[Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Alexander Tsirlin
altsirlin at gmail.com
Sun Sep 18 01:07:29 UTC 2016
Dear Isaac,
First, I would kindly ask that you stop mingling my name, unless you
want me to do the same with yours.
Second, I regret, but I don't see much logic in what you are saying. If
you need the OTRS permission, you should have asked for it in the first
turn. But you did not ask for it. You just asked the user to confirm
that the name in EXIF is her real name, and she confirmed. Why was a
deletion request necessary? It acted simply as the knife at the throat
and it was an intimidation (which, by the way, the uploader felt indeed
- she was quite frustrated when she wrote me about this whole situation).
Third, I hope you realized that there are people who take care of the
Russian WLM photos and that next time when you stumble upon such a
photo, you will ask me or Yaroslav before taking any serious action.
This should help us to avoid any further misunderstanding.
Sincerely,
Alexander
On 18.09.2016 00:52, olatunde olalekan isaac wrote:
> Hey Alexander
>
> TL:DR. Please, bare in mind that Common community have policies
> regarding copyright which they will never ignore for a contest like
> this. Thus, you need not lose your cool and make personal remarks in
> accusing reviewers of intimidating WLM participants. Such assertion
> is untrue because we are in this together. We should not pretend that
> what we are experiencing now is expected. I agree with Lodewijk that
> Wikimedia Commons community is not always easy or fun to work with but
> we just have to deal with it. There are thousands of files waiting for
> review and there are few regular users patrolling new files or
> reviewing them. If a reviewer nominate a file for deletion in a way
> you consider inappropriate, try to discuss with the user. The reviewer
> could be under stress as at the time they were reviewing the files.
> BTW, it's a red flag when username don't seem to match with copyright
> information on metadata, thus reviewer may decide to nominate such
> files for deletion per our precautionary principle. This is not
> uncommon and such actions are usually not considered destructive or
> attacks on participant. Alexander, your username is "User:Atsrlin" and
> if on your camera metadata, the author is "Merlin" for example,
> reviewer may not assume that your real name is Merlin unless you
> already state it on your user page or elsewhere because Atsrlin could
> mean something totally different in your country and may be
> unconnected with Merlin. In reality, you're Alexander and Merlin is a
> different person who may probably come around to raise concerns about
> infringement of their copyright in the future.
>
> Here is another participant, User:James John Borg
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg>.
> Looking at the metadata of their uploads
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg>,
> it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "*Joshua
> Schembri*". Should a reviewer simply assume that "James John Borg" is
> the same person as "Joshua Schembri"? In most cases uploaders are not
> always sincere when it comes to copyright issues if you merely ask
> them. This is why we usually advice them to send evidence to our
> support team (COM:OTRS) after taking the files to DR.
>
> However, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate User:James John Borg's files
> for deletion but I don't have enough time to investigate it now, maybe
> someone familiar with the user can take it up.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac (User:Wikicology)
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org
> <mailto:lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>> wrote:
>
> Hey Alexander,
>
> Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work
> harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the
> work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even
> if it goes against your natural response.
>
> The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid
> case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately)
> the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is
> uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there
> are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
>
> I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is
> always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually
> good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While
> these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of
> shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one
> possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the
> number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves
> Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin at gmail.com
> <mailto:altsirlin at gmail.com>>:
>
>> Rather than complaining to the process could you please for
>> once think that this is your project too and everyone in this
>> together?
> It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to
> use it as a common image repository, even though I
> emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before
> migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image
> repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much
> better organized than Commons, and we did not want other
> people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating
> everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully
> collected ourselves.
>
> Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we
> are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a
> common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who
> believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are
> the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try
> to be as far from it as possible.
>
> Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be
> interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the
> moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting
> these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear
> Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working
> environment.
>
> Sincerely,
> Alexander
>
>
>
> On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
>>
>> Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is
>> also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people
>> finding images online and then uploading them as their own
>> work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be
>> overzealous in making sure that people actually have the
>> right to release what they are releasing. That is where the
>> OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process
>> could you please for once think that this is your project too
>> and everyone in this together?
>>
>>
>> We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list
>> for such users who have problem with metadata, previously
>> published same image on other media to make sure that they
>> are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book
>> for reviewers explaining what to look during the review
>> (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM
>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM>).
>> So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an
>> image then if they found such problematic user they
>> immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them
>> on
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem
>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem>.
>> It works for us.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nahid Sultan
>>
>> User:NahidSultan
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan>on all
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation>'s public
>> wikis
>>
>> Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh>
>>
>> Twitter: @nahidunlimited <https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited>
>>
>> http://blog.nahidsultan.xyz/
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* WikiLovesMonuments
>> <wikilovesmonuments-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> <mailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org> on
>> behalf of Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:altsirlin at gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM
>> *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition
>> *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted
>> on Commons
>> Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb
>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb>
>> Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for
>> deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the
>> name in
>> EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty
>> obvious. This
>> deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still
>> costed me a lot
>> of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I
>> tried to
>> convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion
>> request was only
>> a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn
>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn>
>> Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a
>> 13th century
>> cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
>>
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>> That's a very systematic course of action against us taking
>> place on
>> Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
>>
>> Best,
>> Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>> <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>> <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
>> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
>> <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
>> <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
> _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves
> Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
> <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
>
> _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves
> Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
> <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments>
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
> WikiLovesMonuments at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/attachments/20160918/e86943b6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the WikiLovesMonuments
mailing list