Commons:Village pump/Proposals

‎Moratorium on COM:PEOPLE-affected Flickr imports: link
← Older revision
Revision as of 21:11, 21 March 2013
Line 60:
Line 60:
 

 

 
Many of the problems we run into with new uploads in relation to [[COM:PEOPLE]] seem to be with Flickr-imports. I suggest that we have a one-year moratorium on Flickr imports of files that are affected by [[COM:PEOPLE]] (i.e. which show images of identifiable people - broadly construed, since people may be identifiable from textual information or from other images in the same Flickr stream). We can come up with some reasonable exceptions (eg where it's proven to a reasonable standard that there is no COM:PEOPLE problem, as documented by use of {{tl|consent}} and use of OTRS if necessary). If the moratorium works, we'll have some time to improve how we handle COM:PEOPLE issues without continuing to suck in so many problematic images. Comments? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 
Many of the problems we run into with new uploads in relation to [[COM:PEOPLE]] seem to be with Flickr-imports. I suggest that we have a one-year moratorium on Flickr imports of files that are affected by [[COM:PEOPLE]] (i.e. which show images of identifiable people - broadly construed, since people may be identifiable from textual information or from other images in the same Flickr stream). We can come up with some reasonable exceptions (eg where it's proven to a reasonable standard that there is no COM:PEOPLE problem, as documented by use of {{tl|consent}} and use of OTRS if necessary). If the moratorium works, we'll have some time to improve how we handle COM:PEOPLE issues without continuing to suck in so many problematic images. Comments? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
−
:Too vague. I have uploaded over 15,000 images from Flickr and several hundreds of those are of people at Gay Pride marches. Most photos have identifiable people in them, it is kind of the point of these Pride events, many photos contain shots of notable figures such as activists, community figures and politicians. In the UK and the US, there is no doubt that there are '''no''' personal rights issues, as these are taken in very public spaces where people expect (and want) to be seen, and I would consider it serious censorship of reasonable educational material to ban uploading similar images from Pride events this summer. If you were talking a better system of identifying mass uploaders from Flickr (perhaps all of us who upload more than 50 images from Flickr in the same day should be "on a list" automatically), ensuring all their uploads are easily find-able [[Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script|in a category]] and then having a system that ensured there are independent checks of how reliable they are as an uploader, then you might be moving towards a better managed community. Someone who regularly and unambiguously is causing violations of [[COM:Photographs of identifiable people|Photographs of identifiable people]] or [[Commons:Licensing|Licensing]] can then be advised, warned and eventually have Flickr upload privileges suspended until they promise to behave. Those of us that can keep ourselves within the guidelines (say, within a 2% tolerance, so out of 1,000 uploads, we might allow a maximum of 20 mistakes in good faith?), could even be encouraged by having the right to display a "Trusted Flickr uploader" badge or similar. Now, the trick will be to have a bot doing all that running about. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
+
:Too vague. I have uploaded over 15,000 images from Flickr and several hundreds of those are of people at Gay Pride marches. Most photos have identifiable people in them, it is kind of the point of these Pride events, many photos contain shots of notable figures such as activists, community figures and politicians. In the UK and the US, there is no doubt that there are '''no''' personal rights issues, as these are taken in very public spaces where people expect (and want) to be seen, and I would consider it serious censorship of reasonable educational material to ban uploading similar images from Pride events this summer. If you were talking a better system of identifying mass uploaders from Flickr (perhaps all of us who upload more than 50 images from Flickr in the same day should be "on a list" automatically), ensuring all their uploads are easily find-able [[:Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Fæ using a script|in a category]] and then having a system that ensured there are independent checks of how reliable they are as an uploader, then you might be moving towards a better managed community. Someone who regularly and unambiguously is causing violations of [[COM:Photographs of identifiable people|Photographs of identifiable people]] or [[Commons:Licensing|Licensing]] can then be advised, warned and eventually have Flickr upload privileges suspended until they promise to behave. Those of us that can keep ourselves within the guidelines (say, within a 2% tolerance, so out of 1,000 uploads, we might allow a maximum of 20 mistakes in good faith?), could even be encouraged by having the right to display a "Trusted Flickr uploader" badge or similar. Now, the trick will be to have a bot doing all that running about. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&diff=93045191&oldid=93045169