Commons:Village pump

‎discussion
← Older revision
Revision as of 05:49, 23 March 2013
Line 642:
Line 642:
 
::::::::I'm reminded of a quote by Ross Perot... ''"The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river."'' I suppose that fits in here somewhere. – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 06:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::::I'm reminded of a quote by Ross Perot... ''"The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river."'' I suppose that fits in here somewhere. – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 06:20, 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)
 
+
:::::::::@[[User:Jbarta|JBarta]]: I understand you desire to stop advertisement. If I would run a personal project sharing some images I might decide to state that there are no advertisements allowed, but Commons is not my personal project. Commons exists to provide freely licenced educational media, it also has created community consensus that advertisement should not stay here, but as I see it, this consensus exists within the scope of the project. Thus if we have two media files, both showing something, and one of them has some advertisement in it, it's quite appropriate to remove the "damaged" one. However, if we will stop new educational content because of advertisement through watermarking, then we are forgetting our original goals. It sort of reminds me of some ecological groups, which got so worked up about burning oil, that they began to support atomic power stations. The single issue can often seem very important, but isn't it important to stand back every so often and ask oneself "Why do I find this issue even worth thinking about?" Now, I will not claim to know for sure why you feel so passionate about this, but my guess (assuming good faith) would be that you want to maximise educational value of every media on this project, and when you see somebody adding watermark you get angry at that person, because they've taken something away from the whole world by doing so. However, you then propose to completely disallow watermarking. In a sense you are saying "If we can't have a perfect image/video, we should have nothing at all." I, on the other hand, see it a little differently. In the past those, who wanted to advertise on a popular site, looked at the way to post a banner or a pop-up ad on there, today some of those groups/individuals are forced to create freely licenced educational content. (P.S. I have tried to see what you are saying from your perspective, sometimes such an attempt may seem dishonest or patronising, please be assured that this is not my intention, and if I put something into your keyboard that you wouldn't typed, I do apologise) [[User:Sinnamon|Sinnamon]] ([[User talk:Sinnamon|talk]]) 05:49, 23 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)
 
::::Well, I think camera manufacturers added that at the request of users. In the digital camera age it is of course utter nonsense to "burn" the date/time into the image, rather than using file date/time and exif. Anyway, again, if the original has the date/time "burned in" and no clean original is available, it should be accepted (and cleaned), provided the picture is worthwhile. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::Well, I think camera manufacturers added that at the request of users. In the digital camera age it is of course utter nonsense to "burn" the date/time into the image, rather than using file date/time and exif. Anyway, again, if the original has the date/time "burned in" and no clean original is available, it should be accepted (and cleaned), provided the picture is worthwhile. [[User:Whaledad|Whaledad]] ([[User talk:Whaledad|talk]]) 04:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93121162&oldid=93119873