Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-05-31

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-05-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation (685 bytes · 💬)

• Does anyone have a link to the "review" mentioned in the last bullet point above?--Rockfang (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's an RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: Approved this week (8,923 bytes · 💬)

Letter from your editor

The format and content of this page has remained largely unchanged since I took on writing it regularly sometime in late 2008. I think it might a time for some changes. To that end, I would like to know what you, the readers, think would be good changes for the regular Features and Admins page. Is there something you would expect to find here that you don't? Or do you wish something were written a different way, or with more detail? Or something else entirely, be it the design, presentation or content. Please feel free to make any suggestion you have, however small or large. You may leave comments here, at the Signpost talk page, or at my talk page; I will have all pages watchlisted. I am eager to make this page as useful as I can, and so I look forward to hearing suggestions and ideas from you. Thanks. ÷seresin 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, a short summary of each RfA would be cool. "Most supports didn't see a reason not to promote, but several objects felt the editor was too young" or something. It might be cool to know who the noms were for the FAs and other FXs. Just thinking out loud. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is uncalled for. You've just failed an RfA and then the reasons are trumpeted here very publicly? It's different for a demoted article, though—not so much at stake personally. Tony (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A different suggestion: a cumulative (year-to-date) summary for RfAs (even better, a comparison to last year), so, for example:

One editor, FoobarIII, was granted admin status; there were also two candidacies closed as unsuccessful. The year-to-date totals are 22 new admins and 47 unsuccessful candidacies, compared to 26 and 44 at this time last year.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could have less focus on what pictures (or articles) have just appeared on the main page - that information is highly visible, has already just been promoted, and is easy to find for those interested.

You could mention Good Articles that have just been listed. This information is less easy to find, is useful to have a record of, is motivational for those involved, and serves as an incentive for people to check to see if the listing was appropriate. Good Articles are not promoted anywhere on Wikipedia - they are quiet listings, so a little bit of light to show up poor listings or to encourage those involved in appropriate listings would be worthwhile. SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's wonderful the way it is, and I read it every week. You don't need to change a thing. -- œ^™ 08:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I wasn't going to say any more, but such flowery, blanket praise makes me wonder whether OE has thought about how it might be improved. Please compare with this version, which improves the layout, the use of visual resources, provides in a few places information that might be just a little interesting to readers, and avoids the repetitious "this week", which appears umpteen times. I find it odd to see the word "wonderful" appended to a page that so patently needs improvement, and that has retained the same basic formula for years, as the author points out. The author clearly has doubts about it herself, or wouldn't have asked for comments. Tony (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I hope I didn't come across as negative towards the other commenters. I'm not trying to put down anyone elses suggestions for improvement.. of course I'd be happy with any changes that would make Signpost better, a net positive is just that, a plus. I just happen to disagree that this page needs any 'fixing' at all. Personally I think improvements CAN be made, but that it doesn't necessarily NEED any. I guess I tend to hold the conservative views of "Change = Bad", "If it ain't broke don't fix it", "Don't mess with a winning formula", etc. etc. As for my flowery wonderful comment, I'm actually glad I used that particular word (hey I could've said it was 'fabulous' instead ;P). It was intended to be encouraging, a little morale boost maybe. Because if the author is starting to have doubts then I hope I raised his spirits a little and reassured him that he's doing a fine.. no... wonderful job ;) Especially since he's been doing this regularly since late 2008, I'm just grateful that we have someone willing to make such an effort, and that's why I couldn't presume to think I could do any better. However since the author has requested suggestions, I'm definitely not opposed to anyone's changes if the author really feels that it's necessary. -- œ^™ 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • This is just a formula for freezing the whole of WP the way it was in 2003. Your extreme resistance to change ("Change = Bad") would mean we wouldn't even have the Internet—and would still make phone calls through a manual exchange. "I'm just grateful that we have someone willing to make such an effort, and that's why I couldn't presume to think I could do any better." I'm grateful, too, but it doesn't mean the product can't be vastly improved. I don't see this in personal terms, whereas you appear to. If you're going to be destructive of ideas for improvement, it would be better if you kept out of the discussion. What is thoroughly galling is the self-congratulation and complacence inherent in your attitude. What, exactly, don't you think is an improvement in the other version? The bottom line you seem to be unaware of is that many people find The Singpost boring, and don't read it. Don't you care about that? Tony (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Oh no, seems I'm misunderstood again. I am definitely NOT trying to be destructive of ideas for improvement, I thought I made that clear already. I'm GLAD if (key word if) it can be improved and don't have any opinion at all about your 'other version'. I am of the opinion that this page (not the entire signpost) is fine the way it is and I have a right to that opinion and am perfectly in my rights to state it in this discussion. Don't be so concerned with me thinking things should stay the same, just go ahead and discuss your improvements, I'm not opposed to them and am not trying to sway others from making improvements. mmkay? -- œ^™ 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• It would be more constructive to comment on the actual changes proposed in the other version. They are listed above, adjacent to the link. Tony (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this idea is very relevant to this particular segment of the Signpost, but I would personally like to see a summary of the past week's internal events, discussions, and happenings. Juliancolton (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ten promoted pictures?

Only seven are displayed. Is this correct? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeeeees, well I fixed it when I put a huge amount of work into improving the page last night, but I don't see it. Tony (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Photography: Making money with free photos (8,680 bytes · 💬)

I think we should expand into NC images. This would allow use to use all the images at Radiopedia and would draw greater contributors. We would allow us to provide a greater service for the general public.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Commercial applications of Wiki-content are, in the grand scheme of things, a very small part of the Wikimedia mission in any case. Allowing NC would, as mentioned, make Commons a more attractive venue, as well as allowing us to import many, many so-licensed images on Flickr and elsewhere that would otherwise be aiding our articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. A lot of public institutions seem to be opening up to CC for their collections, but only under a non-commercial license. I recently took dozens of photos at one such institution, but I can't use any here unless I can make a case under fair use, as they only allow NC licensing of photos of their collection. And I did try approaching the institution, but they were unwilling to relax their licensing requirements. Similarly they release images of their own on flickr, many of which would be great, but once again only for NC.

That said, I gather there is no chance of the rules changing, at least based on my reading of the last debate, due to incompatibilities with the current GFDL. So it is probably impossible - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only will it not be changed, but it should not be. Wikimedia projects are free content projects, and free content means freedom to use for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without royalty or permission required and without restriction on derivative works (at most, attribution and sharing alike may be a requirement). If that doesn't work for someone, they are welcome to go somewhere that allows nonfree work, such as Flickr. What they cannot do is pretend it's free while it really is not, and hosting "no commercial use" works on Wikimedia would be doing just that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Vehemently disagree (with earlier sentiments). Non-commercial is fundamentally incompatible with our free content mission. Discrimination against any particular field of endeavor is not compatible with free content. If it's not free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, then it's not free. Gigs (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points, and I have no problems releasing the majority of my photos under full CC. That said, it's a matter of priorities: we would have better quality content if we allowed some NC works, at the cost of containing material which isn't free. If ensuring that all content is free is important enough to override the quality concerns, as it appears it does, then so be it. But that's the call that is being made. It's a valid approach, and I happily acknowledge that it won't (and perhaps shouldn't) be changed, but I also acknowledge that it comes at a cost. - Bilby (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Licensing/Justifications for why restricting commercial use is a bad, bad idea. Dcoetzee 02:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• A big round of applause should go to Ragesoss for this excellent article. Well-written, engaging, and extremely interesting. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can I second that. One of the (hell, the) best descriptions of how to make the process work; I shall no doubt be linking to it often, if not communicating it in other forms (with attribution!). Many thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thirded. Well done, Ragesoss. 129.120.86.27 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the March 2009 discussion about the (failed) proposal by Muhammad, Fir0002 and Diliff to allow prohibition of commercial reusage: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_62#Proposal_for_introduction_of_NC_licensed_photos_on_Wikipedia.

Exploiting the unfree nature of the GFDL (which was a major reason for the 2009 license migration to CC-BY-SA) by licensing images GFDL 1.2 only is highly controversial in Wikimedia projects. For example, the German Wikipedia rejected 1.2 only uploads in a 90-22 vote in 2008.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HaeB. I wasn't aware of either of those things you linked. I set out to write this about the financial side, with the license issue as just incidental. But looking over it now, with the comments mostly focused on the license issue, I realize I probably should have given more voice to other viewpoints.--ragesoss (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In this link, Mike Godwin states Wikipedia can't legally host NC images, although I'm not sure if the licence migration has changed any of that. My 2 cents: Allowing NC images will help further Wikimedia's goal of providing the best content to everyone in the world. That should be our primary focus. 129.120.86.27 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Allowing contributors to upload works only available under non-free licenses to Wikimedia projects would be a fundamental mistake. Wikipedia etc. are not about providing content, they're about providing FREE content, with everything that entails. Those that are not willing to license their works under an appropriate copyleft license are not required to contribute. -- Schneelocke (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of the legal etc. issues, I get the impression that not using non-commercial images doesn't substantially deprive us of images. Only a small proportion of the images on sites like Flickr are free for Wikipedia, but this still makes a ton of photos, more than we can scour through. There also are public domain photos, such as those of the US government. —innotata 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've contributed over 1,000 images and what I'm experiencing is the lack of respect from Commons gnomes for that contribution especially when it comes to attribution in that a vocal group on Commons is driving a shift from a personalise license templates that explains in clear and simple language the exact attritbution requiremnts. To get specific photographs for the featured article Banksia cuneata I made two trips over 600km each time, for the article Outback it was an 800km round trip and there are many more occassions where Ive driven 200-300kms. Not all my photowalks for WP have been of great distance some are quite close like for the FP Banksia telmatiaea which cost me a pair boots after one was lost while crossing a flooded drainage ditch. To get photographs anything within 500km of Perth is possible but it does involve considerable cost, but when Commons cant be trusted to respect attribution how can we expect the wider community to respect licensing. As a professional photographer and a long term contributor to Wikipedia I'd like to see a return to being able to upload images to Wikipedia because there is greater licensing diversification and the community that uses the photographs understands what it takes to get them and values that contribution. Gnangarra 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)