Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers/discussion archive 1

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

Archival, etc.[edit]

I'll clean up the mess later today. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Claimed trusted[edit]

Of late I have noticed quite a few users claiming that they are trusted users on their user pages, whilst not actually being trusted reviewers. They may display the template (users listed here), but they are not actually represented in the list; Commons:Flickr_images/reviewers. What should be done about this? Are we to just remove the template from their page or what? Comments are much appreciated --Pumpmeup 11:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

When does a user actually become "trusted?" When their discussion above on this talk page or are they not "trusted" until their names are officially added to Commons:Flickr_images/reviewers? -Seidenstud 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, are these users reviewing images? If so, is there a way that the template {{Flickrreview}} could somehow check if the User called in it was trusted or not, and if not, display some sort of message when used to tag an image as reviewed? -Seidenstud 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a script that checked the human reviewed images. It broke some time ago, but I'm planning to revive it somewhere next week. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As to whether these people actually review images, I'm not sure. But what I'm after is a course of action to take regarding whether to let them claim this "status" or to remove the template from their userpages. And Bryan, having that script would be great :-) --Pumpmeup 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking forward to it Bryan. In the meantime, just leave the user a note reminding them that they can list here, get trusted, and there's no longer a problem. Giggy\Talk 07:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okey dokey - that's probably the best course of action - thanks guys! --Pumpmeup 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It might take some time. I'm currently quite busy, but I'll see whether I can do it somewhere in between. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a link to the list in the user trusted userbox that allows anyone to check? Like this, for example. Lucis 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea, Lucis, so I've merged that into {{user trusted}}. This could be beneficial :) Giggy\Talk 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Instructions on becoming a reviewer[edit]

I wrote a section about becoming a reviewer on the main page, please check it to see whether there are problems with it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think we should let admins on other projects add themselves to the list though. Giggy\Talk 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Approving your own images[edit]

Recently I tagged a few images I uploaded myself as reviewed, since I'm a trusted user and I wanted to spare anyone the trouble of checking, but now I'm wondering if that's good practice or if anyone objects? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I always approve my own images, that was a major motivation for my asking for the flag. It's not a judgment call, it's testimony: I, AnonEMouse, went and looked at the Flickr page at this date and time, and it said X. That is no less true for the images I uploaded as for images someone else uploaded and I looked at. The fact it's not a judgment call is why we allow bots to do it. --AnonEMouse 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AnonEMouse - I see no issue in trusted users/admins reviewing their own images. Giggy\Talk 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it is a matter of redundancy, not judgment. Since fraudulent licensing is such a liability, and since Flickr keeps no record of images which were licensed (irrevocably) in the past, the fact that a single user saw the image as licensed a certain way, and uploaded it as such, can be seen as somewhat thin, whereas if two separate users both did so, that would relieve some of the burden of proof from wikimedia if such a license were ever contested. As a result, I never review my own image uploads. In fact, if I am reviewing an uploaded image, and find the a problem with it of some sort (maybe wrong license, or even low resolution version uploaded) and fix it, I leave it unreviewed in order to let a second party review the image in the present form/license. Furthermore, I do not see a problem with allowing unreviewed images into wikimedia projects pending review (bot review happens pretty quickly, and there has been a very short backlog on human-review-needed images lately), so I am not even certain what the advantage of reviewing one's own image would be. There is only the disadvantage of losing the redundant accountability. -Seidenstud 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Like Seidenstud I believe trusted users shouldn't review their own images (hell, I'm an admin and I never review my own images). The whole point of flickrreview is the 'reviewing' bit. A second pair of eyes is always good. ~ Riana 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Script[edit]

Hey everyone, I've created a really basic script, based off a few others. I don't know if any others exist, but this one does. Anyone who wants to adapt upon it or better it can. At the moment, one still has to actually click the "edit" link of a page (I don't know how to do anything else; maybe someone can ask Azatoth on en), and there will be a button at the top of the page stating "flickrreview". Simply copy the following text into your monobook:

var autoAppend=false;

// addFlickrOK tagger (initially developed by Patstuart)
function flickrOK (){
  var needAppend;  if (autoAppend)
    needAppend=document.editform.wpTextbox1.value;
  document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:FlickreviewR.*}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview}})/g, '{{flickrreview|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|{{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}}}}');
  if (autoAppend && needAppend==document.editform.wpTextbox1.value)
    document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{{flickrreview|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|{{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}}}}'    
  document.editform.wpSummary.value = '[[Commons:Flickr images|Flickrreview]] passed';
  document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
  document.editform.submit();
}
function addFlickrOK ()
{
  if (document.editform && wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image")
    addPortletLink("p-cactions", "javascript:flickrOK()", "Flickrreview", "");
}
addOnloadHook(addFlickrOK);

Patstuart 21:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work! However, when using the template, I like to use the exact date I reviewed the image (not just the day), so I suggest you use {{sub'+'st:CURRENTTIME}}, {{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}} {{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}} instead of {{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}}. Thanks for the script! --Boricuæddie 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It's really a great script. I actually came across it (don't ask me how) the other day and nicked it from your monobook :P. But I was about to leave you a note on your talk page when I saw this. Bye the way, what do I have to do to it so it won't automatically tick the minor edit box? -- RedCoat 12:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just remove the document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true; line. --Boricuæddie 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Make sure, if you've used this script, to check up here regularly if you find a bug, as I'm still fixing it. Patstuart 20:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've updated the code for about the last time (hopefully). It has an option, as requested, to automatically append the flickrreview tag on the end if it does not find a {{Flickrreview}} tag or a tag by User:Flickreview. This option is default set to false; you can simply change this by hand at the top of the code. If the auto append is false, and you try to hit the flickreview button on a page for which it can't find the proper tag, it will save but nothing will be changed. Patstuart 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice updates there - the issue with Flickrreview bot was bumming me out, it's much better now :) Giggy\Talk 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Last update: now you don't have to open the edit page anymore; it works automagically:
var autoAppend=true;

// addFlickrOK tagger (initially developed by Patstuart)
function flickrOK (){
  var needAppend;
  if (autoAppend)
    needAppend=document.editform.wpTextbox1.value;
  document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value.replace(/({{User:FlickreviewR.*}})|({{(F|f)lickrr?eview}})/g, '{{'+'flickrreview|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|{{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}}}}');
  if (autoAppend && needAppend==document.editform.wpTextbox1.value)
    document.editform.wpTextbox1.value+='{'+'{flickrreview|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|{{sub'+'st:CURRENTDAY}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}-{{sub'+'st:CURRENTYEAR}}}}'    
  document.editform.wpSummary.value = '[[Commons:Flickr images|Flickrreview]] passed';
  document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
  document.editform.submit();
}

function addFunction(functionNameString, buttonDisplayName, checkNameSpaceFlag)
{
  if (document.URL.indexOf("functionName")>-1)
  {
    var functionNameTmp = document.URL.substring(document.URL.indexOf("functionName")+13);
    if (functionNameTmp==functionNameString)
    {
      document.write("<script type='text/javascript'>addOnloadHook(function() {eval('"+functionNameString+"()');})</SCRIPT>");
      return;
    }
  }

  if (checkNameSpaceFlag)
    document.write('<script type="text/javascript">addOnloadHook(' +
      'function (){ '+
        'if (wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image" && document.editform) '+
           'addPortletLink("p-cactions", "javascript:'+functionNameString+'()", "' +buttonDisplayName+'", ""); ' +
        'else if(wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image")'+
           'addPortletLink("p-cactions", "../w/index.php?title='+escape(wgPageName)+'&action=edit&functionName='+functionNameString+'", "' +buttonDisplayName+'", ""); ' +
      '});'
      +'</SCRIPT>');
  else 
    document.write('<script type="text/javascript">addOnloadHook(' +
      'function (){ '+
        'if (document.editform) '+
           'addPortletLink("p-cactions", "javascript:'+functionNameString+'()", "' +buttonDisplayName+'", ""); ' +
        'else '+
           'addPortletLink("p-cactions", "../w/index.php?title='+escape(wgPageName)+'&action=edit&functionName='+functionNameString+'", "' +buttonDisplayName+'", ""); ' +
      '});'
      +'</SCRIPT>');  
}

function addImageFunction(functionNameString, buttonDisplayName)
{
  if (wgCanonicalNamespace=="Image")
    addFunction(functionNameString, buttonDisplayName, true);
}
addImageFunction("flickrOK", "{"+"{flickrreview}}");
I think the script has a bug. It ended up creating the pages "Image:Belle" and "Image:Jack Sparrow" when it tried to review Image:Belle & Sebastian.jpg and Image:Jack Sparrow & girlfriend.jpg, respectively. Presumably it doesn't recognise the ampersand. -- RedCoat 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've edited it. I can't check it, as I'm currently in self-imposed exile, but I've done a lot of testing on my local machine, and I'm 90% sure the update should work. Hope this is good. Patstuart (in exile) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of users[edit]

I suggest we remove users who have become administrators from the list of reviewers. I find it pointless to keep them on the list, because, as administrators, they automatically have the right to review Flickr images. --Boricuæddie 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we don't. If the admins want to remove themselves, then that's fine, but it's not that obvious admins have the "right" to. I, for example have never done Flickr reviewing, yet I somehow have the right to. People who went through this process are likely to be better than me at doing it, Majorly (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Um, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Administrators of this project are automatically trusted with the ability to review Flickr images without the need to request such an ability here; the template says so. All I'm saying is that I think we should remove users who requested the ability to review Flickr images and later became administrators here from the list so it is not clogged-up and there's no confusion. Please explain to me again why you think we should not do this. I have no doubt in my mind that I'm better than you at flickrreviewing :-), but I'm not sure how this fact justifies not implementing my suggestion. --Boricuæddie 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I'm probably better at this than Majorly ;) I have been thinking about adding the admin image next to the names of admins on the list though, just to make things a bit clearer in that regard. Giggy 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's good that you know that, Eddie. But other people don't. The list isn't limited, and isn't clogged up. It is a useful list of who is "qualified" to review, and admins who are as well. I in fact disagree admins should automatically have the right to. As it happens, I'm very familiar with Flickr, but of course you did not know that. Majorly (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. And my apologies ;-) --Boricuæddie 14:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree that trusted users who become administrators should be removed from the list of trusted users since adminship automatically gives the right to review these images, and to prevent the list from becoming over long. As for administrators having the automatic right to do these reviews, I think that unless something has gone horribly wrong, anyone who is trusted as an admin should be either familiar with Flickr or responsible enough not to start doing reviews if s/he's not. So I see no need for an admin to carry the extra badge of being trusted with this job. I imagine the basis behind having {{User trusted}} is to prevent vandals and clueless newcomers from declaring an image to be free when it isn't. Cowardly Lion 00:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Expanding scope beyond Flickr?[edit]

Forgive me if this has been raised before, but has there been any discussion of expanding the scope of the review process beyond Flickr? I was looking at some of the other repositories that use Creative Commons licensing...one such list can be found here. In particular, I was wanting to start pulling some content from http://www.piqs.de/. But it would be nice to have the backup of an expert license review, in the event of a license change on particular images in the future. Kelly 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I've been seeing a few images from geograph uploaded as flickr. I've been approving since they're CC-BY, but would be nice to get some advice. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Maybe we can have like a general "license confirmed" template or something. Rocket000 16:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But we must differentiate between sites that allow license changes (like flickr) and others like geograph, (in which all the pictures are cc-by) or picasaweb, (in which all pictures are ©Google), in such places a cc-by picture will always be cc-by and a all rights always was a copyvio. Thus they don't need a review, just a normal check to verify if it is a copyvio.
Since piqs.de license says:
Alle Fotos können kostenfrei für eigene (Web-)Projekte verwendet werden, selbst wenn diese kommerziell sind.
(All photos can be used free of charge for your own (web) projects, even if these are commercial.)
Doesn't need a review. Just a link to that license in the permission.
But I agree again that we have to create a list of webs that allow changes in the license. The creativecommons wiki is a good start.
Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Script is final[edit]

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)

Theres a tiny minor problem. When I marked an image as copyvio just to test the script (well, and because it was) it added my sig to the same line as the "== Summary ==" so, well... check it out here. Also when you mark it as copyvio it should change the {{flickrreview}} template to {{flickrreview|username|time|Copyright (All Rights Reserved)}}. --Yarnalgo (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, it needs to be able to handle images from The Commons and delete the {{Flickrreview/human}} template when the review passes. --Yarnalgo (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

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)

Problem II[edit]

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)

Alternatives to {{user trusted}}[edit]

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)

Help me[edit]

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)

Undiscussed change[edit]

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)

Mohsin's request[edit]

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)

Admins are automatically considered to be trusted, aren't they?[edit]

Am I right, when I say that Admins are automatically considered to be trusted? If this is the case, this should also be reflected by the text on Commons:Flickr images/reviewers. --ALE! ¿…? 09:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I also thought. --Kanonkas(talk) 10:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I completely disagree. Some admins have no idea how to use/work from Flickr, and so work in other areas. They are not necessarily skilled enough to work in this area. Admins should have to request reviewer status as well. Majorly talk 17:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The wording at {{flickrreview}} says: "been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user..." Cirt (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

FlickR images[edit]

How can i become a trusted user? so that i can help with reviewing the pending flickR images and the licenses? I don't mind helping.. --Ltshears (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Create a nomination and add it to the area below :) -Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 19:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for sounding stupid, but how to i create a nomination? Do i just put my name below or what? --Ltshears (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)