Template talk:Flickrreview

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Info non-talk.svg Template:Flickrreview has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

Some old discussions[edit]

Why does this say that only admins can do this? --Pmsyyz 21:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please read [1]. A.J. 14:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When I check the Flickr page, do I have to notify the user, or just check which licence did he choose? Yuval YChat • 01:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The notification of the Flickr user should be considered optional and not compulsory, but it is recommended, particularly if you plan to review many images.--Nilfanion 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've started reviewing, and it seemed to be easyer when the license isn't valid than when it is... When I see a valid license, and notify the Flickr user, how long sould I wait before modifying the review template? Yuval YChat • 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you reaply, please? Yuval YChat • 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry (been out most of the day). The best thing I think is to not worry about it and tag the reviewed image at the same time as you comment on Flickr with no delay. A number of flickr accounts are inactive anyway, you could be waiting forever for a non-response.--Nilfanion 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's something like http://www.flickr.com/photos/36818084@N00/256646855/. Thanks :-) Yuval YChat • 20:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thas's amazing - when the Flickr users DOES reply me, they like to hear that their picture had been chosen to commons. Sometimes it seems they're even honored... Face-smile.svg Yuval YChat • 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Images on Flickr under a different license[edit]

I have uploaded images from Flickr after having received permission from the content creator to use a different license. There appears to have been no thought given to this situation - where the stated license on Flickr is known to be not the same as the license here because permission has been granted to use a different license. Morven 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now I am going to tag them as approved, since I'm an administrator and it doesn't say admins can't approve their own uploads. Morven 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have uploaded also an image where this is the case, and I was also wondering whether it is considered OK for admins to mark their own uploads as approved. I guess that I will follow your example. —JeremyA 23:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
These sort of things should go into the OTRS system; admin approval plus the OTRS ticket number template is probably the way forward. It helps to retain a review tag as that stops the image being retagged for review.--Nilfanion 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Morven also has access to OTRS, so this doesn't really change anything. Alphax (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
True it doesn't make much difference. However, if it is in the OTRS system the relevant ticket number should be given - for any OTRS user to verify.--Nilfanion 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Morven, I suggest you to write the premission in the premission area... Yuval YChat • 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I created Template:Flickr-unfree-but to mark such images. --::Slomox:: >< 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Manual review a disaster[edit]

I reviewed Flickr reviews using the latest Commons dumps together with my own spidered license samples to see how reliable the process is. Out of the 2600 Flickr images reviewed, 3% of the reviews claim the license was different than my scripted sampling shows it was before and after the date of the review. For work that is essentially just a copypaste effort and is expected to be reliable, this is too big a margin of error, and doesn't serve the purpose of confirming license status. While possible, it's unlikely that the photographers would have happened to change licenses exactly for the date of review and then back again. But since the results of Flickr review done cannot be trusted, I think the manual review of all Flickr images should be stopped. Is the bot bug-free enough yet to leave the manual reviewing only to the images that the bot has been unable to confirm? --Para 09:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Err... can you update that table to show who did the reviewing? Alphax (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't want to point fingers at first, but the names are there now. Looks like it's less wide spread than I thought since some users contribute quite a lot to the count. But still, there should be no differences at all. --Para 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
If you look at those Morven camera pictures, you'll see that he says he got the CC releases via e-mail. If you eliminate those, that puts it at 2%. If somebody gently tells Slomox to perhaps work on a different Commons project, and these numbers hold, we'd be at .08%, which seems reasonable. —Chowbok 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The template includes a field for the reviewing user, we could modify that to incorporate images into categories of the form "Images reviewed by X". Then these categories could be monitored for "bad" reviewers, and rechecked if necessary. If images are under a different license on Flickr to Commons, but a release email exists, it should be on OTRS and the OTRS ticket number should be on the image. A distributive system is probably the best in the long run, with the bot being the "most trusted" reviewer. It could be possible for the bot to cross-check manual reviews, and if it gives the same result as the human, retag the image to mark it as bot-checked. An image which is free according to the human but unfree according to the bot should not be tagged as unfree, but listed for attention (to determine if the human is unreliable or the license changed on flickr). This should also apply to the situation if and when we get a bot that can compare images reliably without EXIF data.--Nilfanion 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm coming to this kinda late, but I don't get why the bot is looking at the EXIF data anyway. Every Flickr page has this line in the code:
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">
Obviously, that line changes based on the license. Why can't the bot just look for that? —Chowbok 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The bot has to look at the EXIF to verify the two images are in fact the same image (or a clear derivative). See the bot request for some further detail.--Nilfanion 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I posted there too, but it seems like comparing MD5 checksums would be more reliable and efficient than looking for EXIF data. —Chowbok 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The MD5 checksum might be a good thing to check for in addition. Simple derivatives (rotation and cropping) would have a different MD5 sum but if done in a good editor would preserve EXIF info. Mention it to Bryan, if the bot checked the MD5 checksum in addition to EXIF it could validate many more images. A different MD5 checksum and no EXIF should be left to a manual check, but that is a much smaller set than existing...--Nilfanion 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OsvaldoGago talked on the Village Pump of witnesses to a license. To get rid of the unreliability of the current process, it would be a good idea to have at least two people tag an image as reviewed. Same for the bot's cross-checking; it should add the information on the page that it did a review, instead of replacing the old tag. Monitoring reviews and comparing multiple review tags on the page doesn't necessarily have to be done through a complicated template. Periodically analysing the database dumps should do the job as well.
Self-review should also definitely not be allowed since it's not really reviewing at all. Peer review is after all the reason Wikipedia works in getting facts right. Retrospective reviewing should probably not be done either, where the review date doesn't match the edit date, ie. "I am certain I uploaded these after a cc-by-sa search way back when". It's a similar situation with a page mentioning any permission, be it a link to an external permission page, an email, or an OTRS id. The information is of course important on the image page but perhaps not in the flickrreview tag?
Even though multiple review tags sounds kind of distant right now, I'm sure that with the bot's aid it could happen fairly soon. Perhaps someone could also hack up an interface for reviewing, in style of Magnus' tools? --Para 11:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Review instructions should be revised to be tougher[edit]

It seems the review instructions here are only concerned with the technicallity of whether a certain license was selected at some point. We should also be reviewing whether a) The FlickR user truly holds a copyright, and b) They knowlingly selected an appropriate license.

a) We don't allow people to upload images without a source to Commons. So, why do we assume an image on FlickR, is automatically made by that user? For example Image:MandyMoorepic.jpg is an obvious professional photo, and there's no reason to think the FlickR user, is the photographer of any of "their" images.

b) FlickR makes it *way* to easy to pick a free license. It's not clear to everyone that "Attribution" means you're releasing all rights, except Attribution. An example, I brought up at Commons talk:Licensing#FlickR and Creative Commons Confusion, shows how we uploaded scores of images, even though the author has always stated explicitly "All Rights Reserved". But, they're poor English skills, probably caused them to make a bad choice. A simple standard check of the FlickR user's profile page, would avoid cases like this.

Any review of a FlickR image, has to involve human judgement, not just a technical check. If something looks "to good to be true", it probably is. We don't blindly trust uploaders to Commons who don't give details. Why do we seem to assume FlickR users are more trustworthy? --Rob 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll get more response on Commons talk:WikiProject Flickr. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The main question here is to avoid any accusations against foundation in copyright violation, if we state that an image was cc-by, and it was really taken from Flickr, then a user from Flickr will be held responsible, if the image is unfree.--Vaya 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're right to some extent. I think the primary objective of Flickrreview is to make sure that the license on the Flickr page matches the one here. That is not to say that we shouldn't use our own judgment (and I do, when I review). By and large we trust the uploads of users who claim the image is their own work and we can only do the same for Flickr images. If it's an obvious copyright violation then we scrap it. If we find out it is one later then we scrap it too. Those are issues that can be taken up later with deletion requests and I think largely fall out of the scope of this project. If I believe an image isn't free from Flickr I still have to use the normal processes to get it deleted. For instance the Mandy Moore image seems to be from a professional photographer who uses Flickr and releases his images for free. They aren't obviously copyrighted by any means and are similar to the ones by Alan Light that he allowed for us to use by freely licensing them. I don't really know what you're saying about the ease of picking licenses. They have access to the license and it's their choice. It is not different from when I uploaded my own images to the commons and chose the license. So, while I agree with some of your sentiments I am not sure what you are asking for policy? Do you want us to assume that if an image looks professional it is a copyright violation and we should delete it? and if it's by a user we suspect doesn't understand licensing we should also delete it because he didn't understand the implications of his actions? If you can boil it down to rules you think should be enacted that would help me judge what you are talking about. gren 07:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I temporarily protected the template, because I am currently collecting all human review data. Changing of the template would interfere with this. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and reinstate semiprotection once this is done. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I am trying to maintain the list of human reviews. Please do not change the categories, if there is not a real reason for this. Please discuss this on the talk page first. Changing the categories will cause me to reread all reviews, which will take a lot of time. Thanks, -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to deprecate?[edit]

To save us a backlog that might not be necessary anylonger, I suggest to deprecate this template.

The new upload form puts images from flickr with a bad license directly in a speedy delete category, so the immediate problem of people misunderstanding the flickr licensing does not exist anymore. Liars there will always be -- but the problem is not critical.

Fred J 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this template is to have users who we trust to not lie confirm that the image is under a free license, in case the license changes in the future. I don't think we should deprecate this category; instead paying less attention to it might be a better idea. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The template can only really be truly deprecated if Flickr actually get their act together on this (conceivable eventually). Reducing the priority given to it seems reasonable but not stopping use altogether. Otherwise we go back to square one and have to trust the uploader (who may lie) as opposed to an established user.--Nilfanion 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical text if date is forgotten[edit]

This template should be fixed because currently it produces nonsensical text when the reviewing user adds their name but forgets to add the date. See for example Image:Alice Walker.jpg. AxelBoldt 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: bot help to monitor for false review claims[edit]

I just had the rather unpleasant experience of noticing an image tagged with {{flickrreview|LX|2008-01-27}} which I had not actually reviewed (and which also didn't match the stated source). Would it be feasible to have a bot regularly monitor images in Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images to ensure that (a) the stated user is an admin or trusted user and (b) that the username was added in a revision created by that same user? LX (talk, contribs) 22:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was active for a short while some months ago. I have rewritten that bot and I plan to deploy it the coming few weeks. Please be patient :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Lovely. Then we don't have to reinvent the wheel either. Cheers! If you handle the actual work, I'm sure I can manage the patience bit. :) LX (talk, contribs) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Flickr images never editted by their reviewer -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Shouldn't this add files to Category:Flickr? I know {{Flickr}} already does but that isn't used on nearly as many files as this template. --Yarnalgo (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  Not done . The template already adds images to various subcategories of Category:Flickr, such as Category:Flickr review needed or Category:Admin reviewed Flickr images. Pruneautalk 12:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in confirmation[edit]

Hi, could someone check this script. The script confirmed for File:Olivia De Haviland 1933.jpg that there are no copyright restrictions, although the flickr page says "All rights reserved" Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

An IP address changed the page, the original had all rights reserved, as confirmed by Nard the Bard. I reverted this. Hekerui (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Given that is a Brazilian address, that the file was uploaded by Flavius92, that most of Flavius92's activity outside Commons is on the Portuguese language Wikipedia, and that Flavius92 has previously been blocked for uploading copyright violations depicting Olivia de Havilland, I don't think it's very hard to guess who's hiding behind that IP address in order to remove problem tags, to make fraudulent statements about the authorship and copyright of the file, and to "review" the file in MECU's name... LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's even more peculiar to note that it happened after I posted this here! Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, forget the question. I thought this was some sort of automated script to get the license from Flickr, but I realize now it is a template for a human intervention. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest link to Commons:Licensing[edit]

The template says "which isn't compatible with Commons" when an image fail review. I suggest that we add "See Commons:Licensing for more information." or something like that. The same should be done with {{Picasareview}} so I added the same suggestion on Template talk:Picasareview#Suggest link to Commons:Licensing :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest feature for "not found"[edit]

We need something to add when image is not found. We have something at Category:Unsourced Flickr images checked by trusted user but I think we should include it in this template. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest help to inform uploader[edit]

I also suggest we add some "hack" to make it easier to inform uploader. We have to make a template to inform user and add a code that include:

{{subst:InformUploaderAboutUnfreeFlickrImage|<Filename>|<Current license>|Signature}}

Or whatever makes it work. For example see code at {{No permission since}}. Perhaps we could also add a "Click here to inform uploader" like we have on {{rename}} (Quick adding). --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bug with incomplete dates[edit]

{{editprotected}} The template allows you to specify the date with a differing number of significant digits:

Checked copyright icon.svg This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on by the administrator or reviewer Example, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

Checked copyright icon.svg This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on by the administrator or reviewer Example, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

Checked copyright icon.svg This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on by the administrator or reviewer Example, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

Checked copyright icon.svg This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on by the administrator or reviewer Example, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date.

It should be "in 2011", "in December 2011" and "on 15 December 2011". Could you go to the English text and replace "on" with {{#switch:{{str len|{{{2}}}}}|4=in|7=in|on}} before the {{ISOdate}} tag (note: needs to be done at two places in the template)? The last one needs to be without a specified string length since the time may be unspecified or have a varying length. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The date should always include months and days. I dislike {{str len}} as long as it is not done by mediawiki itself. -- RE rillke questions? 14:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Iferror +"-12-12-12" is more efficient?
2012-12-15 19:28:23Z: on , 2012-12-15: on , 2012-12: in , 2012: in
{{#iferror: {{#time: d|{{{2}}}-12-12-12}} | on | in}} -- RE rillke questions? 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The usage instructions have mandated a full ISO standard date since January of 2009. How many uses are non-conformant? I'd rather see that those were corrected than to accommodate incomplete dates. LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Please remember, any change to the imge's Flickrreview string not done by the reviewer will be considered as "Images never editted by their reviewer" with images ending up listed here. They are also ending there if a Bot upload used a review tag from it's master or derivatives uploaded with the review tag from the original image. Even worse, renamed users cause an invalid tag as well. I already spend some days of work on fixing some thousand images, most of them were cause by bots with wrong review tags but also by Slobot date fixing. --Denniss (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a horribly named category, even if you overlook the misspelling of "edited"... "never edited" is not true for all items on the list. Rd232 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  Not done - no consensus to adapt template to accommodate uses that don't respect longstanding instructions. Rd232 (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"User" parameter[edit]

{{edit protected}} The documentation says that you may use either {{{1}}} or {{{user}}}. However, the source code says {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1}}} at one place, meaning that files are placed in Category:Flickr review needed if {{{user}}} is used. Please adjust the code to {{#if:{{{1|{{{user|}}}}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{1|{{{user}}}}}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

✓  Done Awesome! Thank you! ~riley (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
~riley, seems that a pipe was missing. I've added it to the code above - can you add it to the template too? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
✓  Done . ~riley (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Has this update been properly tested by the maintainer of the Flickr review bot? @Zhuyifei1999: please verify this change.--Denniss (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this has any bad consequences --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)