22 Mar

Commons:Requests for comment/scope

‎Eye of the beholder
← Older revision
Revision as of 11:57, 22 March 2013
Line 20:
Line 20:

::::::That's a fascinating idea! I rather like it in principle, despite the obvious workload issues. I would say that, as with Wikipedia, the bigger Commons' collection gets, the less likely that any new contribution is really necessary. Therefore, over time we should become less focussed on quantity of new contributions, and more on quality of new contributions. At some point in the crossover from quantity to quality, the approach you suggest becomes rather logical. Whether we've already reached that point is of course a matter of opinion. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 12:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::That's a fascinating idea! I rather like it in principle, despite the obvious workload issues. I would say that, as with Wikipedia, the bigger Commons' collection gets, the less likely that any new contribution is really necessary. Therefore, over time we should become less focussed on quantity of new contributions, and more on quality of new contributions. At some point in the crossover from quantity to quality, the approach you suggest becomes rather logical. Whether we've already reached that point is of course a matter of opinion. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 12:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::No, it is not completely meaningless: just because a remedy is not 100% effective does not mean that it is useless. There are already conspicuous warnings and instructions on our upload page, and I would wager that were they to be removed completely the percentage of copyright violations and other problems would be a lot higher than 20%. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::No, it is not completely meaningless: just because a remedy is not 100% effective does not mean that it is useless. There are already conspicuous warnings and instructions on our upload page, and I would wager that were they to be removed completely the percentage of copyright violations and other problems would be a lot higher than 20%. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

+
:{{comment}} Interesting thing put forth here. I had never wondered that the image is not actually deleted. I knew that admins can see it. But it hadn't struck me till now. We can do one more thing about this. Just as for procedure, we can somehow permanently delete all files which have been deleted and stayed deleted for say 5 years or so. (You see, just how offices maintain a hard copy of a file for some years and then they trash it.) but is permanently deleting any file possible? §§[[User:Dharmadhyaksha|Dharmadhyaksha]]§§ {[[User talk:Dharmadhyaksha|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Dharmadhyaksha|C]]} 11:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

== A thought experiment ==

== A thought experiment ==

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/scope&diff=93081340&oldid=92846166