Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2023/August

This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2023. 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 page.

Licenses on files etc.

Hello!

I saw Wikinews mentioned on m:Meta:Babel#Aftermath_of_ToU_updates (seems Wikinews uses an out dated version of Creative Commons).

I like to check files so I came to see how many files are uploaded here and if they all have a valid license. According to Special:Statistics there are 4,745 ~~21,895~~ files. There are 1,819 files in Category:Non-free media and perhaps 1,500 files in Category:Media files by license. So either there hundreds ~~thousands~~ of files without a license or the files are not categorized so they are easy to find.

My question is if there are anyone here that work on files?

I would like to help check the files but I could save a lot of time if anyone knows how things are organized here.

I also made a post at Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts about deleting unused files without a license or with a non-free license. I think that would be a good place to start. --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were right the first time, actually, this does belong on Admin action alerts. An admin will see this now, at any rate. Heavy Water (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Water Thank you! Only admins can delete files but any user can help check the files. I think the problem is to find the files that do not have a valid license.

According to Category:Files with no machine-readable license there are 1,393 files. But I do not think this is the correct number of files that do not have a license. I think that {{printedition}} works like a license (or it could) but for this to work someone have to fix the template or perhaps add {{Cc-by-2.5}}.

On many wikis they have templates like w:Template:Free media to add on all free license templates and similar for non-free media. I added that on many wikis but on wikisource some users did not like that so I think it is better to discuss what to do so I do not risk to start WW3 :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Thank you for the notes above and your interest in this issue. The best place to start is Category:Image issues and in particular the four categories with missing things. A lot of these overlap and a lot of them are indeed listed there as a result of not using {{PrinteditionLicense}} properly. I was working my way slowly through them by adding an {{Image info}}. See File:31January2007.pdf for an example of how to fix the missing the licenses. It also fixes the source and author problem. If I knew how to program a bot, I'd have done it that way because it is a repetitive task. The only ones that need this doing are the PDFs. I'm in two minds about the SXW versions because I'm not sure how useful they are now. There are also a bunch of other images scattered through these categories which need individual attention, such as the sports ones you've already tagged. If you can think of a way to isolate these images and maybe some sort of automatic tool to sift through then, that would be great. [₂₄Cr][talk] 23:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cromium: Thank you! It should be possible to use a bot to add {{Image info}} like on File:31January2007.pdf. Especially if the files all use {{printedition}}. Is {{printedition}} supposed to be changed to {{Image info}} in all cases or can you think of some cases where {{printedition}} is better?

If the SXW versions are no longer useful it would be easier to just delete them instead of trying to fix them. So perhaps you could start a discussion the relevant place if the files should be deleted or kept?

Also @Acagastya: because we worked on files together some years ago if I remember correct :-) Perhaps you could fix the pdf's that do not have {{Image info}}? You have a bot right?

If Acagastya can fix the files that would be the easiest. But if not I could use my bot. I just need bot flag. But lets forst find out if any of the files should be deleted and if an existing bot user can fix the files that should be kept. --MGA73 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the number of files above. There are 4,745 files not 21,895 files. The 21,895 was the number of articles. So it also explains why I could not get quarry.wmcloud.org to give me some realistic results :-D --MGA73 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made User:MGA73/NoLicense. There are 401 files on the list. The files does probably not have a license template or are not in Category:Printedition. There could be a text like "fair use" or "creative commons" on the file page but there should also be a formal license template. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of image cleanup on Wikipedia lately. I can help review the images here and tag them accordingly. --Ixfd64 (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixfd64: I can change {{printedition}} to {{Image info}} with my bot like Special:Diff/4734706 but the 401 files should be checked manually so it would be great if you could check those.

@Cromium: If Special:Diff/4734706 is correct then I can easily fix the rest of the files. I fixed 8 files as example so you could see if it works correct: Special:Contributions/MGA73bot. --MGA73 (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would perhaps skip Category:February 2006 because Category:February 1, 2006 is a category in Category:February 2006. But File:31January2007.pdf is caegorized in both the day category and the month category. --MGA73 (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, please don't have the bot edit. It is not locally approved as WN:Bots/Policy requires (nor is it a global bot, though even then WN:GB would not permit this activity without local approval), so an admin could, in fact, block it. Heavy Water (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Heavy Water: Thank you for the reply. The edits were meant as test edits to illustrate what could be done with my bot. My plan was to wait and see if there was concensus to do the remaining edits or not. --MGA73 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. WN:BOTS is where you can make a request, which "must remain open for at least two weeks". Heavy Water (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm waiting a bit to see 1) if SXW should be deleted, 2) if someone else would like to do the task 3) to see if anyone have a different opinion about the edits or have other ideas. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request at Wikinews:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot. If anyone have other ideas on things to fix or if anyone would like to do the task feel free to Comment :-) --MGA73 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Should we delete sxw (per above)?

I made a list in User:MGA73/Sandbox and it shows if there are

both a .pdf and .sxw = 823
only a .pdf = 424
only a .sxw = 2 (Update: 2 August 2023: I have now made a pdf-version of the 2 files File:01January2005.pdf and File:17October2005.pdf.)

The numbers can give you an idea how many files there are. If the files are deleted then someone should perhaps use a bot and remove any links/usage of the files.

If anyone thinks yes feel free to start a formal deletion request the proper place. --MGA73 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed that there are some duplicates where the file name is misspelled.

The files are not in use. Perhaps the duplicated files could be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any news on the different topics? For example my request for bot flag open for more than 2 weeks and it seems there are no other bot users active willing to take the task. Also the question about perhaps delete sxw have not been commented. --MGA73 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cromium: Does my changes I did with the bot look okay? If yes perhaps you could comment on Wikinews:Bots/Requests/MGA73bot? And would you like to make a formal suggestion to delete the sxw-files then I suggest that is done before I make the changes with my bot (there are 825 files). --MGA73 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I have not started a deletion request at Wikinews:Deletion_requests#825_sxw-files. Please comment if you think we should delete or keep the files. --MGA73 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook page lost

Hi all: it seems that Wikinews has lost control of its Facebook page. I forget who initially set it up, but I was added as an admin in maybe 2015 or so? Not sure. I restarted posting in 2020, off and on, and the page went dormant around 2022, when my IFTTT script to email me new articles died.

Anyway, one of the other mods must have been hacked, as the website "Chaturbate" has posted a story to the page. I still have access to the "backend" of the page, but cannot post, cannot see who is an admin, etc. Other mods, as none of the other Facebook pages I have admin access to are affected.

I'm trying to figure out next steps, if any, as Facebook is often hard to reach. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also see the WMF is the "Wikimedia Foundati" in the Intro. I presume you saw the "Hacked Bye" comment on the post for Fifty dead in floods, landslides across Northern, Eastern India. Heavy Water (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the incomplete name is part of the hack, or just a typo. But yes, indeed saw the unfollowing; 343 video views for the story. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's a "This content isn't available right now" notice when I try to access the page now. I don't know if that's good or bad. Heavy Water (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More inappropriate short ones follow. Can anyone do anything about this hacked account? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something needs to be done..... there isn't just an 'email in-box' at Facebook. They make it wonderfully hard to reach anyone when there are these types of problems.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday morning, I also emailed WMF. Their social media lead is looking into it. But so far as I know, everyone with access to the page was inactive for years; even if not, probably all of our accounts were downgraded to Analyst. -- Zanimum (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the idea behind Wikinews

How is it not just paraphrasing from other news articles? Wouldn't that be a copyright violation? What's the point of it anyway, as the news articles already exist elsewhere? How can it be justified to paraphrase a paid news article and republish it as free content? 2601:644:907E:A450:F57F:4318:41E8:4394 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WN:INTRO is Wikinews pitching itself. Yes, close paraphrasing can infringe on copyright. But we aim to present our articles differently from their sources, as WN:PILLARS explains. As for your first and third questions, we do some original reporting — you can see it at Category:Original reporting, and our best here. Even when writing synthesis (non-OR), contributors often try to draw in additional information not present in the news articles used for sourcing, whether on the focal event itself or for background (an example of the latter can be seen here). Heavy Water (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]