Wikivoyage:WTS archive/Travellers' pub/Pub cellar December 24, 2007

This is a Wikivoyage:WTS archive, and should not be edited.

Wikitours - a non-goal?

Both Spanish and French Wikivoyage have recently started an initiative called Wikitours. Wikitours are basically a space where travellers can relate their trips in connection with a given destination, but differently from our itineraries, they do not necessarily contain any practical information. The result is apparently a collection of travel journals and/or essays, which are two of our non-goals. Given that those "tours" can also contain very individual impressions, they leave little room for collaborative edits from other users. I believe that there might be a demand for this kind of space in all language versions of Wikivoyage, but the question is: is Wikivoyage the right place for that? --(WT-shared) Ricardo (Rmx) 15:37, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

The question had been answered here —Unsigned comment by (WT-shared) 82.158.130.142 (talk • contribs) .

I concur. Wikitours should be a completely seperate wiki project. I don't think this should be any part of Wikivoyage because 1. it is a non-goal and 2. it's a very slippery slope. -- (WT-shared) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:46, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

I think the problem with Wikitours is the following: User X writes "I went here and there, I did this and that, I thought this and that about my experience, after I went to this other place and ate a certain food, slept in Hotel BlaBlaBla." Now what can another user edit about that? It's User X's story, so it becomes prohibitive to add to it or edit it because the article would then be collaborative, a fictional story told in the first person as if it were true. I also think that to encourage people to write subjective opinions in first person could invite abuse by owners of restaurants, etc. who want to advertise their businesses. Furthermore, since every Wikitour would be a personal story by a certain user, it would lead to the creation of several versions of each tour, without a logical way to organize and order the information. Overall, I think the idea of having a place to express whatever subjective opinion falls far outside of the ideals given by the founders of Wikivoyage exactly because this idea is by its very nature non-collaborative. To me, we aren't trying to create a collection of personal reviews, but a collaborative and comprehensive guide. The way to say "this restaurant, etc. is terrible" is to remove it from the list or give specific information as to what should be avoided. That way we can arrive at a consensus through editing and discussing it. Otherwise, the site just becomes a big list of opinions, and it's then up to the reader to decide for himself which opinions are most reliable. Texugo 07:42 12 sep 2006 (EDT

Well I think the idea of making Wikitours is a good idea because im my opinion, Wikivoyage lacks a place to write their personal feeling and opinion, they can even not say "don't go there". People contribution in English can do that on World66 -that's what Evan said on April 20th- but in French and in Spanish we have no place for that.

So of course the "Wikitours" pages might be a little biased, but a template at the top of each of these pages the Wikitours articles claims that the article do not aim to be unbiased and links to the Wikivoyage regular page.

For these reasons I think we should keep Wikitours. (WT-shared) Julien 08:24, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

I would fully support the creation of a completely separate wiki project or something that we could link to, but I agree exactly with what Sapphire said above. Wikivoyage just isn't the place for it. (WT-shared) Texugo 08:51, 12 September 2006 (EDT).

Well, if you really want to create a new wiki for that, I will help you too. But Wikitours should remain a brother project of Wikivoyage. (WT-shared) Julien 09:08, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

And by the way, the way to say "don't go there" is to omit it. Obviously we're not going to list all 250,000 restaurants, motels, and hotels in New York or Tokyo. We're here to tell where is GOOD to go, what's recommended. If you think the place sucks, delete it or start a discussion about it.(WT-shared) Texugo 09:14, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

In my opinion omitting an hotel or a restaurant is not enough in some cases. I think sometimes we should clearly write that Wikivoyagers should avoid a particular place, for example if a place is famous for being dangerous or if a restaurant in known for dirty. (WT-shared) Julien 10:24, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

Julien: the features to do this will be in all Wikivoyage languages, not just English. I really think that travel journals are probably not a good use of the wiki format. Can I suggest the following: maybe you could keep doing Wikitours until we get the new functionality on World66 going (this is a matter of weeks, not months, by the way). Then, make some decisions about whether to keep it or migrate the content to the new area on W66. --(WT-shared) Evan 16:48, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

I think it is perfectly fine to say "don't go there", and to be explicit about reasons — overpriced, noisy, bedbugs, whatever — provided you are a bit objective. You say "Music in disco X is extremely loud, offensive to some ears", not "the place is unbearable", because it might appeal to some. See en:Zhuhai#Non-Chinese_food "Indian Restaurant" for something I wrote that says "Do not go..." and that I think is quite legitimate. (WT-shared) Pashley 02:11, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

-Just a quick follow-up note: if anyone is interested in being involved with the new personal travel side of World66, what we're calling "Crossroads," feel free to drop me a message. (WT-shared) Maj 19:27, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Well the Spanish version of Wikitours is still carrying on, and I still feel the same about it-- I find it outside of our goals and fairly uncollaborative, plus sometimes a Wikitour article gets pretty long while the Wikivoyage article for the same place may not have anything in it. So, it's not only outside of our goals but also distracting from them. I'd love to be able to dump that stuff onto World66 as Evan suggested, but there is only an English version of that site. Are there any plans to launch other language versions there? (WT-shared) Texugo 21:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd say shut it down. Direct those users to Wikivoyage Extra [1] and let them go nuts there. There are plans to support multi-lingual conversations and threads on Extra, but to see where that is located in the queue you'll have to ask (WT-en) Maj. -- (WT-shared) Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

It would be great to redirect all the energy going into "Wikitours" to Extra-- it's what we made it for! Currently you can add content in any language -- I have language tags for about 20 language and can add more. The next step is to have multilingual interface support. It's one, if not the top Big Development Task on my list and having people asking for it would certainly help me put other, smaller, tasks aside so I can tackle it... (WT-shared) Maj 14:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I have tried to reopen this discussion on the Travellers' pub of es: to make people aware of it again. I propose to eliminate Wikitours there starting in 2 weeks. (WT-shared) Texugo 21:03, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Would it be helpful if I tried to get a es interface up ASAP? I would probably need some help with translation, but I can get the basic stuff up pretty quickly... let me know. Thanks, 66.130.136.160 08:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it would be extremely helpful to get an es: interface up ASAP. As it stands, the only other active administrator is for keeping it as is, despite the seeming consensus here on this page. The only other regular users recently are a couple of newbies, so if elimination were put to a vote on es:, it would probably get no more than 3 or 4 total votes and would be sure to fail. Is this something that must be put to a vote individually for each language version, or is it something that should be decided here? I really think we should decide it here, as 1) it concerns something that appears to violate the fundamental guidelines on Wikivoyage laid out by the founders, 2) it affects more than one language version, and 3) most of the discussion of this has already occurred here on this page. Thoughts?? (WT-shared) Texugo 19:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Bump. (WT-shared) Texugo 02:31, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

A lot of images are not compatible with the copyleft!

It's said ignorance is bliss, but I'm going to try and destroy that bliss because only the wise. I believe we are unable to upload images available are not under CC-by-SA 1.0.

We need to have a real discussion about this so everyone needs to read this and comment. Wikivoyage is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 and this cannot be changed unless every single contributor agrees to the relicensing over their content. This causes a huge problem for us because if a guide/page is licensed under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, but then an image is licensed under CC-by-SA 2.5 and that image is used on a Wikivoyage page (licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0) you are violating the copyleft! There's no way we can tip toe around this any longer. I've been watching a disregard for the copyleft for quite a while and I wasn't sure how to address it, so this is my attempt.

I do my best not use anything that is expressly available in the public domain or under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, however, I may have erred. The reason I try so vigilantly is because if our content is not 100% public domain or CC-by-SA 1.0 then Wikivoyage is not really "free"! It makes our content extremely hard to redistribute for others. As an example, if I take Wikivoyage content and start publishing it and selling the end result I have to go through and note every single image that is available under a different license than the rest of the content and that will be a pain in the ass.

The other issue is people who upload their own images are legally licensing the image under CC-by-SA 1.0, but a lot of images are being uploaded from Flickr, Commons and other sources by people other than the copyright holder. The problem with this is that the image is still not available under CC-by-SA 1.0, even though it still has the "CC-by-SA" in its title.

The CC-by-SA 1.0 license states:

Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

Wikivoyage does distribute images and we cannot distribute a CC-by-SA 2.0/2.5/ whatever image in Wikivoyage unless it is a CC-by-SA 1.0 license.

Like I said everyone needs to think about this, comment, and help to find a solution, because this isn't just going to go away. -- (WT-shared) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:45, 3 February 2007 (EST)

I agree this is a problem. I don't have the inclination to parse the licenses myself, but we need to figure this out. If it's not a a conflict to use 2.0+ images, there are a lot of images I've been skipping because of this restriction that I'd like to go back and add. (Flickr particularly.) If it is a problem, we need to go ahead and vfd a bunch of stuff (and replace it with appropriately licensed content). -- (WT-shared) Jonboy 14:14, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Agree with Andrew and Jonboy above. I've always wondered about a couple of issues concerning our copyright behaviour:

1. Image license - When you publish a 2.0+ image in a 1.0 page it becomes part of a derivative work that's being re-released under a different license, which is a violation of the original license's share-alike requirement. As for the attribution requirement, it is especially complicated with the print version of articles - images are printed without attribution altogether, as our "attribution footer", AFAIK, is not able to retrieve the credits info from the images shown. A possible solution would be to explicitly state the images' authors and differing license when it's mixed with cc-by-sa-1.0 material, but I don't know if that is actually feasible (technically and design-wise) and I guess it still leaves room for interpretation as to whether that's still a derivative work or not.
2. Text credits - we are allowed to copy material from other cc-by (and cc-by-sa-1.0) sources as long as we credit the original authors. So far this has been done in a very weird way - by listing the authors at the article's talk page. It goes without saying that unless someone is very familiar with this policy and quite interested in finding out all the contributors, those names probably will be lost when someone copies our articles somewhere else (like site mirrors, for instance). We should probably find a solution for this too. Maybe adding an "additional credits" section to our (meaning all language versions) article templates or another field below the "summary" of an edit designed to add the additional credits to the footer of the page being modified. -- (WT-shared) Ricardo (Rmx) 17:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Although I know a fair amount about legal stuff, I don't feel qualified to determine whether what we're doing is in compliance with the licensing, or how to fix it if we're not. It could easily be a case of being within the spirit of CC-By-SA-1.0, but not the letter of it. But I don't know. Isn't there someone at IB who can consult with an IP licensing expert and/or with the folks at Creative Commons to get a professional opinion on this? - (WT-shared) TVerBeek 18:08, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Hi guys, I feel a finger pointing in my direction in this discussion. I've been working quite hard lately tracking down suitable images for articles that need illustrations and I've found quite a few good pictures on, for instance, flickr.

Now, I must say that I'm pretty shocked to hear that for instance CC-by-SA 2.0-images are not wanted here, and I am seriously trying to figure out how regular Wikivoyage users such as myself are supposed to know that. The obvious assumption, for me at least, has been that licenses in the drop down menu on the upload page are compatible. If a particular license wasn't OK, I assumed it wouldn't be in the menu, or at least have a "PS: uploading anything under this license will risk the future of Wikivoyage".

Still, wanting to be sure before uploading anything, I did check the CC "humanly readable" pages for CC-by-SA 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5, and they say the exact same things. I do apologize if I've made a mess by uploading the wrong images, but am also quite irritated with that a lot of my work lately seems to have been for nothing - and that this could have been avoided by some nice plain English such as "avoid everything unless it's PD or CC-by-SA 1.0". (WT-shared) Jake73 14:47, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Hi Jake,

We're not pointing the finger at you, or at least that wasn't my intention, though I had noticed some of the images you were uploading were CC-by-SA 20/2.5. In fact, that actually got me thinking about this and I wanted to make sure everything is kosher, but further reading has indicated that its not kosher. You weren't the only person uploading non-CC-by-SA 1.0/public domain images. I do appreciate the number of NOAA and USAID images you've found and I've made use of them.

I agree with Jake that we need to change the wording of the disclaimers. -- (WT-shared) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:42, 6 February 2007 (EST)

Is it not easier to change the license for Wikivoyage, in such a way that all contributions on here should be compatible with CC-by-SA X.Y. all the way down to 1.0.? Especially if, as (WT-shared) Jake73 points out, they seem to be completely similar. One way to start is of course to ask the people at CC what the difference between the different versions is. I don't think this is a major problem yet. We can make this a problem, or we can deal with the problem as we go along. The latter way of doing it seems best to me. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 13:54, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Nah, we should sort this out ASAP so that more people aren't wasting time uploading images that will later have to be removed. I've heard Evan and some others say somewhere at some point that WT can't upgrade beyond 1.0, but can't remember the reasoning (WT-shared) Cacahuate 05:03, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I'm interested in the reasoning why an upgrade would be kosher. I can't fathom how we would go about an upgrading unless we pull a stunt similar to World66 did a few years back, but I've expressed some dissatisfaction with the way they went about it. First off, it would mean that we would need to effectively delete a lot of articles if someone said "You cannot relicense my contributions" or a lot would have to be reverted to infantile and useless guides, at least that's my take.

Two, what if someone comes back five years down the line and sues everyone for relicensing his/her work under CC-by-SA 2.0/2.5/3.0 or CC-by-SA all/any later? I know I'm being paranoid, but I want to make sure we dotting our 'i's and crossing our 't's.

I'm not as involved in CC matters as some other community members so maybe different people have different takes, but the disclaimer: "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however." [2] seems to castrate any movement toward a license change of the site... -- (WT-shared) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:08, 18 February 2007 (EST)

OK, so I'll be bold and ask... what the hell is the difference between the licenses? As someone said above, if you look at the short "everyman" descriptions, they all say the same thing. What new features in the newer licenses don't agree with the old ones and are potential problems? I would imagine that the newer licenses would be stricter not softer... in which case, there would be no complaints, right? (WT-shared) — Cacahuate 18:37, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The loudest thing is the omission of a "any later clause", which is included in 2.0 and 2.5. That clause effectively allows someone to use works licensed under CC-by-SA 2.0 in a CC-by-SA 2.5 licensed work.

From 2.5 (See "Restrictions", Section "b"):

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan).

2.0 essentially has the same clause, but 1.0 reads:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. -- (WT-shared) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 19:17, 18 February 2007 (EST)

So, this is my feeling about using other versions of CC by: as long as the author hasn't used any of the extra requirements added in 2.0 and 2.5, Attribution-licensed works are compatible with CC by-sa 1.0. This is my feeling about using other versions of CC by-sa: the actual stipulations between 1.0 and 2.0 and 2.5 are minimal. Although technically we can't use them, practically there's really no difference and little chance that upstream users will care. At some point we're going to upgrade from by-sa 1.0 to by-sa 2.x or maybe 3.x. Until that time, I don't know if it makes a lot of sense to worry about the difference in version numbers. --(WT-shared) Evan 14:39, 20 February 2007 (EST)

As a rather new image uploader (who also took the newest CC license offered in the WT/S upload page-menu aka 2.5) I would like to see a sort of final/definitive/official conclusion/decree out of this discussion as it leaves images contributers somewhat uncertain. And regarding CC 3.0 that is already available, you might be interested in the heavy discussion on Commons.[3] -- (WT-shared) Túrelio 05:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, me too. This is driving me in-fucking-sane! Does anyone know a lawyer who will take this up for under $100 (I'm poor until September). As far as I can tell, we all agree it's a problem that needs to be solved so here's my solution – delete every single image on Wikivoyage that is not public domain or CC-by-SA 1.0 or let's delete everything on Wikivoyage except the 2.0/2.5/3.0 images (this includes text) and start over. That way everything on the site can be CC-by-SA 3.0 and I will shut the hell up about this. -- (WT-shared) Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:52, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't understand why we do not migrate to the newer version; I do not mean the difference of the words between versions, but mean who/why object to the migration. I think we had better submit a request for comment about it to the WT community, if nobody can answer here. And then, based on rfc, we could talk about how migrate smoothly and make a go/no-go decision. It's just a thought. -- (WT-shared) Tatata 14:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

No matter how we do this, we as in the site Wikivoyage can not be sued for copyright violation, since we do not have a formal editor with a legal responsibility. It could technically be possible to sue the contributor - if you find him or her, but not that many are giving out all their personal details. Wikipedia has already been through this process, so there are precedences which supports our cause. Why not ask the lawyers working for/employed by Wikivoyage's owner, Internet Brands, to look into this? See Wikivoyage as a company - contributors (we) work, they (IB) help us work by clearing problems like these so we can go on. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 13:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Uploading a new version

Sometimes I am able to upload a new version of a file, other times this option is not displayed on the Image page. Why is this? --(WT-shared) Peterfitzgerald 13:32, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey Peter, you can get the "upload new version" link back by performing a purge, although this problem is a bit strange. Hope this helps! --(WT-shared) Peter 17:10, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I added a Purge Cache link to edittools. You can find it at the bottom when you are in edit mode. -- (WT-shared) Tatata 00:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is interested, it finally dawned upon me why this happens. The "Upload new version" link does not appear when you view an image file while logged out. If you then log in and view the same image file, the cache does not update for the image file page and the link therefore does not appear. Hence the need to purge the cache. --(WT-shared) Peter ^Talk 15:39, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

What happens when you upload a new version of an image but the other one doesn't delete. There are currently two images I uploaded for the Museu Imperial in Petropolis with different spellings.. how do I delete the original which is spelled wrong like "Meseu Imperial"?? (WT-shared) sevenlee

In the future, just post it on Votes for deletion. (I've already deleted the duplicate.) (WT-shared) Jpatokal 23:34, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Shared <-- You are HERE

It is too easy to be on Shared without realizing it! I suggest we change the background image on Shared to something noticeably different from the standard background image so that one cannot so easily not realize one is on Shared. Maybe (a) change the color of the background image on Shared to rainbow colors, or to pale green or light blue tones, or (b) print "/shared" in bold letters all over the background image, or (c) change the background image all together to gears or something indicative of meta-thoughts or the working-insides of servers or gizmos or something. And change Shared's Main Page to Main Page on Shared and change maybe all the navigation bar's names to "_________ on Shared". Clunky? Not at all. It is good not to call twins by the same name. At least one can see by the language at hand which language version of Wikivoyage one has strayed to. On shared, it is too easy to think on is on English Wikivoyage. :-) --(WT-shared) Rogerhc 18:57, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Not a bad idea. I'd vote for a subtle yet noticeable change of background color – (WT-shared) cacahuate ^talk 01:17, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

This should be possible by merely changing your "skin" preferences for the shared version. Unfortunately, we only have the one default skin available. Is there any way to change this? I have been making mistakes between language versions and shared as well, thinking that I'm on one when I'm looking at another. --(WT-shared) Peter ^Talk 23:10, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Bump. Any reason not to do this? The suggested slight change in background color should suffice. -- (WT-shared) Bill-on-the-Hill 23:01, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

TOC problems

Is there any chance that we will fix the problems with the TOC? Does anybody know which WikiMedia exension is used? Evan seems to igore the problems, so does anybody have an idea how to fix it? It looks ugly on some articles and patrolling is bothersome... --(WT-shared) Flip666 ^writeme! • 19:15, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Wikivoyage liaison reports

Please, please, please, all liaisons: kindly use the template when you add a liaison report. Wiki-creativity is admirable at most times, but trying to comment in/on personalised reports is not that easy. What's more, it is difficult to follow your progress. Secondly: why cannot Wikivoyage in english appoint a few liaisons so we get some sort of input from you? (WT-shared) Riggwelter 06:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT) en:Project:Travellers' pub

Images without license or information

Over 100 images are tagged with {{Dont know}} [4], so I'm thinking that I add them to Votes for deletion page. Is there any policy or procedure about it? If not, I want to do it after 14 days counting from the date of tagged. Concerning the images without information or not written in English, maybe they are also a lot. Should I leave them as they are? -- (WT-shared) Tatata 04:23, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to get rid of content with unspecified licensing. It is against our image policy to upload them, and having a strict policy will actually encourage would-be-uploaders to start taking the licensing requirements more seriously.

I would rather not have all 100 show up at once on the vfd page, however. Maybe we could just list them all under one entry on the vfd page, and list the ~100 files on a subdomain page like Votes for deletion/Dont know licensing? --(WT-shared) Peter ^Talk 04:08, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I would not to see about 200 images at once on the page too. I've been thinking about the listing of those images for a week, but I am still wondering whether they should spend their last 14 days on the vfd page or the subdomain page. What do you think about if I bunch images by uploader and then I add some bunches to the vfd page in several times at proper intervals? About the subdomain page, I'd rather use it on purpose to warn uploaders and to prepare for a deletion nomination.

Recently I modified Template:Vfd and Template:Dont know to add a category and a named parameter to them. As a result, we can see thumbnails of images tagged {{vfd}} and images tagged {{dont know}}. So I would like to ask you all here that go back your language version to say Check the categories on Wikivoyage Shared and correct copyright information if you find your image on there, or it will be deleted! on travellers' pub page and/or other appropriate pages (e.g. image policy, How to upload, shared potal, etc). About the named parameter ({{vfd|user=USERNAME}}, {{dont know|user=USERNAME}}), it is used to bunch images by uploader; listing like this. I wish to use this listing for warning and preparation. Maybe next week, I will modify Mediakiki:Edittools to add {{dont know|user=USERNAME}} and start bunching. This parameter is optional at this time, but I'd like to make it mandatory if someone regards it as useful. -- (WT-shared) Tatata 00:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I think this is the wrong approach. Images uploaded before the automatic tagging-on-upload system were implemented should be assumed to be CC by-sa 1.0 like everything else on WT, not deleted. Any "don't know" images after that can and should be deleted though. (WT-shared) Jpatokal

Would you please explain exactly what the automatic tagging-on-upload system is, when it was implemented and why those images should be assumed to be CC by-sa 1.0? -- (WT-shared) Tatata 13:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

If you look at Special:Upload, there's a line that says:

All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, if you are the original creator and you don't select a license.

Also every time you edit Wikivoyage (including Shared), the following disclaimer is displayed:

Please note that all contributions to Wikivoyage Shared are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 (see Wikivoyage Shared:Copyleft for details).

"All contributions" obviously includes images. The "tagging on upload" means the licensing pull-down box added by Evan to Special:Upload; unfortunately I don't know exactly when this was implemented. (WT-shared) Jpatokal 23:13, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I have to say that it is wrong to say "All contributions" obviously includes images., because Special:Upload doesn't have such a disclaimer.

Adding images without copyright information is prohibited in Wikivoyage. Thus MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:copyrightwarning are just saying the result of submitting.

By the way, how can we decide between {{cc-by-sa-1.0}} and {{Dont know}} without a clear implemented date? And, where has your automatic tagging-on-upload system gone? I'm interested in what wonderful automatic functions the licensing pull-down box have, how it avoids uploading without a license specified, and why it can be used as an excuse of adding images without copyright information.  :-) --(WT-shared) Tatata 03:13, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The licensing pull-down box forces a user to choose something, so any images with no tag at all were uploaded before it. These should be processed on a case-by-case basis:

* Obvious personal photos or images by known users should be tagged as cc-by-sa-1.0

* Doubtful images should be flagged dont-know and deleted (VFD) if the uploader cannot be contacted.

Also, any images uploaded with "don't know" selected via the pull-down box should be VFD'd. (WT-shared) Jpatokal 09:43, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

O.K. Can you explain this and this to me here? Who is forced to tag by the licensing pull-down box?

And, why Obvious personal photos or images by known users can be used as an excuse of adding images without copyright information? I think it is natural that any images without copyright information should be tagged as {{dont know}}.

I'd like to know who can understand what you're saying. :-) -- (WT-shared) Tatata 11:38, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think you are even trying to understand what I am saying. Now read very carefully.

If you upload a file now, a license tag is automatically added to your image. If the user's selection is "None selected", the tag is {{dont know}}. These images, including your examples above, should be VFD'd.

If you uploaded a file in the past, there was no automatic tagging. Special:Upload has always stated that images are "automatically licensed by cc-by-sa-1.0", so these old images are automatically licensed by cc-by-sa-1.0 (except of course if they are copyright violations). They should not be marked dont-know, they should not be deleted.

OK? (WT-shared) Jpatokal 11:06, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't know what you really have in mind.

The links I put above, did you check both image pages' first version in their history? I think no one can see {{dont know}} tag on the first version of each image page except you. If you not sure, please try "None selected" case yourself.

As for your interpretation of statement on Special:Upload, would you please teach me which policy/guideline or consensus you base on?

Honestly, I'm fed up with a gross exaggeration distorting a fact. I'll go ahead step by step anyway, unless you back up your story with policy/guideline or consensus. You had better think this issue over more seriously, though I'm not expecting... -- (WT-shared) Tatata 13:11, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Oops -- now I finally understand, so "None selected" really doesn't put any tag in the image. That's really stupid (can we fix it?), but I was wrong, so my apologies.

However, the second part still stands. According to Special:Upload, "All uploaded images are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0, if you are the original creator and you don't select a license.", and this should be respected. (WT-shared) Jpatokal 07:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I think we need Evan's help to fix it and we have something have to be complied with more than we respect the text on Special:Upload. -- (WT-shared) Tatata 04:38, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

A short time ago, I modified Mediakiki:Edittools as stated above and I'll soon start bunching {{dont know}} tagged images. Until we've reached a consensus on how to add those images to VFD page, I'd like to use the subdomain page on purpose to list links to bunches by user like this; * [[User:(WT-shared) Foo]] — [[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Foo/Unlicensed]]. After this work finished, I'd like to work on Special:Uncategorizedimages to clean up shared:. -- (WT-shared) Tatata 02:51, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I finished Special:Uncategorizedimages and started to work on Special:Wantedcategories. Maybe I will have to start adding those images to VFD page next week if uploaders will not fix them... -- (WT-shared) Tatata 04:38, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

As long as we're sure that Special:Upload has always stated the automatic ccbysa1.0 thing, I think that covers us legally, right? I don't think we should vfd images without licenses selected, and I do like the idea of getting rid of "none selected" and making 1.0 the default, that would solve our problems! – (WT-shared) cacahuate ^talk 03:26, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Back log

At the moment, the Category:Open bug reports is a list containing some 80 open bug reports. I am not a comp wiz, but it sounds like an awful lot of open tickets to me. For example, at least four versions of Wikivoyage does not have a working message waiting indication, MWI. I'd like to know if there is some sort of priority among the raised issues, and if the different reports could be assigned with some sort of closing time? It is common, within the faulting business, to assign tickets with some sort of time stamp and classification, so customers and colleagues can see when the ticket may be fixed and how important ithe problems is said to be. For example, if the MWI does not work, it would be assigned as half-critical and would be solved in no more than XX days. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 14:26, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Many of the open reports are ancient and should be tagged as closed. But yes, I agree that something should be done, and I also think that Mediawiki is not the best way of handling bug reports in the first place... (WT-shared) Jpatokal 07:03, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

IB, or somebody should consider setting up a Bugzilla instance. That works pretty well, but then For Wikevent I've started using Remember the Milk. -- (WT-shared) Mark 10:29, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Yay! New Africa and other Images in the Commons

Hey all. I thought you'd like to know that I've suceeded in talking my friend Valentina into releasing her travel photos under the by-sa 2.0. She's got lots of great pictures from Europe, Africa, South and Central America, and New York City, so if your looking for something to illustrate your work on the Zambia article, look no further. -- (WT-shared) Mark 10:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)