User talk:Fastily

‎File:1912Big-4.JPG
← Older revision
Revision as of 11:55, 27 March 2013
Line 52:
Line 52:
 
:::By your logic, you're claiming to the existence of an absurd double standard. PD-1923 images are ''not'' exempt from [[COM:EI|this rule]] and subject to the source information requirement just like any other file uploaded to Commons. If there is no source, then the copyright status, which is the issue at hand, is [[COM:PCP|unclear]]/not verifiable (someone else, like me for instance, must be able to verify the file's copyright status ''without'' having any prior knowledge of the subject), and we [[COM:PCP|cannot host the file]]. You and I both know that you have been around long enough to know that assumptions mean jack on this site. -[[User:Fastily|FASTILY]] [[User talk:Fastily|^(TALK)]] 07:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::By your logic, you're claiming to the existence of an absurd double standard. PD-1923 images are ''not'' exempt from [[COM:EI|this rule]] and subject to the source information requirement just like any other file uploaded to Commons. If there is no source, then the copyright status, which is the issue at hand, is [[COM:PCP|unclear]]/not verifiable (someone else, like me for instance, must be able to verify the file's copyright status ''without'' having any prior knowledge of the subject), and we [[COM:PCP|cannot host the file]]. You and I both know that you have been around long enough to know that assumptions mean jack on this site. -[[User:Fastily|FASTILY]] [[User talk:Fastily|^(TALK)]] 07:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

−
:::::PD-1923 images are not at all exempt from general requirements of de facto plausibility as to why they belong on the site, but in the case of images which by their nature are fairly obviously (to the informed person) published before 1923 in the United States, such requirements do not necessarily take the form of rigid petty-bureaucratic form-filling. It's the same with many medieval manuscripts etc. The "completely ignorant person must be able to verify" is rather strange, since according to that rule, one would have to blindly accept properly-formatted claims, and would not be able to question anything which somehow "looks fishy"... In any case the mechanical adding of a generic boilerplate "No Source Since" template is perfectly useless. The constructive thing to do is to inquire at the [[:en:User_talk:Rjensen|user talk page of active en.wikipedia user Rjensen]], and if you aren't satisfied with the answer there (or wish to skip that step), then take it to a deletion nomination, where these matters can be discussed in detail... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::PD-1923 images are not at all exempt from general requirements of de facto plausibility as to why they belong on the site, but in the case of images which by their nature are fairly obviously (to the informed person) published before 1923 in the United States, such requirements do not necessarily take the form of rigid petty-bureaucratic form-filling. It's the same with many medieval manuscripts etc. The "completely ignorant person must be able to verify" thing is rather strange, since according to that rule, one would have to blindly accept properly-formatted claims, and would not be able to question anything which somehow "looks fishy"... In any case the mechanical adding of a generic boilerplate "No Source Since" template is perfectly useless. The constructive thing to do is to inquire at the [[:en:User_talk:Rjensen|user talk page of active en.wikipedia user Rjensen]], and if you aren't satisfied with the answer there (or wish to skip that step), then take it to a deletion nomination, where these matters can be discussed in detail... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 11:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fastily&diff=93360595&oldid=93360503