User talk:Jimbo Wales

‎"Ample evidence…": copied discussion removed by Jimmy from his English Wikipedia talk page
← Older revision
Revision as of 00:11, 17 March 2013
Line 103:
Line 103:
 
:::::We have to start somewhere, don't we? We can't just not do anything because the alternatives would take too much work. Even if we do all what I suggested, there is still a lot of work ahead of us, and there will still be tons of ways to easily game the system. Doesn't mean we shouldn't start at ''some'' point. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 12:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::We have to start somewhere, don't we? We can't just not do anything because the alternatives would take too much work. Even if we do all what I suggested, there is still a lot of work ahead of us, and there will still be tons of ways to easily game the system. Doesn't mean we shouldn't start at ''some'' point. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 12:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:Could we keep these issues separate? I believe Odder wants Jimmy's opinion on his case at this point. I too would like to hear his explanation, given that many editors in this community went above and beyond what we would for any other editor (so, yes, we did treat him differently to others), and all we got in return was a heap of aggression from him. Not cool Jimmy. [[User:Russavia|russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|talk]]) 14:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:Could we keep these issues separate? I believe Odder wants Jimmy's opinion on his case at this point. I too would like to hear his explanation, given that many editors in this community went above and beyond what we would for any other editor (so, yes, we did treat him differently to others), and all we got in return was a heap of aggression from him. Not cool Jimmy. [[User:Russavia|russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|talk]]) 14:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
+
== "Ample evidence" for [[:commons:File:Paul Myners.jpg|File:Paul Myners.jpg]] (copied from en.wikipedia) ==
 
+
Hi Jimmy,

 
+
I was wondering whether you could comment on the issue I brought up on [[:commons:User talk:Jimbo Wales#.22Ample_evidence.E2.80.A6.22|your Commons talk page]] almost two days ago, i.e. why you claimed that there was "ample evidence" that this file had been released by the copyright holder — the London-based VisualMedia agency — under CC-BY-SA, and why you blankly refused to provide OTRS with a written evidence of such a release; especially now, after its representative informed us that they have never agreed for the picture to be used for commercial purposes in the first place.
 
+

 
+
Seeing that you were able to respond to other threads brought up on your Commons talk page very promptly, and yet you didn't answer my questions for two days, I am feeling a bit ignored, so any response would be greatly appreciated — particularly after all your comments on how Commons and its OTRS process are broken. Thanks, [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
* '''Jimbo tends to be busy but allows others to explain misunderstandings:''' I wanted to note that Jimbo's responses seem to reflect the limited time he has, to post messages, amid many other activities. So one message might get an answer, while a nearby topic gets none. Jimbo has noted reading several forums, rather than just enwiki or Commons, and replies have not been systematic, so responses within "two days" should not be expected. Here, on enwiki, several other editors (or other admins) often reply to questions to Jimbo, as in this case, which appears to be a misunderstanding about the license for that photo. Perhaps, originally, the release of the photo was believed (or presumed) to be limited to only use within the article, as not everyone fully understands the implications of a "CC-BY-SA" license, but upon re-thinking then it was realized the photo would be considered "free" for any use, including commercial adverts, and so that could lead to restricting the usage as only within the bio-page article. Jimbo has often waited for such misunderstandings to be tracked and explained by others, which might include analysis of "meta-misunderstandings" as "misunderstandings about the extent of the misunderstandings" with some aspects being, perhaps, more misunderstood than others. In essence, once a major misunderstanding is detected, then tidying all the related issues can become a "[[ball of yarn]]" of related sub-misunderstandings to be explained. Further discussions often lead to a ''[[point of diminishing returns]]'', as somewhat tedious chatter. In fact, in several cases, Jimbo's only response might be to 'hat' the discussion, to be considered concluded as no longer productive, within a collapsed box. I hope that clarifies why Jimbo, within limited time, has tended to avoid back-and-forth replies about such matters. -[[User_talk:Wikid77|Wikid77]] 06:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
** It doesn't. [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 09:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
** Jimbo asserted repeatedly that Commons' failure to take his word for it that the copyright holder had released the image under CC-BY-SA was evidence of how broken Commons is. Now it turns out the copyright holder ''hasn't'' released the image in this way, some kind of comment from Jimbo would be highly appropriate. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 10:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
** I, too, would like comment from Jimmy in this situation (and on this case only), given that he was quite aggressive towards individuals personally, and Commons and OTRS generally. Also of concern is that [[User:Sj]] (a Wikimedia Trustee) got directly involved in this case, and suggested that the images were all ok (totally disregarding my very initial comments about the copyright holder to Jimmy), and [[:Commons:User:Sj/Permissions#Case_studies|all but insists that others should be doing the licence verification work for Jimmy]]. Well, in this case, and in this case ONLY, this was done (due to Jimmy continuing to insist that the files were correctly licenced after it had been deleted), and it demonstrates that Commons and OTRS is '''not broken'''. There is a lesson to learn here; I hope that Jimmy can firstly comment on that, and learn from it. [[User:Russavia|Russavia]] ([[User talk:Russavia|talk]]) 11:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
***Everyone interested in the subject definitely should read Sj's summary of the situation at [[:Commons:User:Sj/Permissions#Case_studies]], it neatly points out what's wrong with commons at the moment, and how to easily fix it. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
****Except that Sj's summary there makes an assumption about this case which has been disproven, thereby proving precisely the opposite of his point. The [[:commons:User:Sj/Permissions#A_problem_with_basic_license_process]] discussion is more illuminating on explaining the problems. Also whilst I welcome ideas for improvements, I don't think either of Sj's suggestions there (android app for sending permissions to OTRS, and "a queue/backlog of images waiting for agency/creator confirmation of free license") are really helpful. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
****Bottom line: we should be talking about how to raise evidential standards, not complaining abut them being too high. This case, where those standards proved to be exactly on the money in terms of preventing copyright mistakes, ought to illustrate that. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 15:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
*****Oops, my bad. I wanted to link to [[:commons:User:Sj/Permissions]], and not just one subsection of it. I agree that, in this case, Jimbo should have gone through OTRS. The problem lies in the disparity between the OTRS requirements and the (non-existing) requirements for every other upload. We could either lower one or raise the other. --[[User:Conti|Conti]]|[[User talk:Conti|✉]] 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
If I tell you that it's safer to cross the street with the light, and you do so and get hit by a car that would have missed you had you crossed against the light, that doesn't prove my advice is wrong. It is possible for an alternative to be better than another one on the average yet sometimes fail when the worse alternative would have worked. The fact that you could have done better this one time by not following Jimbo's advice doesn't mean it's bad advice or shouldn't be followed in the future. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] ([[User talk:Ken Arromdee|talk]]) 17:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=92723265&oldid=92679085