 4 neutrals. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that the reason for extending the deadline by 4-day intervals rather than a simple "9 days or 10 votes, whichever comes later" is because, suppose an image is in its 12th day at 6/0/3. You think "meh" but don't want to be that guy who single-handedly derailed its chances. But if it's based on a time limit, then you'll feel comfortable putting in your neutral/oppose, as there is still a chance for someone to come in with a last-minute support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
what utter nonsense you dont want to ruin its chances of being promoted, the reason you'd consider this if your concerned that by voting people will oppose your nomination. Gnangarra 02:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, so the big issue here is people who find an image boring. If they find the image boring, they have three options: do not vote, oppose, or neutral. I'm afraid I don't quite understand you. Can you tell me: 1) which option they are most likely to choose now, in your opinion; and 2) which option they should be choosing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
(outdent)
This is all getting way too complicated. King of Hearts, I see you've voted on nearly every nomination in the current list. Do you see anyone else who has done that? No. Properly reviewing a picture takes time (I'm not implying you don't - just that most people don't have that time). I'd rather people who weren't sure or weren't interested in a picture just didn't vote. These pictures take time to prepare (I've travelled just to take pictures and spent hours processing them, and I'm not alone in that). The last thing we need are folk glancing at the thumbnail and going "No wow" for, eg. a technically execellent picture of a rare fungus or tropical bird or whatever just because it isn't as colourful as Joseph's coat. And we certainly don't want features that make it "supidly easy" to vote any way, including neutral. I think Benh's idea will just result in pile-on votes simply to make the numbers up to the threshold. One way to put off any new contributor would be a stack of 10 "Oppose - no wow" votes. Colin (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel more discouraged to get no feedback at all... but that may be only me. If it's really about attracting more people to give their opinion, then it might be a good idea to shift away from wiki style editing and have dedicated page or software. King of XX's idea to automatically extend voting period could result in very very long lasting noms, but I too support the idea to reach a given threshold before deciding if it's promoted or not (and go for not promoting if threshold isn't reached at all in time). Anyways, I feel Commons and FPC is not attractive enough to retain good photographers. No system works fine with this small a community (I think less then a dozen people come here frequently, I'm not one of them definitely). - Benh (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the problem with people who aren't interested in a picture not voting is that, if a nomination gets 5 supports (and 0 opposes) in 9 days under the current system, we don't know whether it's because there wasn't enough traffic (in which case the picture intuitively ought to be promoted) or because many people saw it and were not interested (then no). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
We can't (and shouldn't try to) make people vote if they aren't inclined to. It is certainly not the case that there isn't enough traffic: witness when someone posts something spectacular and overnight it has got 10 supports. Even assuming someone was unlucky to nominate when the world was on a 10-day holiday to Mars, I disagree that there's anything "intuitive" about thinking it ought to be promoted. This is where the folk at Commons can decide among themselves what represents the best: you can't take people out of the process.
I agree with Benh about the community being too small to be effective and attractive. There's very little community really. A functional site would have communities of macro experts and bird enthusiasts and so on, all helping each other and advising new folk. The Commons website is truly dreadful and probably the worse UI to show off or search for pictures anywhere on the web. The search results and category pages just jumble all the awful cruft along with the quality stuff. And then you click on a picture and get a visual experience no more refined that was possible a dozen years ago. What Commons needs isn't just new software for FP judging but new software and new interfaces entirely. Colin (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I don't see why something with 5 supports should not pass. If people don't like it, they should oppose. You only have yourself to blame if a picture you didn't like got through the process without your vote. I think moving to 5 net supports will work; right now many people in this discussion are complaining about letting mediocre images through, but if the 5 net support rule were actually in place, they will stop complaining and actually vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that those not voting on pictures are also those moaning that a mediocre image got promoted. We all agree that if you really think an image shouldn't be FP then you have to say so. Assuming I'm right in thinking you want to keep the 2/3 majority rule, then your 5-net-support change has virtually no effect on the voting system. It allows 5/0, 6/0, 6/1 to pass that wouldn't currently. That's it. Basically, you are dropping the standard. Perhaps some day if even fewer people are participating then that might be necessary, but currently I think there's enough participation to expect 7 supports to be the minimum representation of "enough". Alchemist-hp below wants 10! I kind of think we're done with this proposal, as it hasn't really attracted any community support. Colin (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. It allows 5/0, 6/0, and 6/1 and disallows 7/3 and 8/4. And in any case, it should be X net supports rather than Y supports because counting the number of supports just doesn't make sense. What X is could be something other than 5, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You are right about the numbers. The rationale behind the current system is that an FP needs a certain degree of support (7 minimum) and of those voting, a 2/3 majority must be in favour of promotion. These are simple rules. There isn't a voting system in the world, that I am aware of, that uses "net supports" because ultimately the net difference in support is a lousy way of gauging consensus. So I strongly disagree on the "doesn't make sense" argument: please let's just agree to disagree on which system is best. There is no perfect algorithm. Colin (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I could go on about how most voting systems also don't let you oppose candidates, but OK then, I guess this is where optimization takes a backseat to simplicity. If only we had as many voters and as few candidates as RfA on en.WP! No need for a minimum support threshold, though it does introduce problems of its own as the talk page can attest...   -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • the quickest way to ensure that no unwanted, unknown, new to commons editors dont vote or even participate is to make FP processes appear too complicated to understand that way we can keep FP for the select few. minimum number of 7 supports understandable, 2:1 support:oppose understandable, FP works. Keep It Simple S..... Gnangarra 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I really wonder why we discuss this. Whatever we decide, some will always work around the spirit of the rules... (not a first timer scenario, but too tired to look for them tonight) - Benh (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not following what Benh has linked to that is a problem. Can someone explain? -- Colin (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • one day before voting periods ends, the candidate gets a bunch of supports from contributors who are known to be close to author, and who never float around otherwise. Not sure the pic would have been promoted otherwise. Not the first time I witness the "call my friends for help" scenario. Of course, nothing forbids this but it's pretty much agains the spirit of the rules IMO, so why bother changing them... - Benh (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Of the four users in your link, at least three (including my humble self) do not or not quite match this pattern "close to author, and never float around otherwise", which you may verify looking at their contributions of last months. - A.Savin 08:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I read with great interest the different opinions. I find it very healthy that we can have this kind of discussion. For my part: the current system seems the least bad. We could keep it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with the sentiments of Slaunger and Archaeodontosaurus above. I don't see a compelling argument to change the current system. I was unable to reproduce the numbers in the table near the beginning of this section. One problem is that the confidence interval was not stated. But, for confidence intervals in the range of 80 to 98%, I don't reproduce those results, to wit, "lower bound of Wilson score confidence interval for a Bernoulli parameter". I am able to reproduce results of web calculators, however.[3] That said, if those who vote are representative of the opinion of the population of reviewers, then a 6/0 result indicates a more favorable opinion than a 7/3 result, as King of Hearts alleges. I find myself in agreement with those who question that those who vote are a representative sample of the reviewers. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I read this discussion from the beginning, including Benh’s popularity argument over consensus. I think we can’t consider the ‘feature popular pictures’ argument because it is not the intention of Commons unlike Flickr; otherwise it will end up as a collection of half naked people on beach at sunset as in Flickr Front Page. Flickr uses a complicated algorithm (not a democratic one) labeled as “Interestingness” which considers a lot of parameters except popularity. And it considers your image as a popular one if there is a marginal increase of popularity than your average popularity (which is also calculated by considering your Flickr age, number of posts, frequency of posts, etc.).
Coming back to the initial concern raised by King of Hearts. I think it is worth to consider because a minimum support of 7 is easy for attractive subjects for majority of reviewers (like landscapes, macro, etc.) but difficult for rare subjects and those who need more knowledge to review. I too noticed such failed candidates which have no oppose but lacks minimum supports. But the solution he suggested (initially) has some arithmetic mistake as Alvesgaspar pointed. Our current system counts 1 Support=+1 and 1 Oppose=-2; so Net Support=Support-2*Oppose. So a featured picture needs a positive Net Suport.
My suggestion: Maintain the same system (1 Support=+1 and 1 Oppose=-2) and change the Minimum number of supports to 3-5 (as in en:wiki) or change the minimum numbers of votes (including support and oppose) to 5-7. In my humble opinion, an image with 3 support and no oppose (within the entire time limit) is worth to feature (why not oppose if you don’t like it?). But we have to maintain the requirement of Quick Promotion as a higher value like 10 Supports and no Oppose; otherwise chances that some images get promoted without proper review. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 & FP

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there any problems with nominating Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 pictures for Featured Picture while the contest is still running? This doesn't concern one of my pictures, but another picture I'd like to nominate. Colin (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: this was touched on Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012#WLM_and_Featured_Pictures_candidates ; and there already are 6 FPs from WLM 2012. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion...

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

The amount of images in the web is impossible to tell. But images nowadays without tags or information such as a good, brief description of the subject, when, where, what, etc., etc., are usless because they cannot be found or they lack information. So I think that as a requirement for nomination the image must/should have a brief description of the subject giving basic relevant information. This would also be a good tool for reviewers in order to put the image in proper context. Any ideas? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant of those requirements (#2) only claims to apply to quality images. Perhaps it should be reworded to make it clear that it applies to featured pictures as well. --Avenue (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes; "Quality" images in the requirement #1 and #2 are misleading. Changing them to simply "images" or "good images" may make sense. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've reworded these to avoid talking just about "quality images". I've also removed the bit saying they have to be uploaded by the copyright holder, which does not apply to FPs. --Avenue (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
OK for me. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea that image descriptions should be informative and not minimal. Geotaging for many image subjects is very important too. One problem might be that not all FPs are created by folk on Commons -- some come from Flickr and elsewhere and the information there might be lacking. So I guess all we can do at FPC is request/remind folk to write helpful description pages but not sure how easy it would be to mandate things. Would it help, Tomascastelazo, to provide a checklist that folk could use as a guide to what sort of information they might include. Perhaps with links to good examples (e.g., birds, places, people). Colin (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think also it is a good idea. I have to admit that I not remember it in every case but I try to give a good description of the image and make clear if there is something special about the object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I fully agree with Tomascastelazo observations. It does not concern only the FPC page, but all "Commons" IMO. I'm ready to discuss this, because I think that uploading a picture is only a short part of the "job" we have to do here. The more informations we provide, the better it is. As Wladyslaw, I also try to do so. But I don't know if to create new rules is a good thing. Maybe should we be less lenient. In the QIC page, for instance, almost a quarter of the nominations should have to be declined because of lack of following the guidelines in formal things matters... But we don't dare to decline for that reasons, and we are wrong. --Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Context in documentary photography is important, for it gives the viewer elements of analysis for whatever end. In Commons, a basic assumption is that the images are meant to illustrate articles of Wikipedia, or any other encyclopaedic end, among other possibilities. So the images as images per se take a second seat and are tools or aides of a larger effort. In order for the images to be found and to add value to whatever article they support, I think that a basic photo caption is in order, not a long-winded explanation that should be given in the article itself, but the photo caption should provide very basic info.

We could characterize the images by type and add enough information to the image description. Not all images require the same type of info, for they are of different nature, but we could start something like this:

Image type

Place – This could be any type of location, architecture, landscape, city, etc. So the basic information could be geographical location, country, state, city and a brief description of content.

Object – What is it? What is it for? Who uses it? The description could add interesting bits if object is for example a tool, a ceremonial object, art object, etc., and a brief description of its use.

Organism – What is it? Where is it? Gender, scientific name, describe behavior, and a short take of info, for example: “… lives in central America, population is threatened, etc., etc."

Cultural event – Where, when, who, etc.

So basically perhaps everyone should add general categories to the list, but we must keep the category list very, very short and help redact a brief paragraph of the general information that the image, according to its category, should have.

It would be hard to require this to all images uploaded to Commons, but it should be encouraged. In FPC, however, it could be a requirement, even if the nominator is not the uploader or the author. If they take the time to nominate, they should also take the time to add value to the image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I come, as always, a little late, but I strongly support the proposal of Tomascastelazo. An image has no future if it does not have caption. I do not think it is useful to give rules, but if we already acord us for a didactic approach that insite to make an effort on the caption we advanced. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, I fully agree. As said above, by me and by Archaeodontosaurus, new rules are not necessary. However, I personaly will now oppose if I think that the description is not precise enough, according to the way of Tomascastelazo suggestions.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Archaeo, Jebulon and Tomas. And I noticed that some people are only providing GFDL for their work although the page Commons:Licensing clearly says "The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software." Then why we are promoting works with such a "not practical license". I know this point is bit different, but it is stated as requirement #1 at Commons:Image guidelines#Image_page_requirements. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license"

Latest comment: 11 years ago150 comments57 people in discussion
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The majority view(32/19) of this discussion is that the FP criteria for new nominations disallow pictures that use solely GFDL 1.2 or combined GFDL 1.2 and NC(non-commercial)-only license. A simple count of votes isnt the only deciding factor I considered the arguments put forth. Within the discussion many opinions argued that GFDL is a free license and an acceptable license under which to upload works to commons, some took the position that Commons first needs to change its list of accepted licenses before FP makes it a criteria. FP places many criteria on images even on eligability to vote which are more restrictive than overall community participation requirements. QI has for 5 years restricted the source of the images without issue, any arguement that FP community cannot make its criteria restrictive in terms of licensing doesnt stand up to current accepted community practices. Considering all of this there isnt any argument put forth that has sufficient weight or significance to warrant closing this discussion other than that of the majority view of disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license"

note: While the FP community has decided that pictures licensed with GFDL 1.2 or a combined license GFDL/NC license in the future doesnt represent our "Best works", it doesnt prevent people uploading media using such licenses nor will media using such license be deleted. Nowhere in the discussion has it been proposed that works previously promoted FP under such license be de-listed, as such this new criteria shouldn't be applied retrospectively. Gnangarra 08:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


note: header changed at 15.30 8 Oct from "Proposal: Change to FP criteria for new nominations: disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as it is not practically free for images" Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It is well known that the historic GFDL 1.2 licence is incompatible with general image reuse in practice. This is because it requires the entire text of the licence to be incorporated into any work that makes use of such an image. The licence was invented for computer software computer software documentation, not photographs. For this reason, Commons strongly discourages this licence for new images:

  • Commons:Licensing says Note: The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license. Thus, it is preferable to publish the work with a dual license, adding to the GFDL a license that permits use of the photo or text easily; a Creative Commons license, for example. Also, do not use the GPL and LGPL licenses as the only license for your own works if it can be avoided, as they are not really suitable for anything but software.
  • Commons:Copyright tags#GNU Licenses says Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-3.0 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily.

That the licence is still grudgingly allowed for new images is largely an issue of history, compatibility and inertia.

It is also well known that some contributors to Commons see "GFDL 1.2 only" single licensing as an alternative to the disallowed "non-commercial" licence restriction, though it is a blunt instrument in this manner in that it also prevents non-commercial reuse -- effectively only supplying images for Wikipedia and similar. (Note: it is possible to dual licence GFDL 1.2 images with CC-BY-NC to get round that issue).

Since "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone" (my bolding: not just Wikipedia, not just educational, charitable, and other non-commercial ventures), attempts to restrict reuse in this manner go against the spirit and therefore are not an example of our "finest" work. By promoting images with restricted licences to FP, we not only give implicit approval of such practice, but also encourage others to do likewise.

This is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of allowing "non-commercial" licences on Commons. See Commons:Licensing/Justifications and The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License. It is worth considering however, as an aside, that the operating systems in everyone's mobile phones (and increasingly, cameras) are only possible because many developers chose to give their work away for free to anybody, commercial or otherwise.

The proposal here is to modify the FP criteria to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC. This would be effective only for new nominations, from the date the proposal is accepted.

Colin (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support because we don't need anything not practical. I think the new version 1.3 is also not suitable for pictures or media files. So authors should provide an additional license like CC-by-SA. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support{{Comment}} I’d like to state that I endorse every single point Colin makes in his proposal. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Edited for the sake of clarity Jean-Fred (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose GFDL is a free license. --Ralf Roleček 17:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • In practice, for images (especially when printed), it is not. To clarify, I believe dual licensing GNU 1.2 with CC-BY-SA or the Free Art Licence, is acceptable under this proposal. Colin (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • In the context of images the GFDL is not a free license. The only reason it's still allowed on Commons is because no one has pushed to deprecate it. Kaldari (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As long as commons allows it, it is considered free. Such restrictions will just reduce the variety of FPs --Muhammad (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The question is whether it is free enough to be celebrated at FP. The "reduce the variety of FPs" argument applies to all sorts of self-imposed restrictions at Commons. We'd have more FPs if we hosted commercial copyright images and more money if we charged for them :-). This form of licensing restricts reuse and therefore is against the purpose of the site. -- Colin (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, Muhammad Mahdi opposes commercial reuse of his pictures and uses the GFDL 1.2 licence to prevent this. (See this interview and this proposal) -- Colin (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment As long as GFDL 1.2 is allowed for general uploads, it does seem odd to restrict them from FP consideration. That said, I'm not sure we ought to accept new GFDL-only uploads at all. Powers (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support as to forbid further GFDL uploads. Kyro (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Muhammad, there is no reason to establish a two-class-image-system --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There already is a "two-class-image-system". There are images on Commons that are free to reuse. And those that aren't, in practice. Colin (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
      • If you take this point we have not a two but a multiple-class-system because of the varied possibilities of licensing a picture. I would welcome a much more simple licensing system here at commons. But FP is not the right place to talk about this. Each picture that is correct licensed at Commons has to have the same right to candidate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Just because Commons permits something doesn't mean it encourages something -- it clearly doesn't as both guidelines above strongly discourage it. The whole point of FP is to set a standard to aspire to, and be the very best. Colin (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't understand your point. Each photography (regardless of which license) is usable outside Commons/ Wikipedia if the licence holder keep in mind to refer to the author and name the licence. I know the licence text, but your anxiety is not justified. No court of law would convict s.o. how cares in the described way the copyright. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Are you saying the GFDL 1.2 is toothless? If that were true, then what purpose does it serve to promote such a confusing and apparently restrictive licence, which is thus being pointlessly used in the hope it prevents commercial exploitation? You are wrong about the GFDL only requiring to "to refer to the author and name the licence" -- that is CC-BY-SA. Colin (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
              • As I already said: I would support a simplification of the licence system. And I can only say for the German law situation: there was never one court decision that punished s.o. who referred to the author and name the licence but did not reflect the licence text. That the licence claim to do so is correct but to enforce s.o. to do so is more academic but not realistic. But as I already said: the FP are not the right podium to discuss about those thinks. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
                • I see your point now. It is a worthless restriction so why worry about it. Maybe so. That is certainly a more reasonable point that the "it is ok because it is permitted" circular argument put forward by Muhammad and those who second his vote. We should be celebrating truly freely reusable images here, not ones designed (pointlessly or otherwise) to be unfree. Colin (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my own feeling. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support GFDL 1.2 only decreases the chance of a proper reuse. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose GFDL 1.2 isn't a great license, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose making GFDL 1.2 only ineligible for Commons, but it seems silly to make separate rules here and for Commons in general.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support GFDL 1.2 keeps people from reusing our content. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment The !vote appears to be split very evenly here, without indication of a consensus. How about this: People who want to disallow GFDL 1.2 licensing can oppose nominations based on that fact alone. Note that what I'm saying here isn't a change in policy, as opposes can be made for pretty much any reason. For example, people might oppose 3MP images for being too small although they pass the 2MP technical minimum; likewise, people can oppose GFDL 1.2 images for being not sufficiently free even though they are technically "free." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We tried it earlier (at least me and Yann); but the result was very negative. He tried to resit my oppose by revenge votes. Anyway I don't like people use this space for their own publicity and to promote their own business with such a poor and restricted license. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This has only been running less than a day so let's not be too quick to come to any conclusions. I'd like to see more non-FA contributors. Many of the opposes are based on a technicality (that Commons allows => it should be able to be FA) rather than actually saying whether celebrating unfree images is a good thing. Because let's not fool anyone: the 1.2-only sole licence is being used to make images unfree for commercial use. Whether, like Taxiarchos228 suggests, it is ineffective is interesting but suggests rather that those using this licence restriction should rethink rather than Commons accepting their conditions. Colin (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Nothing more!!! Nothing less!!! -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment In this printed Book are more then 100 Photos with GFDL1.2 This License can be proper reuse. --Ralf Roleček 07:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess if you include 100 photos then you have room to print the GNU licence in an appendix. This is not really the point. There are a whole host of other printed forms that are unable to accept that condition. If you are arguing the GFDL1.2 is no more restrictive than CC-BY-SA then what's the argument for using it as a sole licence? The point here it is being used to prevent commercial reuse. Which is against the goals of the site, and not something we should celebrate as "our finest". -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • GFDL was the only and correct license all projects of Wikimedia. And now they will no longer be valid? The relicensing without consent of the copyright holder was illegal and so I use GFDL. --Ralf Roleček 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I am not proposing any change to existing images or existing FPs. What has been has been. I see you dual-licence with the Free Art Licence. So there's no problem with your images or future nominations. Colin (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support for all images uploaded after GFDL 1.3 became an option on Commons (I would also make an exception for works ported from other WMF projects that were originally uploaded before GFDL v1.3). We have long discouraged GFDL 1.2 only uploads but not in any meaningful way. For older images, I am willing to believe the author was simply unaware that the terms they were imposing were onerous. Authors who release works today under the long-obsolete GFDL 1.2 are deliberately imposing onerous terms upon commercial content reusers in an attempt to strongarm them into a paid license. There is no other way of interpreting such a deliberate action. The fact that such works can still achieve reuse in some limited contexts does not change the intention behind the action. This would give some teeth to our discouragement of GFDL 1.2 and make a few uploaders think twice about doing an end-run on the commercial use requirement. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said. The people who still using GFDL are not ignorant; they are the most experienced people here. Their intention is to make maximum benefit from the huge visibility and reach of Wikimedia but not willing to follow the “free” policy of it. I know the strength of this group is high but hope others and especially the non-photographers people here will act upon. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Creative Commons are simple to understand and useful licences for pictures. GFDL was created for documentation text going along with free software and should be only use for this. Léna (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support The goal of FP is to promote the best free images. If the early free software community complained about the BSD for its one-line advertising clause (and this is even in the context of reprinting the whole BSD license [which is sensible for software]), why shouldn't we complain about having to reproduce an entire license text for one photo? As for the contention of several opposers that "it seems silly to make separate rules here and for Commons in general," we already do. We don't take 640 x 480 images here, though Commons does. We don't take random snapshots, though Commons does. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think we should ban everything but PD/CC0, anything else would keep people from reusing our content and wouldn't be free enough. More seriously, the GFDL is a textbook free licence. Wikipedia itself used a version of the GFDL for years without issue. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a textbook free software licence. To pretend it is a good free licence for images is to ignore reality and practicality. There are degrees of "freedom" as you point out. Folk here merely chanting "GFDL is free" miss the point. Freedom isn't a black and white term. However, the "non-commercial" restriction is. And that is the only reason folk still sole-licence with GFDL 1.2. The historical uses of it are interesting but no longer important: what is important is why that licence is chosen for new images in 2012: to prevent commerical use. Colin (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems ironic that the people who claim to bring freedom are taking away the freedom of photographers to upload with this license. The losers of this proposal are Wikimedia and its subsidiaries --Muhammad (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no irony, Muhammad. Long ago some white folk lost the "freedom" to keep slaves, and were a bit upset about it. Clearly this is not at the same level, but I hope you can see the double-think in your argument. When Wikimedia campaigns for museums and art galleries to give away their work "free", we need to not be labelled hypocrites by at the same time allowing effectively-non-commercial licences for our own folk. We don't allow -NC licences. That's a big restriction that puts off many contributions. But that's the choice Commons has made. Deal with it. Don't dodge it. Colin (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The GFDL is a free license designed for software documentation and textbooks, not for software itself. And no, it does not prohibit commercial use. --Avenue (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As long as Commons accepts GFDL-only uploads, these should be eligible to become FPs. Otherwise where does this stop? Some people do not like the Free Art License, so pictures with that license can't be FPs either? How about PD-Art uploads from the UK and other countries where this may violate copyright? And "share-alike" licensed images are clearly not as free as PD images. Does this mean they cannot be our best work? By the way, GFDL 1.2 does not prohibit commercial use (see the first sentence in its preamble), so one of the main premises this proposal is based on is false. --Avenue (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not true. The premise of this proposal is that it introduces serious practical obstacles to commercial reuse, and those burdens are precisely why some folk chose it as a sole licence. Let's stop pretending it is chosen for any reason than to achieve -NC by the back door. Colin (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd say that the GFDL poses practical difficulties for many printed uses of photos or short textual documents, whether those uses are commercial or non-commercial. I don't agree that it poses significant difficulties for online commercial reuse. The GFDL is not simply -NC by another name. --Avenue (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • See this comment by Muhammad in his interview for Wikipedia Signpost. What you or I think about the burdensome nature of the restrictions the GFDL imposes isn't the point: the point is those are perceived to be burdensome enough that this licence is chosen to achieve NC by the back door. And that is the only reason such licenses are chosen in 2012 (without dualling with CC or Free Art). Colin (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I think it would be unfair to the other users who also use this license if this proposal is passed based on my actions. Never generalize --Muhammad (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Which other users use this licence solely or in combination with -NC while also fully supporting the reuse of their images by anyone? Colin (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
              • I have used a GFDL only license in an attempt to achieve real SA, since the SA part of CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to combinations of text and images. And no, it doesn't really matter to Commons what uploaders who use GFDL to try to impose NC think, if I'm right and the GFDL allows commercial re-use. They will only have been fooling themselves. --Avenue (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment this proposal is concretely The proposal here is to modify the FP criteria to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC. This mixes up two things:
    1. GFDL is a useless license for most non-WP purposes (technically commercial use is permitted though)
    2. Commons disallows NC-only uploads.
Reading the discussion here, and given that the proposal is not what the header says it is, so we can't be sure what people are exactly supporting or opposing, I think this proposal needs splitting into two parts, so I've done that below. Rd232 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Rd232, Could I please ask you to strike/retract the following sections as they just confuse the debate and introduce a new issue. If you wanted clarity on the proposal, then we can do that without making a mess of it. The purpose is to disallow FP of pictures that attempt -NC by the back door: whether that is by using a sole licence of GFDL 1.2 or combining it with a -NC CC licence is the same. While I accept that the latter removes some of the obstacles to non-commercial reuse, the obstacles to commercial reuse remain and are absolutely against the goal of Commons. We are absolutely not going to have debate on the second issue (Commons disallows NC-only uploads) because it is old and will go nowhere. Colin (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Splitting of the section's two proposals by subsection collapsed at request of proposer
Disallow GFDL-only

Because GFDL is a useless license for most non-WP purposes, images only licensed GFDL (or similar free licenses aimed at software) should be disqualified from consideration as Featured Picture candidates.

  •   Support Rd232 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is much more sensible than the original proposal in one respect - it rules out GFDL 1,3 as well as 1.2. I can't see any good reason for allowing 1.3 but not 1.2, since the deadline for relicensing GFDL 1.3 content as CC-BY-SA is long gone. --Avenue (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please strike this section. This is not the original proposal at all. I couldn't give a damn about "useless" licences. I care about licences that prevent (or appear to prevent) commercial reuse. Colin (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This section is here because (i) it's what your header claims the proposal is and (ii) probably more people will support it and (iii) it doesn't exclude your proposal (section below), it's in some ways a weaker version. And BTW you may not care, but it's clear from the discussion above that some people do. Rd232 (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The header was already too long. The actual proposal was clear and I don't think anyone wants to repeat their arguments again in another section. Colin (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It was your decision to put your proposal into the header in a misleading form, no-one else's. And people willing to make the effort to express a view on something like this will probably be willing to restate them briefly if it gets a clear conclusion. Rd232 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Disallow GFDL+NC-only

Commons disallows NC-only uploads, but this can be bypassed by adding the GFDL license, which for most non-WP purposes is useless. The Featured Pictures process aims to discourage this by disqualifying files licensed in this way.

  •   Oppose because I've never understood why NC-only isn't allowed, given Commons' primary mission. Rd232 (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please strike this section. If you don't understand why NC-only isn't allowed at commons, then I suggest you do some reading on the licence pages and their talk pages. It is a very old debate and NC will not happen. Colin (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I only mentioned that to explain why I oppose this. And if you have a good reason why Wikimedia projects can have Fair Use but Commons can't have NC-only, let's hear it. Rd232 (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • This really is a distraction. "Fair use" isn't a licence. Please take this elsewhere. Colin (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Good example why I don't normally participate in these discussions. One or two people seem to drive the entire agenda and bully dissenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.130.103 (talk • contribs)
          • Cheap shot. This is my proposal and I'm trying to encourage discussion rather than the usual Wiki response of !vote and leave. What Rd232's sub-proposals do is form a distraction and there's a danger of unintentional filibustering leading to confusion and no result. This sub-proposal in particular has not a snowballs chance in hell of leading anywhere useful. Colin (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
            • This sub-proposal is your proposal, clarified. You're the one distracting people from the clarity that I provided with the insistence on going back to your proposal which confused different issues. If you actually look at people's comments, a number of the comments are appear to be addressing "disallow GFDL-only" (the proposal in your header) and not "disallow GFDL+NC-only" (the proposal in the comment starting the thread). This confusion is why I created these subsections - it wasn't some sort of whim. Rd232 (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
              • It is absolutely not my proposal. The additional of -NC to a GDFL 1.2 licenced image does not change the intended effect, which is to disallow commercial reuse. But your point of separating this is to re-open the -NC debate here. And it won't go anywhere. Colin (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
                • your point of separating this is to re-open the -NC debate here NO IT ISN'T. Sorry, but since you're NOT LISTENING MAYBE IT WILL HELP IF I START SHOUTING. I was explaining why I oppose what you see as your proposal (you actually made two and muddled them up). In addition, you now seem to have successfully confused even yourself, since you now apparently don't even understand what you proposed yourself. Again: (i) in the section header you proposed "disallow GFDL-only" (you even have "single licensing" in there) and (ii) in the first comment you proposed "disallow GFDL-only or GFDL+NC-only" (to disallow "GFDL 1.2 only" as a sole licence or when combined only with a non-commercial licence such as CC-BY-NC. ). You made two proposals, advertised only one in the header, and have bizarrely got enormously upset at my attempt to deal with the resulting mess. Rd232 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
                  • Good grief. It never helps to shout. The header isn't a complete description of the proposal. I accept that and am sorry for any confusion. I'm not seeing any "resulting mess" other than these two sections, which are of your making. Everyone else seems to manage with the above section. I'm not going to change the title as there are links to it now. All that's needed is to read the actual proposal in order to comment sensibly. What we really, really don't need is that after dozens of comments, someone comes along and proposes two slightly different proposals. Nobody but nobody is bothered about "useless" licenses which is the wording you've used twice. We'll only get folk arguing about whether they are "useless" or not. Their "uselessness" is not the issue. That a GNU software+documentation licence is being "abused" to restrict commercial re-use of images on Commons, is the issue.
                    • There are certainly comments about the problems with using GFDL. Do you need me to quote them? And since not knowing about {{Anchor}} seemed to be holding you back from renaming the section, I've done it for you. Rd232 (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      Let’s not have the “Why no NC?” debate here, please. (Though it may have its merits as a philosophical question, it is pointless here: NC will not be allowed on Wikimedia Commons, period. See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy). Jean-Fred (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Colin seems to both want to have it here (talk about it) and not have it (not actually say anything relevant). I was merely explaining my opposition to his proposal. Rd232 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I've seen the licensing policy once or twice before... :) but following up your prompt, the definition of "free content license" it relies on eventually leads to issues as described here. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
        • The discussion here is "given that NC licences are not allowed on commons, it follows that ....". The first part is an axiom on which Commons is founded. It isn't up for debate. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose using FP as a tool to change Commons policy. It's better to change the policy than to mess around with the objectives of FP, which are simply to highlight the best images Commons has to offer. I would support removing GFDL and similar software licenses as the sole licensing option for new uploads, if someone wants to start that discussion at COM:VPR or wherever. Rd232 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose so long as Commons allows the GFDL license. Change the general rules first. Should policy be changed, images uploaded before the policy change should be grandfathered in.Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Practically unfree due to cost prohibitive printing of the entire license is unfree in my book and should be disallowed on all of Wikimedia's projects. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can anyone give a good reason why a user would choose "GFDL 1.2 only" or "GFDL 1.2 only + NC" rather than picking, for example, CC-BY-SA or Free Art Licence (possibly in combination with GFDL since adding licences only increases reuse options). Because the assumption here is that this is done with the intention of approximating an NC licence. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Using the same argument, can you tell me a good reason why a user would choose to avoid PD when clearly this is the most free license --Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Three reasons come to mind. (1) We want our work to be acknowledged, identified, credited. (2) Mentioning Commons as the source, advertises the site as a repository of good free images. (3) It perpetuates the licence to derivative works, thus encouraging others to do likewise. I agree the first point a restriction on free reuse, but not an overly onerous one. It's a balance of competing interests and there's no one right position for everybody. I suspect few would contribute to one big anonymous PD Commons pot. I also accept that many folk want paid for their photographic or art work. I get paid for my day job. There's nothing wrong with that. But there are countless other sites that catalogue commercial images folk need to pay for. This one is solely for work that can be freely, easily, reused by commercial and non-commercial organisations -- by anybody.
        • Commons need not be mentioned as a source. CC requires the author be mentioned. Here's a situation where CC-BY-SA also prohibits commercial use. Imagine an advertiser wants to use the image on a brochure. The attribution requirement prohibits them from using the image. Both GFDL and CC-BY-SA prohibit commercial use, it is just the extent to which they do so. --Muhammad (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, Commons need not be mentioned, but users are free to choose the attribution form they like, and can therefore mention Commons if they wish. Yes you are right that all licences contain permits and restrictions to some degree, and for certain applications they may be unworkable. The clear issue with the GFDL is that it imposes a serious burden, when used with images or short texts, for no benefit. The attribution "burden" has a benefit. The share-alike "burden" has a benefit. But nobody benefits from forcing a newspaper, who wants to include a single image, to devote two pages to printing out the GFDL for their readers' edification. That is the key point: a burden with no benefit used simply because it is a burden. Colin (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • In contrast, the GFDL 1.2 requires that print re-users publish the entire GNU licence with a single image reused. That burdensome requirement benefits nobody except I suppose licence fetishists :-) That's why Commons adopted new licences but also why some users choose to impose that pointless burden -- simply because it is a burden. The users of CC-BY-SA don't require attribution simply because they want to make life as difficult as possible for commercial reusers. Just human requirement to be appreciated. Colin (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The license is still considered free enough for Commons, so should be free enough for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Muhammad. Spencer (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The licenses are allowed on Commons. FP features the selected best images here, not just the best images with a license that makes it as easy as possible to reuse them. By the way: I take a lot of pictures of artists. While thankfully many of them do accept CC BY-SA for the photos others do not because they do not want to see their images used in a commercial context without being asked or even knowing about it. They would allow me to use the pictures exclusively on Wikipedia or with a NC license though. Thanks to this discussion I might switch to GFDL1.2+CC BY-NC-SA. --Tsui (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    The copyright status of a picture of a person has no influence on the control said person has over its image for commercial purposes (at least in jurisdictions I know of). These are personality rights and are a different animal than copyright.It is not because Barack Obama’s official portrait is public domain that you can use it on cereal boxes. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems some senior editors and admins are happy with the GFDL license for media files in Commons. Then why should we bother? How will be it if everybody switch too GFDL 1.2 for their future works. No; I’ll not change my mind due to this. Instead I hope the Commons will survive without ending up as just another commercial (or semi-commercial whatever you call it) stock photo site. Hijackers will pass; Commons will survive. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a striking inconsistency between the lenient acceptation of modern nearly-NC works, and the ultra strict requirements for 100-year old works. Yann (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Colin and DCoetzee. Commons should actually disallow to cumbersome licenses for images completely.  B.p. 08:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment See this blog posting which puts the argument well, and dates from over seven years ago! I found the link from the GNU Free Documentation License Wikipedia page, which also notes its unsuitability for images and short texts. The clue is in the "Documentation Licence" part of GFDL :-) Colin (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support We should have higher qualifications for FP and this seems like a very reasonable one. James Heilman, MD (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I do understand that "GFDL 1.2 only" is used by some people as a loophole to get their pictures licensed. We shouldn't promote this behaviour, especially not in our main showcase. --Quartl (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. --Cayambe (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per DCoetzee. Re Rd232, I am also happy to have the overall upload policy discussion, but I think it's legitimate to have FP more restrictive than the site. 99of9 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Comment prompted by this discussion, please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Deprecating_software_licenses_for_images for applying similar logic to new Commons uploads. Rd232 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  •   Support Per Colin and DCoetzee --The Photographer (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Let's promote the ultimate goal ! The most honorable status for our pictures is CC0. Public Domain should be the highest ambition IMO. Two years ago, I've chosen "Commons" because of freedom.If I want another status for my images, then there are many other sites where I can upload them.--Jebulon (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But you are not very clever. Why not contribute pictures with a most restricted license here and add a link to your personal website or a site like [5]? Our ultimate goal should be making money.   -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I saw in a license “...For any other concerns, such as need for a higher resolution version of the image, or a commercial license, contact me through my talk page or e-mail me”. This means a higher resolution version is available. Is it against “We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible”? -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Let's leave image size and downsizing arguments for another day please :-). All images uploaded to Commons are donations. We should judge the uploaded image against our critieria and whether it is among the "finest" on Commons, not whether the uploader could have made a more generous donation. Colin (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Muhammad. --Leyo 19:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose FWIW. What I find rather troubling about this proposition is the idea that a tiny discussion on the talkpage of FPC can lead to a policy change which flies directly against the official polices of Wikimedia Commons. It seems that a few here are rather getting above themselves. One needs to keep in mind that this project is meant to be representative of the whole Commons project - to go out and ostracise images which comply with the official licensing guidelines of the project as a whole is presumptuous at best. The voters here need to remember they are acting as representatives of Commons as a whole and not as the Sovereign Province of FPC --Fir0002 www 03:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no proposed "policy change" here so this comment misunderstands the proposal. A bit like saying our criteria on image size or being in focus is a policy change. Clearly there is a substantial minority of contributors to this discussion who believe this sort of thing should only be set at policy level and FP should not impose higher/stricter/different standards. This project is very much not representative of the whole Commons project, it is meant to set a better example, to aspire to. Making ones images non-reusable is nothing to aspire to as far as Commons's mission is concerned. Colin (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Rd232. Having GFDL 1.2 as the only license is highly unpractical for image reuse, but the change should be done the other way around: Change policy such that new uploads using GFDL 1.2 as the only non-commercial license is not allowed. --Slaunger (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment FP concerns only a tiny fraction of the images submitted to Commons. It is a project which stands on its own with its own set of rules and guidelines. Changing a rule for the FPC process maybe the onset for a policy change, but does not basically changes the rules to which all Commons' images have to abide. It's comparing apples to oranges. The FP community can independently set rules and guidelines for FP: We don't change the rules for every other uploaded image neither, do we?  B.p. 06:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, FPC has its own rules, which today mainly focus on the qualities of the image and the image page. However, excluding a single license and adding to FPC rules that it is not allowed is for me letting the special rules for FPC slide into a new and unexpected domain for the stakeholders of FPC. It would complicate an already quite extensive rule set, and it seems illogical for me to single out a specific license. If we really wanted to go along that path it should rather describe the qualities we want for a license. For instance. "The image shall have a license, which makes it easy to reuse." ("easy" is a little vague, should be elaborated on). Duplicating a long license text in a printed media is for instance not "easy". Or a vaguer formulation like "Images which are easy to reuse are encouraged". That would allow the reviewer to consider an impractical license as part of the evaluation. Say, if Afghan Girl was suddenly made available as GFDL 1.2 only (or another impractical for printed media free license) in full resolution and nominated for FPC I would certainly support it, because it would be a scoop that it was now at least available under some sort of free commercial license (albeit cumbersome). --Slaunger (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Our choice of acceptable licences should not be influenced by a few hypothecial examples of spectacular scoops or the work of a few seasoned FP contributors who would rather donate as NC only. Commons is Commons and that means we don't host all sorts of wonderful images. There's the rest of the Internet for that. Or a book. On the other hand, there are many thousands of images being donated to Commons by organisations, and done so under a licence that permits reuse by anybody. When WMF ask such organisations to make their donations, they aren't offered the choice of NC and aren't told about this back-door approximation either. It is hypocritical of us (as a community) to encourage and welcome such generosity while at the same time celebrating at FP images that are deliberately licenced to be as unfree as possible. The real "scoops" are these megadonations of properly free images, not some imaginary idea that somebody might be perverse enough to release one of the worlds greatest images under a licence designed for software documentation. Colin (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It appears to me that we agree on the goal, but just not how to get there. Putting our efforts into changing the Commons licensing policy such that licenses which require a lengthy license text for reuse in a printed media are not allowed for new media uploads (GFDL 1.2 only is an example of such a license) is IMO a much more powerful path to go than making these little exceptions to the FPC guidelines. That would be an efficient close-down of the NC-like backdoor. many contributors of GFDL 1.2 only media do not care much about Commons FPC anyway. I think our resources are better used at improving the proposal at Commons:Village pump/Proposals then spending so much time on focusing on FPC-specific licensing restrictions here. --Slaunger (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
          • What this FP proposal has made clear is that many (a small majority) want nothing more to do with GFDL-only images and recognise the problems they impose on a "free for anybody" image repository. But also, many (a big minority) don't believe that FP should set different licensing standards from the core Commons rules. I'm disappointed that so many consider FP as only about the pixels on their screen and not on whether the image is "good for Commons" where the licence really does matter. So yes it seems like the next logical step is to discuss a change to policy. Rd232 made some poorly worded (IMO) proposals at the Village Pump and they haven't gone anywhere partly because Rd232 doesn't actually support the proposal but also because of their wording. I'm currently working on a draft proposal. Anyone who supports the principle of removing this reuse-obstacle is welcome to help me draft it. I don't want to rush into it. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
      • @Slaunger: I didn't know that the photographers who contribute their work with GFDL 1.2 are that much important people for Commons. Then we can think about a new rule. “Ordinary photographers (like Jkadavoor) should contribute their works with a useful license but great photographers who are the pillars of Commons can contribute with any poor license.” -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
        • How about: Any contributor is equally important, no matter which of the accepted licenses he or she uses - and images should be judged by their quality, not because the contributor chose one or another of this accepted licenses. --Tsui (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
        • @jkadavoor: Regarding your interpretation of my comment, that is not what I am trying to say. My point is that there are nuances to consider. If there is an outstanding and unique image, which cannot be redone and which for some reason cannot be licensed with a less cumbersome commercial license than GFDL 1.2 or similar, I do not see a reason to set up a hard rule. In my vote history on FPC I have on several occasions commented on GFDL 1.2 only licensed photos and stated that in my opinion the chosen license limited the useability and that it was a contributing factor on my vote. Mentioning the license as part of the reasons for a review is often considered controversial (here, here, here, here, here). Sometimes users even revenge vote support just to cancel a (perceived unfair) oppose. For me it is always a plus when an image has a license which makes reuse easy independent of the contributor. The right way to fix this is to fix the licensing policy. Once that is fixed it will automatically flow down to FPC, QIC, VIC, all Wikimedia projects and external uses. Much better to fix the root cause of the problem than treating the symptoms.--Slaunger (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I think that in 2012, the chance of someone who doesn't have 6 years of Wikipedia/Commons legacy-licence knowledge, deliberately choosing the GFDL for an "outstanding and unique image" is vanishingly small. This licence is an artefact of Wikipedia's history. An outsider would consider it as strange as buying a bus ticket to get on a plane. Colin (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
          • @Slaunger: Thanks for the detailed explanation; I’m a bit new here, so don’t know the history. My response was from the instant disappointment when I read your opposing comment because I didn’t expect it from people like you whom I always expect a fight to protect the spirit of Commons. I too think the right way is to fix the licensing policy, but banning those restrictive licenses from our future FP is an excellent start for achieving the more general goal (per Alvesgaspar ).I am glad to support any movement to make a permanent solution for entire Commons too. Sorry for the misunderstanding. (Agree with you on the point that mentioning the license as part of the reasons for a review is often considered controversial and result in conflicts unless there is no such rule. But the situation will change if there is such a rule.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As long it is allowed on Commons it should be allowed on FPC too. --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Although I agree with Slaunger and others that this problem has a much larger scope and should be delt with elsewhere, that shouldn't prevent us of applying the principle here. On the contrary, banning those restrictive licences from our future FP is an excellent start for achieving the more general goal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with the support votes above. Not that much harm will come from applying this rule. Furthermore, using a licence that does not translate that well to image has never been too good of an idea in the first place. Freedom to share (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per nominator and Dcoetzee. ("For older images, I am willing to believe the author was simply unaware that the terms they were imposing were onerous. Authors who release works today under the long-obsolete GFDL 1.2 are deliberately imposing onerous terms upon commercial content reusers in an attempt to strongarm them into a paid license. There is no other way of interpreting such a deliberate action. The fact that such works can still achieve reuse in some limited contexts does not change the intention behind the action. This would give some teeth to our discouragement of GFDL 1.2 and make a few uploaders think twice about doing an end-run on the commercial use requirement.") I'd also like to see GFDL 1.2 similarly deprecated on a project-wide basis, but that's a separate discussion. If FP is truly to present "some of the finest" images on Commons, that should include not just technical and value considerations, but ability to freely reuse without onerous requirements. At the very least, licensing such as this should be considered valid reason to oppose a nomination (but possibly weighed against other considerations). cmadler (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    I mean, this is not DR or AfD, where the weight of the arguments matter. You can literally oppose for almost anything you want, and the closer mechanically counts the votes and checks whether they satisfy certain numerical properties. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    My point is not that the closer would take it into account, but that if this proposal does not pass (preferred), at the least, FP voters should be free to oppose a nomination based on restrictive licensing, if they feel that the licensing restriction outweighs the merits of the image. cmadler (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cmadler above. Amada44  talk to me 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I never really understood the need of an encyclopedia to require donations to commercial enterprise but that is not what this oppose if about. I rather see FPC remain integrated within Commons instead of becoming some kind of bureaucratic maze of hoops and hurdles. I just like good pictures to be recognised. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
very, very true words! sadly the quintessence of the FPC seem to be displaced --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I’m a bit confused by some comments; so revisited the home pages. It says “Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, but you do not need to belong to one of those projects to use media hosted here”. The issue begins here. The GFDL may enough to use our media contents in various Wikimedia projects. But it is not enough for other third-party projects likes http://eol.org/ or http://lacewing.tamu.edu/. It is not enough for my personal uses too.
Then I visit Commons:Project_scope which says: “The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation”. “All” is important; “WMF usage” is secondary.
Then I visited Commons:Copyright_tags which says “Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-3.0 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily”. But it seems not many care the “please”. So my humble request is to be bolder and say “do”. That’s all, your honor! -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Tail piece: Commons:First_steps/Reuse says “Unlike traditional media repositories, Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely for any purpose including commercial ones as long as the source and the authors are credited and, in many cases, as long as you release your copies/improvements under the same freedom to others”. Is it true now?-- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support. The licences are free, but in effect they make pictures unsusable. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   CommentIt is quite tedious to see this debate spill over into FPC itself. All it does is spread the conflict and antagonism rampant here to a place not intended for such debates.131.137.245.208 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Time to get real about letting go of outdated licensing. Pictures already promoted should stay but future images need to do better as part of being exemplary works. Hekerui (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment One difficulty in GFDL is technical, the text should follow the image, commercial users do not hesitate to reject this text far elsewhere and we can often do the same, for example, display it in light gray fine print at the bottom of the page, or even around the entire periphery of the page. Also, do not confuse displaying pictures on wikis and offer the pictures to everyone. --Rical (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ich kann keinen Grund erkennen eine Lizenz zu verbieten, die jahrelang durch Wikipedia und Commons propagiert wurde. --ST ○ 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


GFDL 1.3 too?

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

User:Gnangarra recently closed the above discussion and implemented the change to to the FP guidelines and the general image guidelines wrt GFDL 1.2 licences for FP. At the time of the proposal, the "GFDL 1.2 only" licence was the one at issue as it was historicaly used to prevent automatic updating to 1.3 and thus the controverisal migration to CC BY-SA. I understand that migration from 1.3 to CC BY-SA has ended so any GFDL 1.3 licenced images will remain so. I'm not aware that GFDL 1.3 is significantly different to 1.2 other than in these migration issues. It is possible that we may get people changing their licence from "GFDL 1.2 only" to "GFDL 1.3" or some such in order to get round the criteria change.

It would be useful to discuss the 1.3 vs 1.2 issues, if there are any, and if they are deemed equivalent wrt the issues raised above, then I propose we simplify the criteria restriction to merely "GFDL". This is in keeping with the many Commons statements wrt "GFDL" -- they don't single out the 1.2 version.

At this point I don't see the need to widen the scope any further to include, for example, GPL or LGPL, which are licences for software and only make sense in terms of "source code", "object code" and "executables" (excepting derivative works of GPL software such as screenshots) I would take a very dim view of anyone trying to use a GPL licence, for example, to get round the criteria restriction, and hope that wouldn't need spelling out in the criteria. Colin (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW: I do plan to raise the issues with GFDL and other licences at Commons policy level. It needs careful thought and there are a number of strategies being considered for achieving such changes. Anyone interested in licence reform on Commons is welcome to contact me on my talk page. Colin (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I closed inaccordance with the discussion proposal but removing a specific version and referring to just GFDL & GFDL/NC is still within the intent of the discussion as the restriction of concern applies to all GFDL licenses. Gnangarra 10:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • By common sense, I think it can be extended to 1.3 even though there was not much discussion about it. Since the relicensing period has expired, there is simply no difference between them. GPL/LPGL are for another day, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it would be silly to allow GFDL 1.3 while forbidding 1.2, since the main reason for forbidding 1.2 applies equally to both. --Avenue (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Information

Latest comment: 11 years ago49 comments11 people in discussion

Just for complete information of all, please notice that here, one of our administrators wrote " (...) generally, FP makes assholes of everyone who goes there ". Of course, nothing will happen (another member of the admin brotherhood has immediately closed the discussion in order to make it to vanish quickly, with the funny comment: "Nothing more to say here"). For my part, I'm not very happy to be treated as a asshole just because I try to make the FP project alive. And I think there is maybe more to say, and maybe do. And you ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I still have the romantic idea that admins are 'the best of us' and should give the example of nice manners. For that reason, I asked politely mattbuck to retreat the gross comment. Naive of me!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree an admin should not use such language. But everyone is human and at times vents their feelings, sometimes with strong language. I disagree with the idea that a retraction is useless because to do so when requested at least acknowledges that one crossed a line that, if one is being measured and careful, should not have been crossed. On the other hand, who among us has not been an asshole at some point. I'm no angel. At least Alchemist has withdrawn his disruptive vote. Just like the IP who likes to pop into to FP from time to time to remind us all what assholes we are, mattbuck says more about himself when he makes such a remark than he does about his target. Colin (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously Matt spent time at FP to couch his words as he did, but I don't think he is that far off the mark. FP here on Commons and en:WP is toxic at times. Anyone that denies that is fooling themselves. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree. High emotions, vindictive voting and otherwise toxic behaviour have been running rife here lately. The responsibility is on everyone to keep the voting process separate from policy discussion and to generally avoid being an asshole. History has shown with both en:WP:FPC and com:FPC that failure to do so will result in participant exodus, which is not something we want. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
      • JJ, it is merely your opinion that what you call "policy" should not be mentioned in voting. Others think they are vital aspects of whether a picture is among our finest. The recent discussion makes it very clear that while lots of people share your view, lots (a little more even) don't. To partly echo you: "The responsibility is on everyone here to appreciate that other people have other values and to respect them". Alchemist was not voting with his values but was merely being disruptive to make a point: and the point was that he does not respect Yann's values. That is toxic. Colin (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sad that is merely my opinion that the criteria should be adhered to in voting. That makes the whole process sound like a kangaroo court. As far as that case goes, Alchemist's vote had as much validity as Yann's. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
          • No, JJ, it is sad when folk refused to accept that other folk have different interpretations of the criteria than they do. For example, Commons:Image guidelines (the full guidelines for FP and QI) say "Images must be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license." It doesn't say "any old free licence, including ones designed for software, for books or for databases". It says "suitable license". So let's follow the link to Commons:Copyright tags where it lists all sorts of licences including GFDL. There you find it says "Please note: The GFDL is rather impractical for images and short texts, because it requires the full text of the GFDL to be published along with the image. This is prohibitive for print media: in order to use a single image in a newspaper, a full page containing the GFDL would have to be printed. To resolve this, please dual-license your work under GFDL and an equivalent Creative Commons license like CC-by-sa-3.0 (see below). This helps to make your work usable not only freely, but also easily." It is inescapable, unless one is in denial, that the only reasonable conclusion is that Commons does not think GFDL is a "suitable licence" for images. Indeed Commons says so as often as GFDL is mentioned, including explicit Commons:Licensing/Justifications "Wikimedia Commons also strongly disfavors content offered under licenses that impose impractical restrictions. For example, the GFDL..." So IMO you are completely wrong in thinking that being under a suitable licence is not a valid reason to oppose at FP. I suggest it is your opinions wrt wishing Commons did allow pro and semi-pro photographers to donate under NC licences that are influencing your wish that FP criteria didn't mention "suitable licence" but it does. Since Alchemists's vote didn't square with his own upload policy, to take it literally would make him a hypocrite, but of course he didn't mean it -- it was simply disruptive. Whereas Yann's vote squares with his interpretation of the criteria, and is one shared by the majority of the folk in the above discussion. Colin (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
            • That page is a list of suitable liscences. If GFDL wasn't a suitable liscence, as the term would be defined, it wouldn't be there. That is different from preferable liscence, or some other undefined term open to interpretation. That is why the debate above to exclude the GFDL is being had. I'm uninterested in childish straw man arguments based on making up my current 'opinions' (sic) of NC liscences. All votes that have nothing to do with the criteria are distruptive, not just when you agree with them. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
              • But the suitability of the licence is part of the criteria. *sigh* You may feel that inclusion on that page (which by the way lists non-free licences too) is sufficient to meet your "suitability" requirements. Fine that's your opinion. But I'm tired of this debate which is truly stale and was lost years ago: GFDL is unsuitable and its days are numbered. I'd much rather folk came clean and said "You know what, it is a bugger of a licence for reusers, and yes that's exactly why some folk pick it, and I'm happy to turn a blind eye to that because they upload good pictures that Wikipedia can use, which is all I care about really". Colin (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
                • Or to put it like Woody Allen did: "A guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs." That's why we (currently) accept the GFDL licence. It is crazy but the eggs are nice. Colin (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Mattbuck's choice of words may be a bit rude and too generalizing, but IMHO he really has a point. Discussions about the different qualities of a photo (or whatever piece of art) use to be heated in a lot of forums. A lot of people will get emotional if their favourite work of art is questioned, and sometimes it escalates into flame wars. It happens on a lot of different occations in our societies, so FPC is no exception from that. We just have to try to ignore the heated arguments, and try to get along nicely. / Achird (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know what is FP in ENWP but OK, dear learned commentators: so, if I understand well, anybody here can say that everyone is an asshole ? Be sure I'll remember in some occasions, but it's a bit pathetic...--Jebulon (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No, Jebulon. If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period. Like Alvesgaspar I agree they should be held to higher standards and if when they fail to keep them they also fail to realise that then there is absolutely no point in them being admins. Those are they guys who dish out blocks when other go too far. If you want to take this further with mattbuck, then I'll be happy to support you. The problem with discussing his behaviour here is that it gets mixed up in our own introspections. Colin (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the continuous electricity problems in our place due to the heavy rain and ear blowing thunderbolts. Yes; our place is blessed with northeastern monsoon nowadays. In my little knowledge, asshole is also an important organ as any other. I heard from my uncle (he is pediatric surgeon) that some children born without an anus and he has to create an artificial one within hours to save its life. I’m happy that I born with one. Please don’t neglect the wonderful blessings that God gifted on you. I wish you all; especially the FP participants have fully functioning assholes in their entire life!   -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm entirely with Colin: If mattbuck doesn't accept that he's gone too far with his language then he shouldn't be an admin. Period. Sorry,Saffron Blaze, JJ Harrison and Achird, you are missing the point and trying to "hide the sun behind a sive" (a Portuguese saying...). Of course, most of us behaved in some occasions like assholes (I did, at least), but the generalization that everyone coming here is contaminated by some kind of "asshole virus" is gross, unfair (for the people and the forum) and totally inappropriate from an administrator. Some defend that an admin is just a regular user with access to extra tools. I don't. When you have the power to sanction the behavior of others, you have to watch closely your own. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm entirely with Colon and Jee. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Since I'm not sure if mattbuck is actually aware of this discussion, I'm going to leave a message, seems to me that it's not a very nice way to judge in absence... - A.Savin 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement Alvesgaspar and several, including on the fact that some of us we have behaved like assholes. Admins, however, must be above such behaviour. An apology is in order. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Dear assholes community, as an anonymous asshole, I'm sure I've had be blocked if I have written such a word to qualify another user. What could happen if an Admin qualify many users with this word ? I'm afraid an apology is not enough. De-admin, for sure. Indefinite or at least significantly long block ? Why not ? Assholes of all countries, Unite ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC), indignado asshole.
      • Perhaps I've got rather rude in the years of my activity in three WM projects, but... let you know, someone who left the German WP for good because a former arbcom member assumed him a psychical disease with a current arbcom member applausing that statement and several admins turning a blind eye, will hardly notice sth. like "asshole", although maybe an average Commons user is (which is good of course) far more sensitive for that chose of words, than someone who worked hard in a Wikipedia where productive authors are being mobbed everyday and every hour. Nevertheless, understanding your frustration due to being called an "asshole", I find the requirements for a de-admin or even a long block rather exaggerated and unnecessarily escalating. - A.Savin 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I understand well: the level of acceptable insults depends on the level of participating in the project ? How high do you estimate my participating level ? Escalating ? No, in any case. I just ask a question about a block (but indeed, I think a de-admin is a minimum). Again, I know very well what will happen to my own WM account if, someday, I insult somebody here as "asshole"...Anyway, no matter. --Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Of course not, sorry for misunderstanding - I rather meant where is the tolerance limit for me personally, given, however, that I was active in a much more misanthropic WM project than Commons is and hopefully will ever be... But my English is far from being fluent (probably the some better knowledge of German is my curse). - A.Savin 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not regret the sentiment I expressed, however I will apologise to those who were offended. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
As you understand maybe, I was.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
@ mattbuck, very well, then, I was deeply offended... when will I get my apology? You said you would apologize to those offended... The grammar you use denotes a future, personal event... When will that start? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Did it already happen? I mean - do you feel offended, right now? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, my work costs me time, money and other resources... I upload to share the product of my work free of charge, for the benefit of many, not expecting compensation for it, but to be called an asshole for that? If that is the compensation I receive for sharing my work, yes, coming from an admin it is an insult. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm still wondering why you think that he meant you. To put it in my own words: He said that FP is a place that produces assholes and i think that he absolutely right in this regard. How often do we see otherwise friendly, generous contributers fight over minor details, getting revenge eye for an eye (vote for a vote) and so on. But don't worry. This phenomenon is not only FP related. You find it at any place in which contributors and voters/judges are the same persons. So i can fully understand that Mattbuck is annoyed by the constant noticeboard flames, just because a flower is not red enough, someone dislikes a topic or disliked someone else (and of course his works) to begin with. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 16:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Don´t get me wrong... I did not lose a second of sleep over the issue. But the point is not that if I take the insult personally. That some of us are assholes is not the point. The issue is that an administrator makes a value judgement like that on a community of contributors. And the point is that an administrator must exercise extreme caution in his behaviour as guardian of the system. Would you like a policeman enforce drunk driving laws while drunk? Hardly. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
At the same time i would not expect policeman to speak good about a city district in which he is permanently send to prevent people from cutting each others throats, getting beaten from all sides in the progress. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think your comparisons are in danger of making the same over-exaggerated mistake as Mattbuck. How often does FP trouble the Admin noticeboard? A handful of times a year, perhaps? Given that basically on Commons people rarely interact (unlike Wikipedia which is much more of a collaborative exercise) it is hardly surprising that on forums where they do interact and make judgements then sometimes tempers flare. If you think Commons FP is bad, try Wikipedia FA! To return to your policeman analogy, he would be most unwise to draw conclusions about every single resident of that district from the behaviour of a tiny number of individuals that his job will naturally lead him to encounter. Colin (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried two times and never came back. Too much moral, to less common sense... You are right that my example is a bit exaggerated, but it would be also unwise that everybody (for example "Tomascastelazo") living inside this district has to assume that he is an "asshole", just because a policeman said that there are some assholes growing up at at the same place. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No "some" are assholes, but "everyone". It makes a difference, because it includes Niabot too... Asshole one day, asshole for ever  --Jebulon (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
"Today I am a diva"... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure response

Latest comment: 11 years ago118 comments20 people in discussion

GFDL is prohibited? Ok, i dont nominate any more. --Ralf Roleček 11:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • As evidence of the incompetent closing of the discussion, the oppose votes were not even counted properly, which makes me believe that the closer considered their view point weightier than the sum of the opposes --Muhammad (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The real count is: support 32, oppose 20 (not 19 as stated in the statement for the closure). That - 52 votes overall and a majority of not even 1/3 - is enough to change a quite fundamental policy here? --Tsui (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

“ consensus isnt defined as 2/3rds nor is it the majority opinion, for the record 19 opposing votes out of 51 votes is only 37% which is within the descretionary range for rfa. Weight of arguments presented based on policy is also part of deciding consensus. I considered policy there is no specific policy that preculeds projects determining their own requirements, so then I considered accepted practice(policy by default). The long term accepted practice is that projects like FP, QI can make restrictions greater than that of the overall community participation requirements, FP already restricts who can vote, QI already restricts source, they both set minimum size limits. I also considered what FP is, FP is the means to identify "our best work" the proposal put forth the argument that our best work should also inculde best practice when it comes to licensing. The support argument was that GFDL is being deliberately misused to restrict reuse(not freely available), compared to the oppose arguments of acceptable license but that never addressed the issue of misuse. What I'm expressing is a carefully considered outcome based on the agruments put forth and that is our best work(FP) can and should excluded works where the deliberate misuse of licensing makes an image not freely available. Gnangarra 02:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC) ”

—Gnangarra

  • According to the self appointed closer, consensus is not 2/3 majority nor is the majority opinion. From his argument, it seems his view/understanding has a higher standing on the outcome of the discussion than ours. It seems really stupid to me that we require 2/3 majority for an image to pass at FPC, meaning we have higher requirements for images than policies that guide those images. This decision was a wrong one and I suggest a return to the original criteria --Muhammad (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is way over the top to call the closure "incompetent". As an opposer to the proposal I fully endorse and agree with the closure and conclusion, although it is not what I wanted. That we have a 2/3 support requirement for promoting an image has absolutely no relation to the majority required for a change to the FPC guidelines. There is a long-standing tradition for using simple majority for changes to the FPC guideline, just scroll through the history pages and you will see. There was a borderline case some time ago where the was 10/9 in support for reverting a recent change. Some editors argued the +1 vote on the supporting side awas sufficient, whereas others argued that due to the uncertainty in the counting statistics, the majority was really not sufficient for it to be considered a consensus. Here, the majority vote is clearly beyond statistical noise, even if there has been a slight error in the calculation of the number of votes on each side. --Slaunger (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Add to that that several opposers (myself included) agree that GFDL only licensing has to go in FPC eventually, we just think it should follow from a change to the licensing policy, whereafter it would ripple down to FPC. That is, what we propose is much more dramatic than this isolated change to the FPC guidelines. So the opposition is on the path to go there, not on the goal. I would say that was to do with the weight of the argument referred to by the closer. --Slaunger (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • As another opposer of the proposal, despite wanting a different outcome, and having some concerns over how the closure rationale was expressed, I think the closure decision is a fair outcome given the weight of opinion and argument expressed during the discussion. The minor vote counting error shouldn't be blown out of proportion. --Avenue (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A fair outcome and a good decison. I can't see why we should be obliged to a 2/3 majority of votes here. We are not even modifying Commons' policies, only interpreting them for the purpose of FPC, in the light of the project's main goal. Yes, it should be obvious to all that those licensens are not applicable to images, but that is another battle that will be gained in due time. @Muhammad: why is it stupid to have non-technical higher standards for featured pictures? No offense intended, please don't let yourself be blinded by personal interest.. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Again you display a lack of understanding of the basic concepts that are being discussed here. We are talking about licences not quality or even resolution. Why is it stupid, you ask? I could pass a change to the rules (since it doesn't require 2/3 majority) more easily, thus gaming the system becomes easy. --Muhammad (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      You are not answering Alvesgaspar’s question. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Stepping ahead

  • Now that the FPC rules will be probably adjusted to reflect the new consensus, what should we do regarding the present FP with wrong licenses? 1. Nothing; 2. Modify the licenses; 3. Delist. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing. We cannot modify the licenses: they're not our pictures to modify. The owners of the pictures are welcome to add appropriate licences if they wish. I don't think we should delist. Those pictures were uploaded, nominated and reviewed in good faith and understanding of the rules at the time. Colin (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Modify the licenses? Are you serious? --Tsui (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please give me the benefict of the doubt: the question I have raised above is not as stupid as it may appear. Most regulars know that I've always been (and stil am) against nominating pictures for delisting. However, my ideas never prevailed because the majority considers that the FP galleries should to dynamic and comply to the present guidelines. Let me now ask a candid question: in the future, what will prevent a user from nominationg a FP for deletion on the basis of a wrong license? The situation will be even more complicated if the requirement for a suitable license is mandatory, rather than just a guideline (as "rules are now"). Yes, Tsui, I'm serious. Either we are able to persuade the authors to change the licenses of their FP or there will a serious risk of delisting them. Please consider the following form for the options above: 1. Nothing and pray (that many FPs are not nominated for deslisting); 2. Modify the license or die (delist); 3. Delist. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing. No rule can be in use for the time it was not yet a rule (sorry, it is a technical matter, and I don't know the relevant words in english). In french we say "Non-rétroactivité des lois". By the way, it is so important that it is a constitutional rule. The correct license(s) for a FP is/are the license(s) which was/were correct when the picture was elected as FP. My two maravedi.--Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing. I'd say Forget the past, look for the future. Obviously I'd welcome people changing the license of their pictures, and replacing GFDL by CC-BY-SA, I don't think we can force them to do that. And I would not delist any picture because of the license. Yann (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yann. Not a fan of "delist"; only support when a better image exists. So chances that I support a "delist" request if an almost similar quality image exists with a better license. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing. Adding/changing licenses shall be voluntary and done by the creator. When the 2 Mpixel rule was added, there was not a mass delisting of all photos below, and likewise, there should not be a mass delisting of current GFDL only FPs, as they have been nominated in good faith. But I think that with the new rule, the chosen license can be a contributing factor in evaluating a delist candidate as it now an element in what is perceived as our best works. --Slaunger (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Today is the GFDL x.y license a not good enough license, tomorrow the FAL, then the CC-BY-CA-xx, ... in the future only PD are allowed. Bye, bye Commons, tschüß, ciao, au revoir, до свидания, adeus, وداعا, 细则, ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S: for books is the "GFDL 1.2 only" license a very good license. Must be all our images free for all??? The most of all images are used in our Wikipedia projects. I think the main of commons it to be the central library for it. The images under the GFDL 1.2 only license are everything suitable for this project!
Commons is not only for the Wikipedia projects; and most Wikipedias have their own FPC to appreciate the use in them. I'm happy to support anyone with a GFDL only license there as far as the rule permits. (Commons encourages CC=BY-SA than CC0 because it ensures all derivative works also have the same license.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Slippery slope. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: yes I know it, but we havn't an image library only for our Wikipedia projects.
@Jean-Fred: :-) correct, but still a "good" argument ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Alchemist-hp: Slippery slope indeed. Nothing justifies your catastrophic vision, as Commons (like most complex organizations) doesn't have a culture of hasty or revolutionary decisions. The way the present subject was discussed is a good example of the care we take with our policies. I very much doubt that most of Commons images, especially the FP, are used exclusively in Wikimedia. Many of mine were published all over the world in books, journals and the internet, and the same certainly happens with the other authors. Finally, can you give me a single example of a book using "GFDL 1.2 only" licenses (and the necessary page long documentation). I don't say they don't exist but they should be quite rare! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I know a lot of books/newspapers/websites and others without any name and license attribution for my images. Good for me and my lawyer! The discussion about which license is absolete. The most users of "my" and other images think: the images are PD. Our license templates are worthless. Please create new tamplates with more and exact infos and more international languages. That will be more important than out license discussion here!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S: two image uses: the first and the second.
    Yes, freely licensed pictures are misused every day. Big news. So are not-freely licensed pictures. What does your point prove then?
    Your point actually backfires: if you believe license terms are ignored anyway, why publishing under even more cumbersome license terms? The 'evil' reusers will keep ignoring them, and you only make things hellish for the 'good' reusers.
    Jean-Fred (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Your point actually backfires:" not really. A lot of users are fair, ask me and like to buy my images. And my main intention is: our wikipedia projects for all the people on this world! The most of the people on this world don't need to use this in books and other commercial usings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. and sorry for my bad english.
  • I understand your point (that your intention is to allow free use only within Wikimedia); but unfortunately there is a conflict with the policy of Commons (that "Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely for any purpose including commercial ones as long as the source and the authors are credited and, in many cases, as long as you release your copies/improvements under the same freedom to others."). I don't know Wikimedia has any plan to encourage contributions for "Wikimedia only use" because lot of organisations are funding (?) Wikimedia due to its "for everyone" policy. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Jkadavoor: I know the "policy of Commons" too. I'm not stupid ;-) In my opinion it is simple a false policy of commons for me. I donate my "good licensed" images prudently. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the heart of problem. We all know the mission of Commons, but some wish it were different. This talk page isn't really the place to change or lament that fact. Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There once was a time because they always said: The Wikipedias and its contents are under the GFDL, and will it always be. Today, it is CC-BY-SA, tomorrow PD? No thanks, without me! GFDL forever, for all time - so much promise to the license that you could read for years. And in two years, think of someone that only PD is free and everything is again re-licensed? No! The subsequent adjustment of a license is also not permitted in Europe. GFDL is prohibited at FPC? Good, i`m here one photographer less. Maybe it's better in the future, only upload GFDL license, no more double with FAL. --Ralf Roleček 14:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The issues of controversial licence migration (in the past) and folk stealing copyright work has really nothing do to with selecting a suitable licence in keeping with The Definition of Free Cultural Works wrt images. Grievances with those two issues are understandable but just distractions from the matters here. Do you think your threat to use only GFDL will make us change our mind and see the error of our ways? What a petty and mean-spirited response. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I’m with Colin. It is regrettable that the license migration was negatively perceived by some users (though I would point out that the argument is yet again a slippery slope, since nothing in the migration to CC-BY-SA hints to a hypothetical one to PD) − but it has little to no relevance to the problem at hand here: FP is designed to highlight Commons best work, and the Commons community has herby decided that media under an unsuitable license are not our best work. And I do not see either what you aim to accomplish by threatening to only pusblish under GFDL. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This issue was inevitably going to be divisive, especially given the license migration history (whether that is strictly relevant or not). Some of us will naturally feel hurt, and I see no real harm in letting people vent their feelings at this stage. Maybe we can learn something from it. However, calling them "petty and mean-spirited" does not seem at all helpful to me. Pointing out relevant facts (e.g. that noone has suggested migrating CC-BY-SA licensed works to PD) is different, as is asking for clarification. Ralf, what do you think is wrong with dual licensing with GFDL and FAL? --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Avenue here. People have always the right to express their opinions and feelings; there is no need to consider them as a threat. Instead I prefer to discuss why they think so. Please note my discussion with Alchemist above. It seems he (and may be many people here) don't like Commons policy to allow commercial use. But I don't think GFDL or FAL can help them. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've retracted that remark. Though Avenue may find his offer to "point out the relevant facts" may be regarded as equally as unhelpful (witness this and this response). Nobody here is stupid. There are language issues however. Perhaps someone should have a word with Ralf in his own language. Colin (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
My Photos are used commercial and thats good so. Some of the reusage you can see here. I haven't a problem with commercial usage. I would like to keep control of my photos and not know that at some point someone simply changed my license. Thats all. I can be more confident that the license remains exist with GFDL. At CC-BY-SA i'm no secure. --Ralf Roleček 07:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Ralf about my heated comment. You use the Free Art Licence, not CC. Nothing needs to change wrt your licence usage. Colin (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ralf for clarifying your position, it is helpful and appreciated. Though I may not agree, I understand why you are upset with the license migration, and I guess that made you dislike Creative Commons. (Though I don’t really see here a reason to hail the GFDL: in my opinion, it is more thanks to the GFDL makers (ie the FSF) than to CC that the migration was made possible). Anyway, whatever the reason may be why you publish under the Free Art License − because you dislike the Creative Commons, or because it aligns more with your beliefs − then by all means continue to do so: the FAL does align with Commons aims, and we should be thankful users have a choice in licensing if they need it. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As time passes and my Commons images are used more and more outside Wikimedia I find that in a majority of instances the licenses are not respected. Moreover when they are used commercially they are often used by non-educational businesses that could easily pay to license them. The issue of persuing these license violations is left to the contributor. CC_BY_SA is thus rendered PD for all intents and purposes. The notion of "free cultural works" is an ideal that is not very pragmatic at least from the perspective of a contributor who wants to retain some control/copyright of his/her images. Saffron Blaze (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand. You wish to get paid if any of your work is used for a non-educational and commercial purpose? But it is against Wikimedia’s policies. The only way for them to pay is to make a donation to Wikimedia which is not a must. (I too wish that my images are used more and more even outside Wikimedia as time passes and even after my death; people do not have any difficulty to use them without my consent because I'm no more in the other end to respond.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha, ha ... rarely laughed so much. And whitch the donations are used for? The Commons and other Wikimedia employee teams. We have the work, we spend money for our camera equipment and "lost" a very much of time. ... I know: "nobody is forcing me" to donate images. But it will be more fair to have better license conditions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this is out of the scope of FP, but : this is not true. Donations are used to support the Wikimedia movement and free knowledge − that does include the Wikimedia Foundation employees, but certainly not only. Donations are used to directly support contributors, for example, speakingonly for what is done in France, where I am involved: media accreditations, special access for photographers, purchasing equipment lent to contributors, sharing of public domain collections of cultural institutions… To come back on topic, this has helped the creation of content featured around here. So, yeah donations, are used for contributors (and not only in France, of course − I can think of projects led at least in Australia, Switzerland & Poland), and we welcome any project suggestions. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC) (sorry for the off-topic)
@Alchemist: Not any Wikipedia editors are getting remuneration for their contributions there. Then what is our special right for that? I learned a lot from Wikimedia without any expense from my side; but I know I’m benefited from many like you. See this. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm with Jkadavoor and others. Most of what I know about digital photography I have learned it here, through hard work and the assessment of others, some of them highly talented photographers. Also, my work as a creator and a reviewer is known and respected mainly due to this association with Commons. That is a more than fair deal to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I could not say better. I 100% agree with Alvesgaspar here, it is the same for me, even if I'm not so old (in "Commons" !) as he is ! All what I've learned was learned here. All what I learn IS learn here (including today).--Jebulon (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I too have learned from my participation on Wikimedia. I became better at editing but I also fell into the trap of being an archivist as opposed to an artist. I also learned I cared less about an organistation that forces me to participate freely while allowing others to benefit commercially from that participation. Add in dealing with people who spend more time driving their own agendas than fostering a community and you result in people like me pulling back from full participation. This all aside, I do wonder why people that despite all these issues still say they value the experience over any concern for attribution or renumeration do not upload their images as PD. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Jdadavoor, earlier you said "Commons encourages CC=BY-SA than CC0 because it ensures all derivative works also have the same license." This is the dilemma. Your CC0 allows someone to artistically tweak your photograph and slap an NC licence on that or even no CC licence at all. The question is whether that bothers you. It is perfectly reasonable to say, no it doesn't bother me. It bothers some, though. Similarly, many folk would appreciate some attribution, especially since they aren't being paid. What if folk ignore the licence and don't attribute? That's sad but I think it also reasonable to say "I'm not going to let that bother me". And finally, there's the "Big Corp who could damn well afford to pay me" using the picture. Are they exploiting our generosity or just making money that keeps the world turning? The smartphone in your pocket is only possible because (a) lots of programmers gave their code away for free and (b) some companies can make money selling it to you. One could consider that worrying about folk making money when you aren't is a form of jealousy. Not good for the soul. There's a 101 ways of viewing the issues. Wouldn't it be boring if we all thought alike. -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No; it is not bothering me because I’m not a part of any free culture movement. But I think it bothers some free culture movement activists and so they made a share-alike license. Both are good as Dschwen stated below. An SA license ensures more free contributions but reduces the scope of re-usability because it discourages people who are not willing to share-alike their additional contributions like some minor edits. I don’t think there is a need to worry about what other people do with my contributions including some money if they earn (they are not stealing from me; they earn from others) as far as it will not harm my existing work or its license. So I like both PD and SA; no preference for one over other. (in my humble knowledge) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone in this (or a related) discussion said something along the lines of PD and CC0 being the most noble license as it is completely free of restrictions (I don't remember if it was you, Jkadavoor). I disagree with this statement as far as nobility goes. The license is a valuable tool to foster and raise awareness for free content. Thus the SA clause has its merit. We can argue about BY clause, but even it can be a useful tool if you for example include a mention of Wikimedia Commons in your attribution (I just realized I screwed up my own attribution... need to run a bot!). --Dschwen (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody forces you to participate at all. If you do not get any enjoyment from contributing to this (noble, as I see it) cause, then you may have to rethink your participation here. I mean this in the most honest and friendly way. I believe that contributing here should be pleasant and fun. --Dschwen (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What you describe, people ignoring license termes, is regrettable (though unfortunately not new), but I am not convinced that this is a failure of free cultural works: are freely licensed media more misused than fully or openly-but-not-freely copyrighted ones? I have no data nor arguments to back up this, but I don’t believe so. And if they are, it may just be because of their better exposure as being used for example in Wikipedia.
Too many people are just ignorant of what copyright is. As time passes, I strongly believe people will become more and more aware of what they can and cannot do with works in general, and freely licensed ones in particular. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree on both assertions. Wikimedia does make it easy for people to get access to images as they are uploaded without watermarks and offered at high resolutions for download. So on this basis, yes, violations are more common with good works offered on Wikimedia. On the second point, Wikimedia requires contributors to participate "freely" yet allows anyone else to benefit from that participation in the way of commercial re-use. Since Wikimedia does not enforce the licenses they require of the author, the author is left to deal with violations. This presents a real challenge since any renumeration would unlikely be sufficient to offset the cost of pusuing the issue. Without enforcement the issue is growing because people are becoming aware that there is no consequence to copyright violations here on Wikimedia. However if the author had submitted those same images to an agent then the agent would pursue copyright violations. For those that donate images on Wikimedia, and use an agent, will find their images cannot be sold under a Rights Managed basis and can only be offered as Royalty Free. In effect the very act of donating an image to wikimedia reduces its value to the author. The irony being that while others can fully benefit commercially by the image uploaded to wikimedia the actual author pays a real commercial penalty.Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
You do have a point on pursuing copyright violations. This is left up to the contributor − rightly so, but it is a shame they can scarcely be helped with that.
As for the rest: allowing commercial reuse is part of the "freely" definition. If you disagree with that, then I am afraid maybe Wikimedia Commons is not the best place for you to share your images.
And as for «  the very act of donating an image to wikimedia reduces its value to the author », I am confident most contributors to Wikimedia Commons will disagree with you. Jean-Fred (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
My assertion about the lost monetary value of an image uploaded to the Commons wasn't an opinion but rather evidence based fact. That many people value things beyond just money is rather self-evident (See Alvesgaspar's post). Let's not confuse the two issues. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
“My assertion about the lost monetary value of an image uploaded to the Commons wasn't an opinion but rather evidence based fact." Yes; it is true and everybody know that. Any uploads other than with a “copyright; all rights reserved” will decrease the monetary value of our work (including my CC BY-NC-SA uploads in Flickr); but it is our decision and nobody compel us to do so (as stated by Alchemist earlier). I don’t think Wikimedia will ever allow CC BY-NC-SA because it is against the definition. You may initiate a discussion about it in proper places; we can’t do it here, I afraid. (Here above we fixed a hole in our existing policy only.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The logic brought forward by proponents of more restrictive licenses is always the same and always flawed: "Bad people are ignoring the license that allows honest people to use the content legitimately, so let's make it hard for honest people to use the content legitimately". Meanwhile bad people will just continue to not care about licensing terms. This just punishes the legitimate users that we actually want to use our images, and it helps exactly nobody. --Dschwen (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This. Also: If people really want to sell their images so badly, why do they upload it here? I mean Flickr is just as good and you can upload them without a free license. heck, you can even use getty to sell the images. And if you need to finance all the expensive equipment then please just do that. And its not that wikimedia does nothing for you, an image in an wikipedia article has a fantastic google ranking. And no, we are not going to loose every good photographer on commons now because there are also lots of good photographers who just enjoy to contribute to this project and the cause behind it without hoping to make as much money as possible from it. Amada44  talk to me 19:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't especially want or expect to make money from my photos, any more than from my editing of Wikipedia. But I do feel that something is badly wrong when Encyclopaedia Britannica (for instance) can use images uploaded here under a supposedly copyleft license to illustrate their articles, without having to release their article text under a similarly free license in return. To me, that seems to violate the spirit of copyleft. So I think we should have more restrictive copyleft licenses than CC-BY-SA, GFDL, and FAL. --Avenue (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Our works are used by several other Encyclopedias, blogs and even some funny (including commercial) screen saver manufactures. Is it bothering me? It remind me the story of Jean Valjean. “During the night, he awakens and steals the bishop's silverware and silver plates, and runs off. He is arrested and brought back to the bishop. However, the Bishop admonishes Valjean (in front of the police) for forgetting to also take the silver candlesticks that he'd given Valjean, reminding Valjean of his "promise" to use the silver to become an honest man, claiming to have bought Valjean's soul with it, withdrawing it from evil and giving it to God.” Use anywhere; and I’m happy if it makes them good. (BTW, the usage of our free images may help them to reduce the price of their products.) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Avenue, what you are advocating would be termed "strong copyleft" according to Freedom Defined Licenses. It is an option for a well-defined organism like a software program, but for images and writing? I think there is a reason there are no strong copyleft licences for images or text. When does one draw the line? You want the Britannica article text to be copyleft too. What about the other pictures in the article? (If not also them, then why treat the other pictures different to the other text). How far does your viral licence go: the article, the chapter, the book? People look at the success of Wikipedia and think perhaps why can't Britannica go that model. In fact several people tried to create educational resources written by professionals to professional standards but with a free licence. They've all failed. And Wikipedia is hugely reliant on traditional publishing to meet its Verifiability policy. I think freedom involves letting other people make different choices from oneself. I choose to donate my images for free, some charge for them and control their usage. I think the world is better off when the two mix rather than conflict. Strong copyleft, which forces the reuser to adopt the exactly same licencing terms as you for their original work too, is in some ways just as restrictive and unfree as strong copyright. And since different copyleft licences don't mix, they can be problematic even for advocates of free cultural works. Colin (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The software community has two types of copyleft: strong (GPL) and weak (LGPL). Both require straight derivative works to be copylefted, but GPL requires copyleft even for linking. So CC-BY-SA would be considered "weak" copyleft in this sense, and what you're proposing is "strong." Look what Stallman has to say here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html. Basically, if something is easily replaceable, commercial users will reject strong copyleft but may accept weak copyleft. Unfortunately, the free content community is admittedly not as strong as the free software community. After all, commercial users will often use fully copyrighted photos for a fee, even though we're providing them for free. However, it's difficult to avoid free software entirely. Hollywood? 95% Linux. Not to mention, anyone who is using the Internet, is using free software in one way or another.
As a result I think a "weak" copyleft is most suitable to our purposes. It is not so permissive as PD (which is good in that it allows freer usage, but bad in that anyone can "lock up" a derivative work), and not as restrictive as "strong" copyleft (which is good in that it forces, say, a book that uses a single photo to be copyleft, but bad in that the publisher will simply refuse to use the image and deny us well-needed publicity). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing against people making an informed choice to release their images under weak copyleft, but I do feel Commons users should have the option of a stronger copyleft license as well. The immediate problem is that such a license has not yet been written for images, writing and similar works, as far as I'm aware. I'd agree with Colin that combinations of works under different licenses could be problematic, particularly if one wants to apply strict strong copyleft to all components of such mixtures, although I think a more flexible approach could be promising. In my Britannica example, for instance, I should probably have said "at least as free" instead of "similarly free". Issues of copyleft scope don't seem so different to me from the software situation. Simple aggregation shouldn't trigger copyleft clauses, but publications that build upon incorporated copyleft material should.
King of Hearts, I'd see the dominance of GPLed software in some areas as evidence that strong copyleft works there. It certainly wasn't always so prevalent. Stallman's essay is titled "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library" [emphasis added], and primarily argues that strong copyright should be used for more libraries, so I think it's a stretch to say it supports limiting ourselves to weak copyleft for all images. Not all our images are so easily replaceable. Jkadavoor, if by the Valjean quote you are arguing that releasing our images into the public domain will lead publishers of non-free works to see the light and reform their wicked ways, I have to admit to a less rosy view. --Avenue (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your "simple aggregation" vs "build upon incorporated copyleft material". There's also the "derivative works" aspect. My understanding is that a photo included in a book as an illustration merely contains the work and doesn't build upon it. A photo used as the cover art, desaturated and fading out towards the book title would count as a derivative work. If Britannica used a strong copyleft image in one of their articles, what else would they need to release under that licence in your view? I know you meant the "wicked ways" as an expression but do you regard publishing copyright material as "wicked"?
Wrt strong copyleft images the real problem is that Wikipedia couldn't possibly use them. The share-alike requirement would force Wikipedia articles to be strong copyleft. But since Wikipedia is already normal/weak copyleft, it cannot ever change to a strong copyleft as that would not be sharing alike. This is the difficulty with copyleft -- you are stuck with your original choices unless the original author chooses to add another licence option (and in the case of multi-author works, that is essentially impossible). It is also this reason why Wikipedia cannot now become NC even if it wanted to. Also, since copyleft licences don't mix well, the last thing Commons needs IMO is another variant. Colin (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this is getting too tangential. I brought strong copyleft up mainly as a counterexample to Dschwen's comment a couple of posts earlier, that: 'The logic brought forward by proponents of more restrictive licenses is always the same [...].' I also haven't thought through all the details. I'll try to respond to your points, but if you want to discuss it further, I suggest we take this to a better forum, e.g. Commons talk:Licensing.
By "build upon", I mean something wider than the CC people seem to. In my view, a Wikipedia article builds upon our images here at Commons when they are included as illustrations within the article. The illustrations help the article serve its purpose, aiding the reader in understanding its subject, by providing visual examples or elaborations of what the article discusses. Simple aggregation, e.g. putting all our photos of cats on a CD along with other cat photos that might not be freely licensed, is different. For software, the GPL explicitly allows this, and the FSF explains it here.
Yes, the share-alike provisions in CC-BY-SA 3.0 are triggered when someone distributes an "Adaptation" (not dissimilar to a derivative work), and the license is very clear that a Collection (of separate and independent works) is not an Adaptation. I understand CC views the illustrations in an article as separate works. I think this makes their copyleft too weak, and I'd prefer some collections to trigger copyleft. How far the copyleft should extend could depend on how it's published.
A copyleft license that is too strong to be compatible with image use in Wikipedia would also be too strong to use here, I agree. But the copyleft does not have to require every component be under the exact same license. I hope a copyleft license could be devised that would allow images under it to be included in Wikipedia and other free/libre publications, without allowing them to be used in proprietary publications.
Hey, I wasn't the one who compared misusing free photos to stealing silverware from a priest! :-) FWIW I don't generally see publishing copyright works without a free license as wicked, although I do take exception to it in some settings (e.g. publicly funded medical research). --Avenue (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"The logic brought forward by proponents of more restrictive licenses is always the same and always flawed"

When bad people outnumber the good by an order of magnitude or two then that logic isn't so flawed as you suggest. I have found literally thousands of copyright violations of my work contributed to Commons. The number of legitimate uses have been few and far between. The suggestion that supporting a system that benefits so few is bankrupt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you still don't get the point: The bad people will not give a shit about a more restrictive license either. If anything you are just driving more people to a license violations if you make it so darn cumbersome to use a picture legally (GFDL). --Dschwen (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The bad people will also steal your "All rights reserved" Flickr pictures and I've seen enough istockphoto watermarks in printed publications to know watermarks aren't fullproof. I agree however that watermarking and only uploading small sizes are somewhat effective and that uploading a full-size unwatermarked image is the equivalent of leaving one's front door unlocked. But (deliberately) poor licence choice has zero effect on the bad guys and huge effect on the good guys, which is Dschwen's point. I think Saffron, you want to make a different point. Colin (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Colin sums it up fairly well. I will add that two days ago I found an "all rights reserved" image on two different commercial sites. A DCMA takedown notice resolved the issue in less than 12 hours. You will not get that type of response with CC-BY-SA. In fact Getty Images has made it clear to anyone that has used Creative Commons licenses that their images can only be represented as RF and they will not normally pursue copyright violations in this case. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
A violated license is a violated license is a violated license. --Dschwen (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No one is contesting that. However, if Commons is nothing but a repository for people to violate the copyright of contributors then the "free cultural works" dogma fails. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What kind of argument is that supposed to be: Commons is nothing but a repository for people to violate the copyright of contributors? Where are you going with this? How is this in any way a case for more restrictive licenses? You are painting a dark picture of a failed project. Is that what you are trying to say? Where do come up with this? --Dschwen (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's the kind of argument a contributor makes when he/she is weighing whether their contributions will be used the way they were intended. If, as appears to be the case, images on Commons routinely have their licenses violated and this violation is aided by the very requirements of contribution then indeed there has been a failure. I am not suggesting more restrictive licenses will correct this. What I am suggesting is that licensing here on Commons has no merit at all. If anything contributors should only upload to Commons via PD. I am sure the "free" camp would applaud this while ignoring the impact that would have on contributors willingess to participate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
my personal experience is that the vast majority of reusers do follow the licensing requirement, even when they dont most fix the attribution requiremnt when you contact them. I've only had one negative incidence where they claimed to be the copyright holder and issued a notice against a third party who contacted me. Finding a balance between your own personal commercial interests and that of sharing your world is something that must be your decision, ask yourself would any of your works that have been reused whether they would of have been used if it wasnt available thru Commons. The question is the same we ask of every GLAM when we talk to them about contributing portions of their collections, seen by potentially millions a day versus a couple of hundred a week. Learn to let go of the small things and enjoy the bigger picture, unfortunately as photographers we train ourselves to become focused on the small details. Gnangarra 08:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it is important to remember that Commons is a repository for major image collections that previously were largely inaccessible -- not just a hobby for us photographers (amateur or pro). Writing for Wikipedia and taking/giving photos for Commons are both examples of donations: you don't get direct financial return, and are making a sacrifice of some kind (time, potential earnings, and costs such as books, travel or equipment). I know of one science writer on WP who has written serious academic works but is chuffed that his article work is read by tens of thousands, regularly, rather than hundreds and then stored on a dusty shelf somewhere. I wrote an FA in an obscure subject which was read (clicked-through and viewed, at least :-) by about 50,000 people when it appeared on a quiet day on the main page and still gets about 2,000 hits every day. The photograph I took to illustrate that article also appeared on the main page and was viewed by half a million people that day. Sure the text gets lifted without attribution by journalists when they want to write about the subject. Why should I let that bother me? -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps becasue it is wrong? Regardless, I think we are all in violent agreement on how someone must approach their participation in Commons. What is not being acknowledged is that licensing on Commons is just a side show, as it does nothing for the contributor, is like playing wack-a-mole to enforce and sets up false expectations; hence my comment that Commons contributions should be PD only. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Again you make the mistake that the difficulty of enforcing a licence/law/guideline (or even the lack of desire to enforce) makes it redundant. My bus driver is incapable of keeping to the timetable but the situation would be considerably worse if he didn't have one. Good, conscientious folk will reuse our work with attribution if that's what we requested.
You say I should be bothered if someone else does something wrong? Why does someone else's lack of ethics become my concern? That's between them and their God/whatever. Really this kind of thinking isn't good for the soul IMO. Take CD music -- an example like Commons of a high-resolution format that is easy to copy and disrespect the author's wishes. The label says it is Copyright. Following Saffron's argument, the authors might as well have released it PD as it is trivial to copy and impossible to track down offenders. Worrying about all the teenagers copying music led to the nightmare that was DRM, something that only hurt legitamate folk, especialy when their music store went bust and they lost what they thought they'd bought. Looking at each illegal usage of one's work as something to get mortally upset about is the same logic that gave us the silly "Music industry loses $50 billion (or whatever) to pirates" headlines. It was only when DRM-free stores like the current iTunes or Amazon or services like Spotify came about that the music industry caught up with the rest of the world. I can pay for and download a song from Amazon. There's nothing me copying that song onto a memory stick for a friend, other than my own morals. Amazon hasn't gone bust yet. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I would not call a different perspective a mistake. This isn't debate club where you win points by antagonising your opponent. If you want to dismiss all wrongs for the sake of a few rights instead of looking for other avenues to allow things to improve for all legitimate users then that is fine. What is implied by CC-BY-SA doesn't really hold up to reality. So I suggest PD and you throw at me DRM without realising that you have just argued my point for me. PD is like releasing works without DRM. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It was already explained above several times, why PD/CC0 is not a good choice, so why would you put it the the mouths of the so called free camp. Frankly you argumentation style is getting pretty anoying. --Dschwen(talk) 13:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If as a photographer you upload to Commons only using PD you will never get disappointed how your images are used because there will be no expectation of control, attribution, or unexpected loss of revenue potential. From this perspective, as annoying as it was delivered, is a good choice. If I am to ever to upload another image to the Commons it would be as PD. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Such logic looks really twisted to me, but well, whatever works for you. ;) On the other hand,
(EC) I agree there are lots of different perspectives here and I've said several times that there is no right one (but some are incompatible with Commons). I'm saying that your argument that A => B doesn't hold. Just because Commons holds high-resolution images and neither it nor the uploaders have the resources to pursue licence violators does not imply that (a) the licences have no merit and might as well be PD or (b) that uploaders should use PD or (c) that "free cultural works" is a failed dogma. The CD with its copyright label is my example. Non-DRM music downloads another. They are a commerically viable system that trusts the user/re-user to respect what the label says. And no PD is not like releasing works without DRM. Not at all. I'm afraid I don't understand your "If you want to dismiss ..." sentence. However, I sense from both Saffron's comments and Dschwen's comments that we should probably take a break from this discussion. It has been interesting. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I have recognised that my perspective is not compatible with Commons. It is one reason I have not uploaded an image to Commons since May. For the rest of the details I don't think they are worth arguing as they are just opinions formed by my particular experiences. Experiences that say if I am to start again I would need to look at truly donating the images (i.e. PD). In other words removing the DRM that existed in my mind when I used CC-BY-SA. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are not even contributing, why are you binding contributor time here? Everything is just opinions, yeah, that is relativism (we see a lot of that in the current US election campaign). Unfortunately the world is not that easy. Some things are truths, even if they don't align with your personal opinions. I don't mean to attack you personally here, but it seems to me that your understanding of free culture is insufficient and multiple attempts to clear up some of your misconceptions about free licenses and the merits of CC-BY-SA over PD seem to have failed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware contributing images was a pre-requisite for participating on Commons. Perhaps you could point me to that policy? Regardless, what is the truth Dschwen? Your opinion on the matter? Is there a fact I missed? Must I write a dissertaion of "free culture" before I can comment on it? I get what free cultural works goals are. I applaud the ideal. For a time I fully participated in that ideal. Unfortunately the world is not that easy. My message, however, has been simple and coherent throughout. You reject it because you approach the issue from the perspective of the organisation and policy. It blinds you to the fact I approached it from the perspective of a contributor. It is you that has failed to see the issue from another perspective. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The only advantage of CC BY-SA over PD in "Free Cultural Works" is the SA clause; I can find any merit in the BY clause. I wonder why people give much important for the person behind the click when all other contribution are from the tools (99%; I guess). I wonder why people ask to let them know by email/talk before using their works; but still wish their works should live forever. What will be the future of their work when they lost their interest and retired, or even expired? I’ve no time or interest to answer such quires; that’s why I’m contributing/leaving them here. I’m happy that Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia says “The Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content on Wikimedia sites — it is owned by the individual creators. However, almost all content hosted on Wikimedia Commons may be freely reused subject to certain restrictions in many cases. You do not need to obtain a specific statement of permission from the licensor unless you wish to use the work under different terms than the license states”. Hmm, I really need a sleep. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
You are exactly correct Jee and I think your perspective is the healthiest one to take when donating to Wikimedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
@jkadavoor: to quote myself rom a few paragraphs above We can argue about BY clause, but even it can be a useful tool if you for example include a mention of Wikimedia Commons in your attribution. As for the click being just 1% of the picture I vehemently disagree. Of course there are some pictures on commons that look just as if that were true ;-), but for the vas majority reducing the creative process and thought that went into the images to a mere finger movement just doesn't do it justice. This is a very technocratic view. Just because the creative process is not easily quantifiable doesn't mean it is not there. I have pictures on which I worked for hours, finding the optimal spot, waiting for the right light, taking countless exposures, sitting in front of my PC assembling multi frame (and multi exposure) panoramics (a painstaking process that involves lots of manual labor (which is quantifiable!) to get it right). And this is not even taking the travel to and from the photo location into account. I happily donate these images under free licenses. I am happy to see my pictures spread on the web and I enjoy having a big audience for them. I'm proud (yes, I said it. It is not a dirty word!) to see my name attributed to the fruits of my hard work. But I don't get overly hung up on the cases where this doesn't happen (I seldomly see those in anyways). It really is not necessary in this discussion to belittle the value of the donations and to liken the photographers to "monkeys with camera" (my exageration). I can see how that line of argumentation would be convenient your contributions are worthless so why do you care about attribution or licenses anyways, but this goes in the wrong direction. The contributions are valuable, and if there is a non-monetary compensation that really doesn't cost anyone anything but a few characters of text next to the images why would we even put this up for discussion. Maybe I'd have to be a monk or Buddha to see the bliss in giving up the BY requirement, but I'm not. And since the BY requirement is not at all detrimental to the goals of wikimedia and the idea of free culture (on the contary as I pointed out in the beginning) I'm not even willing to discuss letting go of it. --Dschwen (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The “1%” is just a self humiliating comment (yes; I’m also a photographer) to express my point that the photographer is only a small part of the crew. The word “tools” I used may be misleading; my intention is to consider the large number of people working behind to provide good technology for equipments, software, hosting and even reviews here. In my case, so many people in different communities like ID Please, Bug Guide, Diptera.info, and Insect India are helping me to properly identify my subjects. Nowadays I find more happiness to share my knowledge to help others in such communities than taking new photos. A photographer and his contributions are very valuable. But is it bad if I expect an attitude of ‘’ Neil Armstrong’’ from him: In the biography “First Man,” Dr. Hansen noted, “Everyone gives Neil the greatest credit for not trying to take advantage of his fame, not like other astronauts have done.” To which Janet Armstrong responded: “Yes, but look what it’s done to him inside. He feels guilty that he got all the acclaim for an effort of tens of thousands of people.” Then she added: “He’s certainly led an interesting life. But he took it too seriously to heart.” I repeat I’m no way against CC BY-SA, but give no preference over CC0. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)BTW, the transition from Siddhartha to Buddha is a progress; not a recoil. :) -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
« A DCMA takedown notice resolved the issue in less than 12 hours. You will not get that type of response with CC-BY-SA. » Interesting point. That should not be the case. Do you have experience/evidence of that? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I meant DMCA of course, and yes I do, but it would serve little purpose to recount them. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Too bad, would have been interesting. On the other hand, we do have Case law of CC enforcements − meaning I guess that CC licensing is not totally hopeless. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Suprised at how few are documented and that most were print media related. I suppose that becasue it is easier to hold up a magazine as evidence and its harder to erase. All of those I have discovered were internet related where polite requests, threats of a suit, or DMCA takedown was sufficient to get action, but by then they already had their way with my work as it were. It would have cost me more to pursue further than I'd get in royalties. Getty has said they won't normally pursue violations of RF images on the internet for the same reason. All my Commons donated images that were later selected by Getty were required to be offered as RF only because a free license is irrevocable and exclusivity can't be guaranteed to the client (i.e via RM). The loss in potential revenue between RF and RM can be quite substantial. I don't begrudge that outcome, as I knew what I was doing when I donated to Commons and I had no intent of ever making my images commercial. Nevertheless, while on an extended Wiki break Getty contacted me and I figured what's to lose as the images weren't getting used. Now it does weigh on me when I am deciding to donate to Commons again. I am looking for a way to have my cake and eat it too. I think I have it sorted in my head. It will involve only realeasing images on Commons as PD. Pursuing BY-SA issues is just not worth it. Additionally I won't release images to Commons that Getty selects. However, so as not to make Commons the loser in all this I will keep in mind taking an image for Getty and one for Commons. They will have to be substantially dissimilar, but not so much as the EV and Wow is lost. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So you can sell the best through Getty still gift the second best to Commons. Not a bad idea. Or you may consider gifting a relatively low resolution of the original file to Commons as so many people already done here. I don’t know whether there is any legal issue for that. Anyway I’m glad to know that you decided to donate to Commons again. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I have been told that the EFF and various Creative Commons groups actually want to set legal precedent in more countries (including Australia, where I am located). So if anybody has a copyright infringement problem where licences are ignored (as is normal most of the time) which is appropriate, then one should get in contact with those organisations to sue on your behalf. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On attribution

The CC BY-SA licence says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I think we fail to help re-users when we don't explicitly specify how the work should be attributed. Indeed they may think that a lack of specified attribution means the author doesn't actually want any (though they'd be wrong). I use the {{Credit line}} template at the end of my file description (e.g., File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase 2012.jpg). I know some folk have very elaborate licence boxes. I wonder if the upload wizard should be changed to prompt for a credit line if the attribution-required licence is chosen. It could be mostly defaulted too. Anyone got any thoughts on this before I propose it at whatever technical talk page is appropriate? -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I got a lot of flack when I first tried to create an appropriate license template. I was accused of making things sound more restrictive than the license allowed. I imagine many new folks run into similar issues. I eventually just deleted the template when I realised not many were respecting it anyway. Your approach is simpler and as such may be easier to respect. I see it gets included as an option in the "use this file" code wiki provides. If people would just use these codes provided by wiki many instances of violation would go away. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Note: one can also use the attribution parameter of whatever license template they are using − see eg. File:Mandarin_Oranges_(Citrus_Reticulata).jpg
(One of the two ways should be deprecated IMO − but probably not the place to discuss that :)
Please avoid using fancy custom templates − or at least, not in the place of the usual ways.
Jean-Fred (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I never noticed that parameter before. However, it doesn't seem as well thought out as the credit line template (see Commons:Credit line essay) as the credit should really include more than just the author name, and include the licence too, and there's scope to mention Commons and a URL too, where this is reasonable. Colin (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You may add Commons if you want or add a URL too if you want ;) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you just click on "use this file" ? Amada44  talk to me 15:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that link feature needs fixed as it doesn't respect the licence. It only uses the username and some rather clumsy formatting (who wants (Own Work) on their credit line)? -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It uses whatever is provided in the Author field… (and looks before for {{Credit line}} & attribution parameter in license templates.
Remember tools are not magic: editors must do some work as well − see User:Rillke/Technical file description policy for some background.
If you think it should work differently, please provide requirements on the talk page − makes easier to fix when you know exactly what to fix :) Jean-Fred (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea... The license states that the user must attribute the image according to the instructions of the author. Maybe we could work out a text in a template with several options of attribution. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
There's already {{Credit line}} template. It could be improved I suppose if folk have other ideas for attribution formats. But it does the job IMO. Colin (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Should we chuckle that the template sample offers GDFL paired with CC-BY-SA?? Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Multi-licensing with GFDL is fine. See Commons:LIC#Multi-licensing. Colin (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
True enough, but I still smirked. Some purists hate the idea though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? I'd love to chat with these purists. I have a hunch that they aren't really purists but just have a weak understanding of multi-licensing. --Dschwen (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Heh, good one, that made me chuckle :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • this has been an interesting discussion but I think that before it moves on changing templates, tools or suggesting formats it moves to a discussion with the wider community at COM:VP Gnangarra 23:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So I could just make my required attribution text the whole CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence next to my name? Why exactly did we have that big, heavily canvassed, debate about banning GFDL 1.2 from FPC? :P JJ Harrison (talk)
  • No, CC bend over backwards to be reasonable in their demands for attribution. And V4.0 looks likely to be even less onerous (see this list of changes) wrt attribution. Wrt your "heavily canvassed" comment, do you have any evidence of impartiality in the way participants were invited? Colin (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

4(b): If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author").

— http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_12&oldid=148483216"
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 12".