Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2012/01
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Requests for comment/User conduct
Licensing templates - derivatives - redesign?
Keeping track of Attribution requirements
A while back at en.wiki's Village Pump, a proposal was brought up for making it clear which images require attribution. Anomie's suggestion follows (links modified to reach the en.wikipedia):
“ | Some free image licenses (e.g. any CC-BY license) require attribution, which we usually provide here by linking the image to its description page and including the necessary information there. And some free image licenses (e.g. GPL (section 3), GFDL (sections 2 & 6)) require a notice appear in connection with any "distribution" of the image, which we again provide by linking the image to its description page and including the necessary information there. And some free image licenses (e.g. CC0, public domain) have no such requirements.
It would be helpful if we had a category along the lines of en:Category:All free media to indicate this information. So I propose modifying en:Template:Free media to take a "link needed" parameter which does the following:
One possible use for this would be to make it easier both to identify images to which en:WP:ALT may be applied (setting "|alt=|link=" for accessibility) and to which "|link=" has been incorrectly applied to an image requiring attribution. In both cases it would be helpful if someone could convince Commons to implement this proposal as well (any volunteers?). Anomie⚔ 15:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
” |
I wo::::uld like to propose that we do the same thing here on Commons. To localize the request, the category should be Category:Link to file description page not required or similar, as a subcategory of Category:Copyright statuses. The template to be modified would be {{Information}}. As described, this would make it easier to identify images where Wikimedia projects are potentially in violation of the attribution requirement because they are "hiding" the |link=
parameter and making it difficult/impossible for a casual reader to view the attribution. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that modifying {{Information}} would be the best way to do it on Commons; it should probably be done in the licensing templates instead. While you could do it in {{Information}}, that would require editing every image page on Commons to add the parameter and would require everyone to correctly specify the value of the parameter corresponding to the licensing tags.
- I see my reference to enwiki's {{Free media}} is confusing. On enwiki, every free license template contains {{Free media}}, which handles adding of en:Category:All free media. So the obvious thing to do there is modify that template to take a parameter and modify all the calls to it in the various licensing templates to pass that parameter. Of course, everything on Commons is supposed to be free media, so you probably don't have the equivalent in your licensing templates. You could create a helper template to apply this category, or you could just have the appropriate licensing tags apply the category directly if that's how Commons likes to do things.
- Most templates will be unambiguous, but some like Template:Copyrighted free use provided that would need an extra parameter that the user needs to specify to indicate whether the "provided that" requires a link or not. Anomie (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the simplest would be identify licenses which do not require a link, and have them do something to clarify that on file description pages (autocategorise, and/or provide a message). Actually, this issue is part of the broader question of how to make attribution clearer for complete newcomers who vaguely assume they can just download the file. This was discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/10#Clarifying_attribution_requirements but nothing came of it. Rd232 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's basically the proposal here: have license templates like {{PD-old}} add a category to indicate that the so-licensed file doesn't require a backlink for attribution (or license compliance). Anomie (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then the next step is to make a list or template category, so that the templates can then be systematically modified. Maybe COM:VPC would be a good place for help on identifying the templates. Is there info from en.wp which can be helpful? Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- There already are CSS classes in license tags which indicate whether attribution, links, etc. are required for attribution (see for example in {{PD-Layout}} the class="licensetpl_link_req" & co.). These are already used by tools like StockPhoto. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
wow. OK, what do you suggest then? Rd232 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- That makes things easier. So can we get a category too so the MediaWiki API can be used to retrieve this information without having to parse the file description page wikitext? Anomie (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand what is the problem you are trying to solve. Is it only about a few hundreds images with a empty link= ? If so, having cats that get added on 12M files seems clearly overkill. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why is it a problem to have the licensing templates add one more tracking category? Anomie (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand what is the problem you are trying to solve. Is it only about a few hundreds images with a empty link= ? If so, having cats that get added on 12M files seems clearly overkill. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- There already are CSS classes in license tags which indicate whether attribution, links, etc. are required for attribution (see for example in {{PD-Layout}} the class="licensetpl_link_req" & co.). These are already used by tools like StockPhoto. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then the next step is to make a list or template category, so that the templates can then be systematically modified. Maybe COM:VPC would be a good place for help on identifying the templates. Is there info from en.wp which can be helpful? Rd232 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Adjustment proposals for {{Personality rights}}
Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices
After seeing some DMCA notices being posted at the Village pump, I've drafted Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices as a page specifically for this. I believe this is helpful because (i) with a dedicated page, better explanation of the issue can be provided (and translated) and (ii) a better overview of notices can be achieved, which may be of interest (iii) these notices are not of great interest to the average user, and placing them on a separate page allows those who are interested to watchlist the page and ensure they don't miss any (iv) the Village pump is technically a forum for the English language community, and posting only there means somewhat ignoring the other language communities.
So, proposal: adopt this page, and ask the WMF to post notices there instead of at COM:VP (already mentioned to Philippe, he's fine to post wherever we want - User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#DMCA_takedowns). Rd232 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea, and would suggest that Commons:Village pump/DMCA notices and COM:DMCA point there as well. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The latter redirect: definitely, I was thinking that already. The former I don't get but don't object to. However, one of the issues with the new page will be making sure people can find it, i.e. link from relevant existing pages. Rd232 (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- That might work for a permanent record, but if you want as many people as possible to be aware of the takedowns, they need to be posted in a high-traffic location such as the main Village Pump page. --Carnildo (talk)
- Well since they're not that common we could probably manage to have notices both there and at VP, either by WMF action or somebody copying notices. However, I'm not really clear why they should be posted at VP. For me you have (i) the average user, who doesn't care (ii) the user interested in that material, who will know anyway because they'll see it deleted (iii) the user interested in DMCA, who is better served by a dedicated page. I don't see an audience being reached via VP who actually wants to see the notices. I mean, you say "if you want as many people as possible to be aware of the takedowns" - but why do we want that? Rd232 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I bet a fair number of people were interested in the Alexander Liptak DMCA posting. I see no reason to shift the DMCA postings from the Village Pump until or unless they become much more frequent than they are now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, alright, let's say the new page is in addition then. Because your comment proves why it's necessary: if COM:DMCA had existed at the time, I could go there and very easily find it to see why it might have been interesting. As it is, it's buried in the VP archives somewhere. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I bet a fair number of people were interested in the Alexander Liptak DMCA posting. I see no reason to shift the DMCA postings from the Village Pump until or unless they become much more frequent than they are now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternative
Since there seems some desire to retain posting at VP, let's make a clear alternative proposal: have COM:DMCA as an additional page for posting notices. Rd232 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds complicated. How about having posting take place at VP, and COM:DMCA contain a list of either links to the VP sections, or copied versions of the notices. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant the reverse: COM:DMCA should be the main discussion page, and the VP notice (like notices at other places, if any), point to the relevant COM:DMCA section. I'd knock up a template for the VP notice to make it easier. Rd232 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry for the confusion. That sounds like a great idea. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- {{DMCA takedown notice}} is a first attempt at a template. I've also gone through the VP archives and created Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2011 (though I should point out that this format is not what I want for the future; it's just that makes little sense to me to copy the old archived discussions to a new location; future discussions should be at COM:DMCA). Rd232 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry for the confusion. That sounds like a great idea. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant the reverse: COM:DMCA should be the main discussion page, and the VP notice (like notices at other places, if any), point to the relevant COM:DMCA section. I'd knock up a template for the VP notice to make it easier. Rd232 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)