This has been on commons for *a month*.. Options

[Grep]

This single policy serves to completely undermine WP's claim to any kind of interest in fact-checking. Flooding Commons with images with absolutely no verification is a guaranteed backdoor into the encyclopaedia.

[Kelly Martin]

This single policy serves to completely undermine WP's claim to any kind of interest in fact-checking. Flooding Commons with images with absolutely no verification is a guaranteed backdoor into the encyclopaedia.

As an example, I once uploaded an image of a clematis that I tagged as being a Jackmanii because the store I bought it from had identified it as such. A self-appointed clematis "expert" on Commons declared that it could not possibly be a Jackmanii and retagged it as whatever he thought it was.

For all I know he's correct. But I have no basis for assuming that. He's just some anonymous dude who runs about acting like he's the expert on all things clematis. There's no process for validating, or even being aware on any systematic level, such claims of expertise.

[The Adversary]

This single policy serves to completely undermine WP's claim to any kind of interest in fact-checking. Flooding Commons with images with absolutely no verification is a guaranteed backdoor into the encyclopaedia.

As an example, I once uploaded an image of a clematis that I tagged as being a Jackmanii because the store I bought it from had identified it as such. A self-appointed clematis "expert" on Commons declared that it could not possibly be a Jackmanii and retagged it as whatever he thought it was.

For all I know he's correct. But I have no basis for assuming that. He's just some anonymous dude who runs about acting like he's the expert on all things clematis. There's no process for validating, or even being aware on any systematic level, such claims of expertise.

Yepp: that is my impression of commons. There is a flood of images...and very few users who actually takes time to check or organize those pictures.
So in that flood you have truly wonderful gems which goes unnoticed....and likewise for horrible garbage, including those with potentially libelous commens (thanks, Alison & MBisanz..)

I took a look at the pictures on commons from my home-town: there are a zillion, ..and they are more or less a complete mess. If you want to find photos, say, from one neighbourhood, you can´t (or rather: you will miss most, unless you are extremely familiar with the place (which I am )....because most pictures have wrong/missing categories. So I thought I would clean up the mess.....until.....until....I found that someone had actually taken a picture of my house & uploaded it to commons

On second thought: I have let it remain a mess.

But it got me thinking: how many pictures do we need/want on commons? I mean, I would absolutely love to have pictures of the remaining grand stone houses of Ijzim on commons (and in the WP-article)...but the former head of Israel's secret service (who lives in one of them) might not agree.

[Happy drinker]

I found that someone had actually taken a picture of my house & uploaded it to commons

You mean you don't have Google Streetview in your part of the world yet? Seriously, has anyone flagged it as your house or given your real name or even your WP name? There are printed "dead tree" books, like The Buildings of England and guide books, that print photos of houses in which, in many cases, people live - maybe non-notable people. Should we ban all such books?

But it got me thinking: how many pictures do we need/want on commons?

Commons is not paper!

This post has been edited by Happy drinker: Sun 25th October 2009, 10:04am

[SB_Johnny]

This single policy serves to completely undermine WP's claim to any kind of interest in fact-checking. Flooding Commons with images with absolutely no verification is a guaranteed backdoor into the encyclopaedia.

Especially given that there's no way a bunch of humans can keep up with a bot. Kinda lucky that there weren't a lot of GFDL compatible materials out there in '05 or earlier... imagine how bad it could have been if bots were deployed to create articles that way!

As an example, I once uploaded an image of a clematis that I tagged as being a Jackmanii because the store I bought it from had identified it as such. A self-appointed clematis "expert" on Commons declared that it could not possibly be a Jackmanii and retagged it as whatever he thought it was.

For all I know he's correct. But I have no basis for assuming that. He's just some anonymous dude who runs about acting like he's the expert on all things clematis. There's no process for validating, or even being aware on any systematic level, such claims of expertise.

How is that an example?

FWIW, the crowd that identifies and organizes the biology related images are actually pretty good. For the most part, anyway.

[CharlotteWebb]

Kinda lucky that there weren't a lot of GFDL compatible materials out there in '05 or earlier... imagine how bad it could have been if bots were deployed to create articles that way!

You're being facetious, right?

[Kelly Martin]

As an example, I once uploaded an image of a clematis that I tagged as being a Jackmanii because the store I bought it from had identified it as such. A self-appointed clematis "expert" on Commons declared that it could not possibly be a Jackmanii and retagged it as whatever he thought it was.

For all I know he's correct. But I have no basis for assuming that. He's just some anonymous dude who runs about acting like he's the expert on all things clematis. There's no process for validating, or even being aware on any systematic level, such claims of expertise.

How is that an example?

It's an example of how Commons is at risk to nearly unlimited manipulation of "fact" because the work of the categorizers/image recognizers is virtually entirely unchecked and unexamined.

As you note, most of the people doing biology-related images are doing it in good faith and with reasonable competency, but there's absolutely no process in place to ensure that.

[The Joy]

I found that someone had actually taken a picture of my house & uploaded it to commons

You mean you don't have Google Streetview in your part of the world yet? Seriously, has anyone flagged it as your house or given your real name or even your WP name? There are printed "dead tree" books, like The Buildings of England and guide books, that print photos of houses in which, in many cases, people live - maybe non-notable people. Should we ban all such books?

But it got me thinking: how many pictures do we need/want on commons?

Commons is not paper!

Google will remove your house from their system if you complain. Guides and such would only publish houses of significant historical or cultural importance. As long as they don't publish a photograph of you or give away very personal information, I see no problem with that.

Commons is supposed to support other Wikimedia projects. For example, if I have an article on "Architecture in Wales", I could look at Commons for pictures of Welsh Architecture. I don't know how many exceptional buildings there are in Wales, but if there are 50 such buildings in Wales, why do I need more than 50 pictures of the those buildings in Commons? Commons has a specific purpose and should not go beyond it. Commons is not Flickr or Photobucket.

Honestly, how does the picture below help the other Wikimedia projects? Why do we need so many pictures of nude women on Commons?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nacktreiten.JPG

[Milton Roe]

Your present for today, Horsey.

I have to say that tasteful adult nudes bother me not at all. And I also doubt they addle the brains of children. Of course, people will push lines no matter how they are drawn.

And I'm glad this wasn't a man, else the implied ouch factor would detract from the art.

[The Joy]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nacktreiten.JPG

Your present for today, Horsey.

I have to say that tasteful adult nudes bother me not at all. And I also doubt they addle the brains of children. Of course, people will push lines no matter how they are drawn.

And I'm glad this wasn't a man, else the implied ouch factor would detract from the art.

Indeed. Talk about riding bareback!

Wikimedia Commons: The Poorman's Free Porn Image Depository!

[SB_Johnny]

Your present for today, Horsey.

I have to say that tasteful adult nudes bother me not at all. And I also doubt they addle the brains of children. Of course, people will push lines no matter how they are drawn.

And I'm glad this wasn't a man, else the implied ouch factor would detract from the art.

Indeed. Talk about riding bareback!

Wikimedia Commons: The Poorman's Free Porn Image Depository!

Poor men have trouble finding places to post porn?

Funny though. That image supposedly comes from www.geocities.com/ostrow_2001/album.html ... nada there anymore.

...and yuck. Horsehair in there.

And she looks barely of age, if that.

[The Joy]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nacktreiten.JPG

Your present for today, Horsey.

I have to say that tasteful adult nudes bother me not at all. And I also doubt they addle the brains of children. Of course, people will push lines no matter how they are drawn.

And I'm glad this wasn't a man, else the implied ouch factor would detract from the art.

Indeed. Talk about riding bareback!

Wikimedia Commons: The Poorman's Free Porn Image Depository!

Poor men have trouble finding places to post porn?

Funny though. That image supposedly comes from www.geocities.com/ostrow_2001/album.html ... nada there anymore.

...and yuck. Horsehair in there.

And she looks barely of age, if that.

It was apparently uploaded to support the nudity article on the German Wikipedia.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Nacktreiten.JPG

But... why? I can understand the Valkyrie image of a naked warrior woman riding a horse on a Scandinavian Wikipedia. But the German Wikipedia? Maybe it was a blessing in disguise, Law Lord, for them to ban you.

Why so many nude pictures on Commons? Just a couple of women and men (with their written and legal permission) should be enough to support the nudity articles across all Wikipedias. It makes no sense to have so much nudity.

But let me guess... if I were to argue the rational explanation above on Commons, I would be accused of being close-minded and against "setting information free?" Then I would be hounded out and put out to pasture?

[GlassBeadGame]

And she looks barely of age, if that.

Is there any documentation of the age of the subject of the photo at the time it was taken?

[SB_Johnny]

Why so many nude pictures on Commons? Just a couple of women and men (with their written and legal permission) should be enough to support the nudity articles across all Wikipedias. It makes no sense to have so much nudity.

But let me guess... if I were to argue the rational explanation above on Commons, I would be accused of being close-minded and against "setting information free?" Then I would be hounded out and put out to pasture?

Yup, you probably would. OTOH, there's far less images of nude people in the visible database than those actually uploaded over the years. Template:Nopenis gets a lot of use :-).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm.../9c/Nopenis.svg

(huh, I guess WR can't render svg?)

or do it that way either...

File:Nopenis.svg

(so how can I make that my avatar image?)

[The Joy]

And she looks barely of age, if that.

Is there any documentation of the age of the subject of the photo at the time it was taken?

Commons does have a policy on this, but I don't know if it is heavily enforced.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...tifiable_people

[GlassBeadGame]

And she looks barely of age, if that.

Is there any documentation of the age of the subject of the photo at the time it was taken?

Commons does have a policy on this, but I don't know if it is heavily enforced.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...tifiable_people

Maybe we should consider linking the photo rather than displaying it?

[The Joy]

And she looks barely of age, if that.

Is there any documentation of the age of the subject of the photo at the time it was taken?

Commons does have a policy on this, but I don't know if it is heavily enforced.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...tifiable_people

Maybe we should consider linking the photo rather than displaying it?

Sigh... you're right. I didn't think of that. I was concerned that some Wikipediot would try to delete it or cover it up. I forgot about the person in the photo we're trying to protect. I'll replace the photo in my posts with the link. I ask that anyone that replied with the photo in their posts to please replace with the link.

The link is here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nacktreiten.JPG

[Happy drinker]

Guides and such would only publish houses of significant historical or cultural importance. As long as they don't publish a photograph of you or give away very personal information, I see no problem with that.

So if you're stupid enough to buy a house that someone deems to be of significant historical or cultural importance (which could be an ordinary suburban house where someone famous happened to have lived, or to be built on the site of a house where someone famous happened to have lived) you're fair game. I suspect that if I'd said such a thing, I'd have been berated for it.

And I don't think The Adversary was implying that there was any personal info on the photo. And of course by the Kohs rule, since The Adversary is anonymous he must live in his mother's basement!

[The Joy]

Guides and such would only publish houses of significant historical or cultural importance. As long as they don't publish a photograph of you or give away very personal information, I see no problem with that.

So if you're stupid enough to buy a house that someone deems to be of significant historical or cultural importance (which could be an ordinary suburban house where someone famous happened to have lived, or to be built on the site of a house where someone famous happened to have lived) you're fair game. I suspect that if I'd said such a thing, I'd have been berated for it.

And I don't think The Adversary was implying that there was any personal info on the photo. And of course by the Kohs rule, since The Adversary is anonymous he must live in his mother's basement!

If you buy a house or property of historical/cultural significance, deemed so by a local, state, national, or international body, then you are expecting people to admire or document your property. Most people will understand that when they purchase such a property that people will be interested in it and historical/cultural publications will want to take pictures and such. It's a small price to pay to own a piece of history.

However, the property owners do have privacy and property rights. You can't just walk into their houses or dance in their yards. For example, I went to Philadelphia and walked into a church that was built in the 1700s and registered as an historical landmark. It is maintained by a congregation and there are private worship services just like any other church. The congregation, though, allows public tours of the church and, IIRC, allows for voluntary donations for its upkeep. The congregation keeps their church and the public keep their history. It's a symbiotic relationship that works well.

Back on the topic of personality rights and permissions, as GBG mentions above, I am curious if the Wikimedia Foundation has a copy of Horse Woman's written permission to her naked upon her noble steed? The Foundation office should have such a document on file. If not, that picture should not be on Commons or any Wikimedia website.

[Yintan]

The Foundation office should have such a document on file. If not, that picture should not be on Commons or any Wikimedia website.

Commons is the biggest collection of copyvios since YouTube. At some point I tried to do some work there but quickly gave up. Like on WP, if you tag a copyrighted image for speedy deletion, you have to provide a link to the original. When you're dealing with texts, the original is not too difficult to find but with images? Pff... I've been browsing more porn sites than I care to, looking for the proof that this one image on Commons was stolen. One down, thousands to go. Takes forever.

It is a gigantic mess. And in the current climate of legal threats against sites that host copyvios (YouTube, Pirate Bay, Flickr, etc) it can only be a matter of time until Commons will cause the Foundation huge trouble...

Ah, the free whatever that anyone can whatever. Nice idea to start with but it can't go on like this. However, uttering suggestions like "proper user registration" or "flagged revisions" is almost a taboo, so.... they're waiting for the accident to happen.

(Not that I care anymore. I've completely lost faith in the entire project and am not going to waste anymore time on it. )