Commons:Village pump

‎discussion
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:30, 22 March 2013
Line 854:
Line 854:
 
::::@Penyulap: I've now seen some of your work, and am truly amazed at some of the watermarks that you managed to remove, where I would have said: impossible without pixel-by-pixel editing. I would sure like to know how you do it. If we can duplicate your skills, we can work on our backlog faster. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::@Penyulap: I've now seen some of your work, and am truly amazed at some of the watermarks that you managed to remove, where I would have said: impossible without pixel-by-pixel editing. I would sure like to know how you do it. If we can duplicate your skills, we can work on our backlog faster. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::Thank you for you kind words. On the subject of the guidance pages on commons, they are incomplete or archaic to the point it harms the project. Software advances make it ever faster and ever easier to do this work, and I found myself looking at ways to automate the process and I can clearly see this can be done to the point where the casual observer cannot notice the removal in most circumstances. The idea that we should block people over this may have been an idea long ago, but it's as much sense today as blocking people for uploading Jpg images, which is just as trivial. Writing a bot is not useful if the current blocking continues, or if people cannot be educated about modern techniques, because there will be no images to work on. The Graphics lab exists to do this work, and if we have enough of this work to do, then tools can be found to do it faster than the very short time it takes now. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::Thank you for you kind words. On the subject of the guidance pages on commons, they are incomplete or archaic to the point it harms the project. Software advances make it ever faster and ever easier to do this work, and I found myself looking at ways to automate the process and I can clearly see this can be done to the point where the casual observer cannot notice the removal in most circumstances. The idea that we should block people over this may have been an idea long ago, but it's as much sense today as blocking people for uploading Jpg images, which is just as trivial. Writing a bot is not useful if the current blocking continues, or if people cannot be educated about modern techniques, because there will be no images to work on. The Graphics lab exists to do this work, and if we have enough of this work to do, then tools can be found to do it faster than the very short time it takes now. [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::::The practical reality is that Commons has over 55,000 watermarked images (more if you count those that are not templated) and the number is going up. This is where idealism is run over dead by practical reality. Until that number goes down dramatically, we still have a problem and all the talk about software advances and what you can clearly see etc etc is just ethereal chit chat. In other words, like many things in life, if it was really that easy someone would have done it already. – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*{{support}} '''"against policy"''' and thus a '''"clear policy"'''. At this time, we give the "watermarkers" the illusion that they can effectively advertise for free on Wikimedia. While the end result (after countless hours on our end) is that their pictures are only used after watermark removal. The only hope they have is that they will enjoy a period of free exposure through the "commons cat sister links" under many Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles (this goal is sometimes reflected in over-catting). I think having a clear policy is in everybody's interest as it avoids any kind of unjustified expectation by the advertiser. Obviously an exception must be made for archival material of which no watermark-free copies exist. And we could and should spend our editing time, skills and resources on those. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*{{support}} '''"against policy"''' and thus a '''"clear policy"'''. At this time, we give the "watermarkers" the illusion that they can effectively advertise for free on Wikimedia. While the end result (after countless hours on our end) is that their pictures are only used after watermark removal. The only hope they have is that they will enjoy a period of free exposure through the "commons cat sister links" under many Wikipedia and Wikiquote articles (this goal is sometimes reflected in over-catting). I think having a clear policy is in everybody's interest as it avoids any kind of unjustified expectation by the advertiser. Obviously an exception must be made for archival material of which no watermark-free copies exist. And we could and should spend our editing time, skills and resources on those. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 01:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::what about camera time-stamps ? seems if something is written into the image, it doesn't automatically make the image worthless, if it is spam, there is a spam policy, if the images were ruined, why do camera manufacturers have timestamped images ? [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::what about camera time-stamps ? seems if something is written into the image, it doesn't automatically make the image worthless, if it is spam, there is a spam policy, if the images were ruined, why do camera manufacturers have timestamped images ? [[User:Penyulap|'''Penyulap''']][[User talk:Penyulap| ☏]] 04:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93068461&oldid=93068389