Commons talk:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Quality of opinions, etc.[edit]

I sure see a lot of really bad reasoning in favor of restore. Reasoning like "well, it's public domain, and that's all that matters" - which of course is a handy-wavey way of just ignoring the entire side of the debate which conveniently favors one's own interpretation. Or, "there was never a legal requirement to do so", a transparently false assertion.

I highly suggest that whoever closes this discussion takes a very serious look at the opinions and takes into account opinions which misstate facts or are "just a vote." We decide things based on the merits of the discussion, not a head count.

Has anyone decided to inform Wikimedia's legal council that we are planning on ignoring the clear, unequivocal language of its previous decisions entirely in favor of broadening our own interpretation of its current one?

FWIW, if the decision is in favor of restoration, and we do not get consent from the WMF, then I will refuse to be bound by it. I will continue to delete any files I see which violate the URAA. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the poor quality of the debate is partly due to how it has been structured - i.e. a straight vote fest with a very one-sided intro. It might be good to accept the results so far as indicating strong dissatisfaction with the status quo (especially on Hebrew Wikipedia), then scrap the current format and try to restart the discussion within a more constructive framework. For example, give a brief overview of the situation with a list of links to previous discussions, followed by sections for discussing the latest board statement and for proposing actions we can take here on Commons (but not voting on them at this stage). However since I've already !voted, I don't think I should be the one to do that. --Avenue (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You both put a completely distorted view of the problem. See my comment on the back side. Yann (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I feel the same way about your view of the problem, and the views of many others supporting mass restoration. But just saying that people on the other side live in a looking-glass world won't really help us build a consensus, any more than yelling "Support" and "Oppose" at each other does.
I've responded to your comment in the Comments section there. --Avenue (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I haven't spoken clearly enough. I will take a stand on this; if it means I have to undo any restorations and delete any images restored due to this decision, I will do so. Just as an officer of the United States is under no legal obligation to obey a law which is unconstitutional, so I will not pay any attention to any rule which runs contrary to the stated aims of Commons, as well as the clear instructions of the WMF. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Magog, please stop rethoric which is purely political, and contrary to Commons objective. You do a great diservice to the project. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
IMO the idea of these projects is to defend free access to culture, erasing pictures we are doing the opposite. Fight for fair access to culture. --Alan (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The discussion is here and I don't think its correct for Admin Magog to have a separate discussion here saying he/she will reject whatever decision is made. That is not quite respectful. Alan correctly notes that this project is about defending free access to old images which are in the public domain in their host country...such as Canada. Like the 1948 image of Barbara Ann Scott in the City of Toronto archives that I mentioned in the discussion. Look at Dennis' suggested solution. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    What is less respectful? For the community to come to a decision to ignore the WMF's clear instructions because it has a vested interest, or for me to threaten to enforce the WMF's standards. Regardless, I've opened up a thread on Jimbo Wales' en.wp talk page (link), because no one else has bothered to inform the WMF that we're unilaterally deciding that copyright violations are OK. And someone clearly needs to do so. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You forgot to write In my opinion. Modesty is not a bad thing. Hanay (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Magog: I find it very disturbing that opinions of some people are valued less, only because they differ from yours. Everybody is entitled to have his/her opinion, without being judged. You should have shame to publicly state this, and you should resign as an admin for this. Yann (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, yes, but at the same time they are responsible for the consequences of expressing their opinions, and they may be weighed more or less at the discretion of the closing administrator/bureaucrat responsible. At the same time, we should make sure to provide them with the necessary information to make an informed opinion, not just one their entitled to. (Even though I linked to the article, I'm not insulting the voters per se, rather I believe the opening statement by Alan should be worded more carefully to fully examine the URAA case at hand and not just a blanket, vague statement saying "The position of the WMF BoT is clear, don't delete anything at the moment." The issue here is much more complex than this oversimplification, and it's what's causing confusion.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
+1 It would be great if someone had the time to summerize the context and explain it in a neutral way. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I want to point out that speaking of opinion quality seems a bit harsh for me, when people are not individually responsible for the quality of the discussion. Of course, it would be better to have a full summary of the context and the matters that are at stake. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon. I just looked at the 3 most recent "restore" votes, just for kicks: one says "we should keep them because they are free somewhere", another is just a vote, and another says the "URAA is a bad law." Not a single one of those actually addressed the problem at hand. So, yes, I will call out badly reasoned opinions, and no, I don't really care if someone gets offended. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see here for a discussion on how to implement the closure. I suggest that further discussion happens there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A new Request for Comment, proposing amendment of the Precautionary principle.[edit]

I have opened a RFC at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, including a poll. Contributions are more than welcome. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)