Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2014/May

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Fair Use Orphaning by User:Microchip08

It appears Microchip is mass orphaning fair use media files, and thus damaging en.WN's archives and mission. Unfortunately I'm in the field for about 10 hours. I would appreciate if admins proceed slowly and allow community members to discuss so many object being mass proposed for deletion. - Amgine | t 12:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not orphaning the files; they're already orphaned. I merely added a template to keep track of these problem files that are tagged {{fu}} but aren't being used, in violation of the inalienable board resolution; it was not intended as a mass-deletion spree, although technically all files are eligible for speedy deletion. Other orphans were tagged with appropriate problem messages as appropriate. Microchip08 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
e/c Check why they are orphaned? At least one (one of mine) the object is the primary source document. So many cannot have been orphaned from archived articles accidentally. - Amgine (talk · contribs) onna bus/mobile phone 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, first off, I notice you *have* been deleting some of these files. Rather a few.
Second thing I notice is some of these you have previously attempted to delete/have removed when they were in use.
Third thing is you are apparently relying on files being used as media in an article, and not whether they are used as a link in an article. e.g. File:2008 Canadian Scientist's open letter.pdf which is linked in the lede of Canadian scientists protest Harper's attacks on science, and this is noted on the file's description page. If you must go on a bot deletion spree, at least use orphaned && not linked from ns0.
My suggestion would be to back down, restore the deleted files, and then build a safer process for doing this. - Amgine | t 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, and btw, moving images uploaded here to Commons is a bad idea. The ones which clearly should be at commons, but aren't, are usually because Commons deleted them there. - Amgine | t 19:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just gone through all pages transcluding {{fair use orphan}}, and reverted the ones I noticed were not orphans. I might have missed some, of course. And I've not yet gone through the deletion logs; that's likely to be more brutal. --Pi zero (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Pi zero. Just got home, and have to be back on the road in 9 hours, so wasn't looking forward to following up on this. Will check in again around noon my time. - Amgine | t 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick skim of the ones deleted showed those justified as unused were unlinked, afaics. However, of the ones moved to Commons, two had already been marked for deletion; I unceremoniously restored those two, but took no action on the others. At least some of those others have been on Commons for a while. Afaik the others are
--Pi zero (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We've gone through this before, and the board that passed the resolution in-question is now gone; thus, I can point out rights are inalienable, resolutions are rarely kept to. Regardless of how you'd like to interpret said resolution, anything that was uploaded more than 3 months ago, by a contributor in good-standing, should not be speedily deleted except by the uploader.
Wikipedia has the contributor base that is quite happy to sit and discuss these sorts of maintenance issues, we do not. Similarly, that resolution was made taking only the Wikipedia community, and project dynamics, into account. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading the resolution just now it says a lot of nothing, and in particular nothing that this discussion implies, namely that such images should be speedily deleted. It does not set timescales to deal with the issue and, while efforts to do such are welcome, it is not a task that can be done mindlessly. The reason it is such a problem is that it's not an easy fix because each of these has a story that whomever is actioning it has to go back (usually years) and unpick before being clear where to go with it. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Microchip08 is asking that some tag be put on the two images I restored. It's clear neither "transfer to commons" nor "delete as a duplicate of commons" is appropriate. It does seem potentially useful to have a template that can be used to remind any miscellaneous passing admin that such things oughtn't been messed with lightly. Afaik there isn't an existing template that fits, and one doesn't wish to create a template that would be needlessly insulting to Commoners <supresses examples>. Thoughts, anyone? --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear, because I don't understand why we can't merely delete to commons. As far as I can tell, the (exhaustive) scenarios any one image has is:
  1. It is a fair use image, which should be tagged {{fu}} and given a {{non-free use rationale}}, or deleted (c.f. the backlog, if anyone has time on their hands). I'm of the opinion that all fair uses should be forced to use the {{non-free use rationale}} template, as merely typing "this is fair use" into the description box isn't good enough.
  2. It is a fair use image, which has no usage at all, so should be {{fair use orphan}}ed and (eventually?) deleted.
  3. It is a fair use image, which is used indirectly, so tag it {{linked orphan}} to stop accidental deletion.
  4. It is a freely licensed image, which is a snapshot of a certain point in time (e.g. a map of the world GDP, 2010). These should be hosted locally, and at Commons too, if possible. The local copy should be tagged {{local static upload}}.
  5. It is a freely licensed image from Commons, which is highly visible (e.g. on the Main Page?), and should be locally uploaded and protected with {{localupload}}. Delete it again when it becomes no longer highly visible (because protection sucks).
  6. It is a freely licensed image that is hosted locally for technical reasons (e.g. use in a gadget), and should be tagged (with the new) {{no-commons}}, but is eligible for copying to Commons.
  7. It is a freely licensed image that do not fall under any of the above criteria, and should therefore be moved to Commons; tag with {{trans-commons}}, then {{now-commons}} as appropriate. Delete local copy so that we can benefit from Commons editors editing.
I don't know what issues with Commons have surfaced in the past, but the two images you restored seem to fall under the last scenario; so why can't we move them to Commons? Microchip08 (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In theory, you're correct. In practice, you're not.
In practice, Commons does delete images which are freely licensed. They also 'improve' images, and replace images with "equivalent" images of the same title, but which may change the archival value of the article. I used to have a lovely example of a jet, which was the specific airframe the subject of a news article (and this was prior to image undelete in Mediawiki). Commons deleted the image, and moved a file with same name into it's place. The image was much better quality, and it was the same make/model of airframe, but it was not the specific airframe which had been involved in the air accident Wikinews was covering.
As Pi zero mentioned, two files you moved to Commons had already been tagged for deletion. Commons has different project goals and needs than Wikinews. While we can respect even celebrate those differences, we also need to pragmatically deal with the reality on the ground.
Protection is the norm here on Wikinews: we call it archiving. It does not suck. - Amgine | t 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Let me retroactively rephrase to "unjustified protection", perhaps. The two files had bad license tags that didn't get copied over correctly; these images are no longer tagged for deletion. Anyway, how about this: we rephrase {{local static upload}} to be more purpose-neutral, stating that "this file is uploaded locally to preserve the integrity of Wikinews archives", and perhaps a {{trans-commons}}-style prompt to users of not-on-Commons files (and a template switch) to turn it off. That template can then populate a Category:Files uploaded locally for archival purposes or somesuch. Microchip08 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ideally we'd only do this with images that are the focus of an article (and certainly wouldn't want this as a requirement for passing review). Microchip08 (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Pi zero: may I suggest a template such as {{Do not migrate}}? with a text explaining the file should not be migrated due to any of several common justifications such as history of Commons deletion, NC or controversial licensure, GOL (even where the image has later been released under a free license), etc.; OR tagger-provided justification. - Amgine | t 16:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've appropriated the otherwise unused {{localupload}} and propose this workflow: {{trans-commons}} → {{now-commons}} → (deletion|{{localupload}}). Microchip08 (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Sighted the template change to {{localupload}}. In consider it worth noting here, since 'policy' is widely accepted to be problematic and updated, that I considered the change a fair reading of the situation (and, by extension, consensus) on the ground. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
May I request a clarification of that here? The workflow of {{trans-commons}} -> {{now-commons}} -> (deletion|{{localupload}}) would be applied to what images? all locally uploaded images? local freely-licensed images? I'm asking because I invested a fair amount of time getting commons admins to give me copies of freely licensed images they'd deleted, which I uploaded locally. (A project I should get back to at some point.)
BRS: which policy is problematic and updated? - Amgine | t 04:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The policy problematic and [needing] updated (dropped a word, I see) is... Um. There's only one, surely? The hopeless whitelist approach, under which maybe around 50% of perfectly acceptable fair use images fail to qualify. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you expand on this? Why are you opposed? In my view, a template provides a consistent way to ensure that all the boxes are checked, and makes it difficult to make vague statements like "this is fair use because I need it in my article". Microchip08 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for Hawkeye, but I'm opposed because it's extremely creepy. Filling out templates is a painful timesink as it is without adding ones that frankly won't solve any problems. If you disagree with the notation on a given file, that needs dealt with on an individual basis. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
<nods> More importantly for me, the template seems primarily designed to create drama (aka justification for speedy deletion, and/or wikilawyering.) It may be appropriate for a setting where time for discussion is unlimited, and no harm to the project's mission can be the the result, but neither condition applies for en.WN. - Amgine | t 03:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Blood Red Sandman and I are in agreement. Especially about the extremely creepy part. And moreover, the Wikipedia rationale is totally oriented towards commercial media. At the Paralympic Games we took a lot of images under CC-NC. I've never been able to use any of these on Wikipedia because of its stuffed-up approach to free images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
For the use of Fair Use on Wikinews, see Wikinews:Fair use. Note that it is substantially different from Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. @Microchip08: Your understanding seems to be based on Wikipedia, and does not accord with the Wikinews version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me we need to reorganise exactly how fair use images are tagged in the first place. Chip and I have been talking about this off-wiki and we're both cautiously of the opinion {{fu|rationale goes here}} would be sufficient to discourage people simply saying "fair use asserted", but not too complicated to become excessive instruction creep. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use policy discussion

I hope nobody minds if I copy two comments from above and start a new section:

BRS: which policy is problematic and updated? - Amgine | t 04:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The policy problematic and [needing] updated (dropped a word, I see) is... Um. There's only one, surely? The hopeless whitelist approach, under which maybe around 50% of perfectly acceptable fair use images fail to qualify. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree the FU policy needs to be refactored, and probably completely reorganized. Here are some of the issues as I see them:

  • The original agreement with the board required that we specifically whitelist categories we would allow, categories must be specifically narrow, and were subject to board veto. (NB: several categories have been added since without board approval, including some which might be considered overly-broad.)
  • The original agreement with the board did not address anything except images.
  • The agreement was to allow uploads to be enabled for any Wikinews project, but each language would need to develop its own policies regarding fair use before they would have uploads enabled. Therefore, the English policy was to serve as a boilerplate which could be translated into other language and legal venues.

But keep in mind en.WN also has an Image Use policy which may need to be updated to suit any FU policy changes made. - Amgine | t 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Whilst there may-well be a need for maintenance work around images which are labelled as 'Fair Use', I think this is going way-too far, and have thus reverted.

Absolutely everything needed to formulate a Fair Use rationale and justification is already present on the image description page — including an explicit description, duplicated from the copyright-holder's site, on how news organisations may assert Fair Use under Australian law for this image.

Maintenance is not blindly tagging items which can perhaps be better-labelled; that's pointless pedantry, and a missing template does not equate to a missing Fair Use/Fair Dealing rationale. So, please desist from inappropriate use of {{missing fair use rationale}}; especially when all that is needed is to wrap the blasted {{non-free use rationale}} template around part of the image description. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with that image being fair use; it's a generic image from four years ago – are we saying that there's no possible way to replace that image with a free version? The image doesn't justify why we are using that image, and therefore literally does not have a rationale, and therefore is a problem image and the template was deserved: I tried filling out the fair use rationale template, but I would've had to put "Replaceable? probably", so certainly not everything is already present on the description page. Microchip08 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the images; the problem is you've misundertstood our archives. The choice of image is part of the snapshot in time; consequently, all images used in the archives are irreplaceable. The only thing that could justify deleting old images in the archives is the clause about competing news orgs. Replaceability matters for new locally uploaded images, but not for old ones. --Pi zero (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "image doesn't justify why we are using that image" is not what I said. I stated that the image description provided a perfectly-reasonable fair use rationale. This "replaceability" concept is somewhat absurd in a news context, and attempting to apply it to archived material is tantamount to vandalism (or, at least, to playing with matches in a library).
You need to seriously re-think this blind following of a ruleset nobody else on this project agrees with. Have you even considered how we might get a freely-usable replacement for that image? Even were a Wikinews reporter embedded with the ADF, the terms under which such would occur would not give us completely unrestricted use of any photographs said embedded reporter took. Plus, as you're experiencing, they'd risk getting shot at!
By all means, feel free to propose 'Wikiproject Warzone' as a means of obtaining freely-reusable 'stock images' of the military; I, for one, will be taking several swift steps back when they're looking for volunteers on that one. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
TBH, I've given up on this and assume the user has/will wreak havoc in the archives. - Amgine | t 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how merely tagging images as "this needs fixing (eventually)" is particularly an issue. Microchip08 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
A bot is not able to make a judgement call, or (completely) digest the contents of the description page. All it can do is say "missing blahblah template"; it cannot say "missing a justification" because it cannot read and understand the page, where someone may have written the justification or linked to it, rather than using your prescribed template (NB: description vs prescription or proscription is the more successful model of policy development.) By all means use a bot to identify possible problem files, but don't use it to make judgements. (Also, what Pi Zero said above.) - Amgine | t 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance bots have to the discussion; are you suggesting we create one for this purpose? Microchip08 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I assumed, since the description pages for these files were not being read that you were running a bot process. (AWB is a bot process if the user is mindlessly clicking approve without actually checking the edit. Also, I suppose, opening dozens of edit pages and c/p a template onto all of them without assessing the pages being edited.) - Amgine | t 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The serious problem is that the tag does not imply the "eventually" part of fixing the issue. It assumes 'delete unless fixed'; this is not a solution, nor a tag of needed work. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Have cautioned xe on this, and parked my Wheel at the top of a steep hill. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added the following text to this 'problematic' template: "Please attempt to resolve issues with Fair Use/Fair Dealing rationale categorisation before applying this template to files in-use on {{archived}} articles, or used in their talk-page provided sourcing/Original Reporting content prior to publication.".
I believe there may-well have been some over-zealous deletion which should have undergone discussion, but cannot see how to word a 'time left uploaded and unchallenged' addendum to the caution.
Some of the recent File: namespace deletions were of uploads made by NewsieBot (talk · contribs). I was running that, I'm still active and contactable; as are the journalists I gave access to upload via the bot. I assume we're all contributors in good standing, the presumption should have been these files were appropriately uploaded. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Free use media upload

The Wikinews Free use media upload button is not working. It sends me to the Commons Upload Wizard, which is not what I want for Fair Use Media. Face-sad.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It works for me; Special:Upload. Microchip08 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
And me. also, this should probably have been on Wikinews:Water cooler/technical or Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance.) - Amgine | t 03:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Clearly a technical and not a policy problem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It was always there in the "Tools" section :-P D. Grez 05:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

changes to {{archived}} articles worthy of an {{editprotected}} request

  1. Corrections on out-of-date links. This seems to be actually encouraged (it's stated in the text of {{archived}}). There's however a lack of detail on how to fix one specific type of errors: links to wikipedia. I'll illustrate with an example i recently stumbled upon: Digg.com suffers user revolt includes in the "Sources" section this bit: "* On Wikipedia's situation, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#HD_DVD]". Obviously, this section has long since been archived from WP:AN, so the link is now pointing to nowhere particularly useful, and casual readers wouldn't IMO be able to track down the intended paragraphs. There are a few ways to correct this:
    • Direct link to the relevant Archive directly, under the assumption that it shouldn't change over time;
    • Permalink to the last revision of the main page, before the relevant section was archived;
    • Permalink to the last revision of the main page that includes changes to the contents of the relevant section.
    I personally am not against any of those (though IMO the first one is the easiest of the three), but am thinking that a decision should be made as to which approach to prefer for such cases.
  2. Less importantly for now, i'd like to ask about addition of relevant links without updating the text. Does this fall under "changes to content"? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    Imo, for Wikipedia links like the one you've highlighted it should be to the last relevant revision prior to the article's publication. Another variation would be to link to the last relevant WP revision prior to the article being archived. This preserves the article reflecting what was known when, which is part of what Wikinews is about. - Amgine | t 16:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    (And adding relevant links would, of course, not fit the "what was known when", and so should not be added.) - Amgine | t 16:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)