Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


[edit] Discussion

[edit] Script is final

I have finally created a repository for the flickrreview script. As stated on the page, simply add: document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Patstuart/Flickrreview.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>'); to your monobook file. It works out some of the bugs from the previous version (e.g., it can handle international characters and backslashes). Please feel free to drop me a note on the function if you wish. Patstuart (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I have a problem with this text: "Administrators of other Wikimedia project may be added immediately to the list by a trusted user or a Commons administrator, if no reasonable objection has been found."

Why should any old admin be allowed to review Flickr images? I was an admin here for nearly a year and I know basically nothing about copyright (yeah, somehow I passed adminship). I think that, admin or not, all editors should apply here before they can become a "trusted user". I'd even go a step further and rename the position to "reviewer". Admins don't necessarily have a clue about flickr images, and therefore should not be reviewing them. I'd propose admins have to go through this process as well. It's all very well using a bot to clear out a category, but absolutely no thought is required and admins having ability to review may not be a good thing. Majorly talk 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It never made sense to me. I mean Flickr reviewing doesn't take much copyright knowledge so it's really more about trust, but they still got to know what they're doing. Rocket000 (talk) 20:51, 2008 June 14 (UTC)
On the flipside, though, you have the fact that admins--unless they come from small wikis without the RfA process--have been selected as trustworthy individuals by people familiar with their work. That being said, as someone who recently became a reviewer using this clause (thanks, giggy :)), I definitely agree that adminship on another project doesn't translate directly into the knowledge needed to review Flickr images. I definitely had a couple of bad tags before I got the hang of it. --jonny-mt en me! 11:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree'd Jonny-mt. Going through the flickrreview failures I see far too many "The image was licensed under CC" (when it was CC-by-NC-ND) to believe that random admins from random projects are also going to know. In fact I've removed at least a few (flickr) images that I know other project admins uploaded. These were of course ones that never passed flickr review, they claim they were "free" when they uploaded them (years ago) - but do they actually know what they are looking for? I doubt a majority do. --ShakataGaNai Talk 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and as such I shall remove it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No objection. giggy (:O) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of this clause and support its removal. giggy (:O) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem II

I see a lot of trusted users not paying attention to the size of the uploaded images from Flickr. They check the licenses (most important), but fail to notice that the original resolution is not the one present at Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, why do trusted users Flickreview images when we have FlickreviewR bot to do the job? Shouldn't the trusted users only review the category Flickr images needing human review as it states in the Review process section of Flickr review needed? Thanks --Kimse (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the flickr review bot should ONLY check the image size as it lets through all flickrwashing. There's no reason why people shouldn't review new uploads - it's not as if we have a backlog. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the most I've seen it is 10-15, at the highest. rootology (T) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
10-15? You guys are either really efficient, or the bot's code has been improved... back before I became an admin when I was actively reviewing, we'd often have 100+! —Giggy 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This is me, right? :) I've been going back through the ones I missed for the larger size images. I was particularly annoyed that I missed that rather large chicken image. Would it be possible to change the Flickr upload form to boldly/loudly recommend uploaders always get the biggest option they can? rootology (T) 02:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kimse. I think for the most part, the bot should review the ones it can. Of course, it allows flickerwashing and other forms of copyvios, but that's not the main point of this. It's to confirm the license. Everything else can dealt with in the same way as all other uploads. Everytime I upload something from Flickr I leave the template on there for the bot to confirm the license. It just gives us a little more assurance that the image was really free when we got it. Rocket000 (talk)

Rootology, this is not just you - many trusted users don't check for higher resolutions. But can we blame them if the instructions they read don't require it? A trusted user Powerek38 pointed me to the instructions template for Flickreviewing and it doesn't say anything about resolution of the images transfered from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons. Should it mention that the trusted users should also check for original resolutions?--Kimse (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would help. My routine since I began helping on that is to go over to flickr, make sure the images match, click into the license to make sure there's no mix up, and then poke around the person's photostream a smidge to make sure it's something they took--a flickr of 1,000 crappy camphone images and one Maxim-grade hot girl would trigger my Copyvio-Sense, for example. If all that is OK, and my eyes didn't catch a smaller resolution (not fool proof, since I obviously missed some) I'd sign off. Having some way to prominently remind us is the only to learn so it becomes second nature--repetition. Maybe if the Flickreviewer script did a little Java popup (one click) asking us if we got the biggest resolution? rootology (T) 00:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not an Admin but I notice that the Flickr review bot can malfunction occasionally for 1-2 days...and suddenly you get a backlog of 100+ (as happened on last Sunday morning) images in this category waiting to be reviewed. So, a human trusted user has to step in and inspect them singlehandedly. When I submit a flickr image for it to be reviewed and nothing happens for some 20 hours because the bot is having difficulties, you know there is a problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to {{user trusted}}

I've created {{user reviewer}} and the top-icon {{reviewer}} for those with a more egalitarian bent (I personally do not like the trusted user identifier).--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help me

How can I be a trusted user?

--Amit Gomes (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the guide. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed change

This change I disagree with. I don't see why a reviewer can't close a request they haven't voted in. How do you turn this on (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I reverted pending discussion of this policy change. Although my recent edit was only to change "trusted user" to "reviewer" in the relevant text, I agree that reviewers (aka trusted users, though I hate that name) should be able to make this determination, it isn't a user privilege like getting rollback on enwiki.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
    FYI, This discussion is somewhat fragmented, parts of it being at Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers/list, others being at User_talk:Nagy#Flickr_images.--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohsin's request

Um, may I ask why this was archived? Just curious to why it was closed. Seems really unfair that something like this gets only two supports and is closed. Maybe restart the nom? That is often a good solution.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Thanks for not alerting me about this.) For the record; I don't see why it should be restarted. It was passed, as no objections were raised in 13 days, well more than the week needed. Giggy (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh, whoops, I totally read the archive edit summary as "archive" as it looked obvious that it did promote. Sorry for the problem then. :( -Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Flickr review status

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Flickr_images/reviewers"
Personal tools