Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Proposals

Requests for comment/User conduct

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems is a free-form forum for discussing user problems. This (parallel to en.wp's en:WP:ANI, for those who know it) doesn't work well for all problems; long-term or complex issues, especially with established contributors, are difficult to resolve in this format. en.wp has "Requests for comment/User conduct" (RFC/U for short), a Request for Comment system for discussing user conduct issues in a calmer, more solution-focussed and evidence-based way. For those unfamiliar with it, here are two current examples: 1 2. I propose importing this system from en.wp (in theory it can be adapted, but that opens the door to much discussion of details, so it's tempting to try to avoid this and consider changes later on, based on experience here).

I know some users are not keen on using en.wp as a model, so let me stress that I think this RFC approach will be more useful here than on en.wp because of the issue of multilingualism. I believe the slower, calmer, more focussed and evidence-based approach will help level the playing field and make it easier for users writing in English whose first language is not English, and also easier for users writing in other languages, with a request for translation. I think it's also one of those things which is relatively non-disruptive and can be tried without much risk; if it isn't used or doesn't really work, Commons won't be any worse off. PS This of course also Commons:Disputes noticeboard, but that is equally free-form in format, and not much used (look at dates of disputes there). Rd232 (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Import en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and test it for 6 months.

  1.   Support as proposer Rd232 (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  2.   Comment We even do not have Requests for comment system. Just making and using RfC would be enough. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    Possibly (though RFC/U is a specialised part of RFC on en.wp, with specific setup). What would RFC be used for on Commons though? The obvious things that need discussion each have their own existing system. Rd232 (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  3.   Comment ANI/up is not exactly crowded, apparently you don't need more bureaucracy here. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    "crowded" isn't the issue. The reason things get punted from en:WP:ANI to en:WP:RFC/U is not because en:WP:ANI is "crowded" - there's a well-established system of spinning out large threads to ANI subpages. The reason is that some things are simply not well handled in an ANI format. I've observed that there, and I've observed the same thing here, and I've made a case that the advantages of the different format (not for every case - it's not a wholesale replacement for ANI) are stronger on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  4. support as a test with proper procedure, a clear timeframe and follow-up review when it's over. Think of long recurring cases, like Fry1989 or Peter Kuiper. NVO (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support under a single request for comments page that allows for different types of issues to also be brought to light. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support - sensible idea. --Claritas (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  7.   Support -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  8.   Support --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  9.   Support --ZooFari 18:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Done at COM:RFC. Rd232 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Licensing templates - derivatives - redesign?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


As already said above, file description pages waste a lot of space. In case of derivative works, there may be four, five, or even more templates. Two template (CC+GNU) for the photographs, two templates for the primary work (cf. File:Lwów - Cmentarz Łyczakowski - Jozefa Markowska.jpg). Worse if there's more than one primary work.

Suggestion: Think of a compact form to present these templates. I don't have a clear-cut solution, just some brainstorming suggestions:

  • Perhaps {{CC-templates}} can be redesigned to have two, not one columns of bullet points? Perhaps these points can be folded/hidden altogether?
  • Is it really necessary to have a language selector on each license form, - maybe one selector for all can do the same?
  • Is it really necessary to have a drawing of a laughing horse there? etc.

NVO (talk)

    • Compounding this issue further is the fact that most images in the public domain require both a source country PD tag and a US PD tag (e.g. {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-1923}}). Although these need to be able to occur in any combination, the current visual design of stacking up boxes is quite verbose and ugly. Perhaps there's another way. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
One way would be to just show
etc. i.e. the template links or a similar compact display, not the verbose form of the templates, for users who choose such an option. I suppose that would be easy with CSS or javascript for individual non-substed templates, maybe en masse also.
--LPfi (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
That looks concise and visually neat, but I'm afraid that it would only confuse people and perhaps create uncertainty about legalities. Legal requirements need to be given higher priority than visual neatness... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing: Anyone is free to mock-up design improvements or streamlined versions. Once there is a specific proposal the community can decide if it's better/useful and implement it. --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Keeping track of Attribution requirements

A while back at en.wiki's Village Pump, a proposal was brought up for making it clear which images require attribution. Anomie's suggestion follows (links modified to reach the en.wikipedia):

“ Some free image licenses (e.g. any CC-BY license) require attribution, which we usually provide here by linking the image to its description page and including the necessary information there. And some free image licenses (e.g. GPL (section 3), GFDL (sections 2 & 6)) require a notice appear in connection with any "distribution" of the image, which we again provide by linking the image to its description page and including the necessary information there. And some free image licenses (e.g. CC0, public domain) have no such requirements.

It would be helpful if we had a category along the lines of en:Category:All free media to indicate this information. So I propose modifying en:Template:Free media to take a "link needed" parameter which does the following:

One possible use for this would be to make it easier both to identify images to which en:WP:ALT may be applied (setting "|alt=|link=" for accessibility) and to which "|link=" has been incorrectly applied to an image requiring attribution. In both cases it would be helpful if someone could convince Commons to implement this proposal as well (any volunteers?). Anomie⚔ 15:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

”

I wo::::uld like to propose that we do the same thing here on Commons. To localize the request, the category should be Category:Link to file description page not required or similar, as a subcategory of Category:Copyright statuses. The template to be modified would be {{Information}}. As described, this would make it easier to identify images where Wikimedia projects are potentially in violation of the attribution requirement because they are "hiding" the |link= parameter and making it difficult/impossible for a casual reader to view the attribution. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that modifying {{Information}} would be the best way to do it on Commons; it should probably be done in the licensing templates instead. While you could do it in {{Information}}, that would require editing every image page on Commons to add the parameter and would require everyone to correctly specify the value of the parameter corresponding to the licensing tags.
I see my reference to enwiki's {{Free media}} is confusing. On enwiki, every free license template contains {{Free media}}, which handles adding of en:Category:All free media. So the obvious thing to do there is modify that template to take a parameter and modify all the calls to it in the various licensing templates to pass that parameter. Of course, everything on Commons is supposed to be free media, so you probably don't have the equivalent in your licensing templates. You could create a helper template to apply this category, or you could just have the appropriate licensing tags apply the category directly if that's how Commons likes to do things.
Most templates will be unambiguous, but some like Template:Copyrighted free use provided that would need an extra parameter that the user needs to specify to indicate whether the "provided that" requires a link or not. Anomie (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the simplest would be identify licenses which do not require a link, and have them do something to clarify that on file description pages (autocategorise, and/or provide a message). Actually, this issue is part of the broader question of how to make attribution clearer for complete newcomers who vaguely assume they can just download the file. This was discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/10#Clarifying_attribution_requirements but nothing came of it. Rd232 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's basically the proposal here: have license templates like {{PD-old}} add a category to indicate that the so-licensed file doesn't require a backlink for attribution (or license compliance). Anomie (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, then the next step is to make a list or template category, so that the templates can then be systematically modified. Maybe COM:VPC would be a good place for help on identifying the templates. Is there info from en.wp which can be helpful? Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
There already are CSS classes in license tags which indicate whether attribution, links, etc. are required for attribution (see for example in {{PD-Layout}} the class="licensetpl_link_req" & co.). These are already used by tools like StockPhoto. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  wow. OK, what do you suggest then? Rd232 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That makes things easier. So can we get a category too so the MediaWiki API can be used to retrieve this information without having to parse the file description page wikitext? Anomie (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what is the problem you are trying to solve. Is it only about a few hundreds images with a empty link= ? If so, having cats that get added on 12M files seems clearly overkill. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is it a problem to have the licensing templates add one more tracking category? Anomie (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjustment proposals for {{Personality rights}}

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I have added an edit request in the template's talk page. After I've read en:Personality rights#United States, I wonder if "alive or deceased recently" is a good phrase anymore. Rather than that, it should be changed to "alive recently or deceased" to reflect state statutes, such as California Celebrities Rights Act. --George Ho (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Alive recently or deceased" would give the impression that it doesn't apply to living people... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you have your interpretation backwards: that phrase applies to people that are living recently and deceased people whose postmortem rights are subjected to state laws, common laws, and international laws. Or maybe something else may be a good idea. The phrase "alive or deceased recently" does not reflect a person's postmortem rights that may be subjected to laws of every state, of every court, and of every country. Also, I have not seen your identification as an administrator; how are you an expert on this? --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please, try to stick to the topic. Being an admin (I am one) may give a lot of experience over time, but doesn't make you an expert in every area. We have top-experts in some areas who aren't admins at all. Besides, everybody is entitled to discuss proposals on VP or its subpages. At least the personality-rights tag in my native language says the same as the english version in the very first line of his thread and, as far as I know, it correctly reflects the legal situation. --Túrelio (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
So what does "deceased recently" imply? Would it apply to only people deceased no more than one year ago? --George Ho (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"alive or deceased recently" is vague, but meaningful, indicating that personality rights continue for some unspecified period after death. "alive recently or deceased" is a bizarre turn of phrase, which if you try to unpick it suggests personality rights apply only to the deceased or those "alive recently" which again means "deceased", if it means anything at all. Bottom line, without having direct quotes from multiple legal sources supporting a need for change, the status quo is fine. Rd232 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
...I see your point. How about "alive currently or deceased" or "alive or deceased currently" if "alive or decease recently" is too vague to be meaningful? --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Currently" doesn't add any meaning to that expression. Legal expressions are often carefully worded to be vague in useful ways; I see no fundamental problem with "recently" here. Rd232 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
...I have read some laws of California and Indiana. Rights of deceased must be either transferred to surviving decadents or parents or terminated. I guess, vague phrases are legally expressed, and I obviously missed "living or recently deceased," which may add meaning to "alive or deceased recently." I am still concerned about rights of deceased; rights of living is too obvious to mention and to be concerned about. Proving that rights of deceased have been terminated is too obscure, especially with surviving widows, children, and parents and with unreleased documents under terms of confidentiality. --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Rights of deceased people are never terminated where I do live. The inheritor and/or the Prosecutor may start at any time legal actions so the dignity of the preterit personality is respected; which here, never expires. If a change needs to be done, I'd remove the "recently" from all the template. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, removing "recently" can be the best bet. However, this would imply the postmortem rights of Shakespeare and Jane Austin, who died more than 100 years ago and no longer have postmortem rights of Indiana. Still, "recently" must be removed for being not reflective to postmortem rights under state statutes. How about adding references to state laws of United States in the template or to rights of personalities with no more than 100 p.m.a. in states of United States? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing a single word here and there is obviously not working very well. How about this reworded version: "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. The use of depictions of living or deceased persons may be restricted by laws regarding personality rights. The extent of these restrictions depends on jurisdiction. Personality rights restrictions apply independently of copyright. Before using this content, please ensure that the intended use does not infringe any personality rights under applicable laws." Hopefully, that's both easier to read and more to the point. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
......That's better! --George Ho (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
+1. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This template is fully protected, and no efforts to change were made. How can I bring this attention to administrators? --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Done [1] --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices

After seeing some DMCA notices being posted at the Village pump, I've drafted Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices as a page specifically for this. I believe this is helpful because (i) with a dedicated page, better explanation of the issue can be provided (and translated) and (ii) a better overview of notices can be achieved, which may be of interest (iii) these notices are not of great interest to the average user, and placing them on a separate page allows those who are interested to watchlist the page and ensure they don't miss any (iv) the Village pump is technically a forum for the English language community, and posting only there means somewhat ignoring the other language communities.

So, proposal: adopt this page, and ask the WMF to post notices there instead of at COM:VP (already mentioned to Philippe, he's fine to post wherever we want - User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#DMCA_takedowns). Rd232 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, and would suggest that Commons:Village pump/DMCA notices and COM:DMCA point there as well. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The latter redirect: definitely, I was thinking that already. The former I don't get but don't object to. However, one of the issues with the new page will be making sure people can find it, i.e. link from relevant existing pages. Rd232 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
That might work for a permanent record, but if you want as many people as possible to be aware of the takedowns, they need to be posted in a high-traffic location such as the main Village Pump page. --Carnildo (talk)
Well since they're not that common we could probably manage to have notices both there and at VP, either by WMF action or somebody copying notices. However, I'm not really clear why they should be posted at VP. For me you have (i) the average user, who doesn't care (ii) the user interested in that material, who will know anyway because they'll see it deleted (iii) the user interested in DMCA, who is better served by a dedicated page. I don't see an audience being reached via VP who actually wants to see the notices. I mean, you say "if you want as many people as possible to be aware of the takedowns" - but why do we want that? Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I bet a fair number of people were interested in the Alexander Liptak DMCA posting. I see no reason to shift the DMCA postings from the Village Pump until or unless they become much more frequent than they are now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, alright, let's say the new page is in addition then. Because your comment proves why it's necessary: if COM:DMCA had existed at the time, I could go there and very easily find it to see why it might have been interesting. As it is, it's buried in the VP archives somewhere. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative

Since there seems some desire to retain posting at VP, let's make a clear alternative proposal: have COM:DMCA as an additional page for posting notices. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01&oldid=67932150"