- 1 维基共享资源目标
- 2 共享资源范围
- 3 范围第一部分：文件
- 3.1 必须是媒体文件
- 3.2 必须是接受的自由文件格式
- 3.3 必须有自由许可证授权或属于公有领域
- 3.4 必教育性
- 3.5 PDF and DjVu formats
- 4 范围第二部分：页面、图库及分类
- 5 A word on some areas of particular concern
- 6 另见
- 百科条目 （应当存于维基百科）。
In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable licence. Typically that requires at least that the source of the file be specified, along with the original source where the file is a derivative work. Also, the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable. If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence.
Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
- the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
- that any required consent has been obtained.
- Note that in the case of files found on the Web, this should not be the URL of the file, but the URL of the page containing the file, so that Commons editors can find background information when required.
Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
We hold many high quality images of species-identified birds, and there is no realistic educational use for a small, blurry, poorly composed snapshot of an unidentified and unidentifiable bird. Of course, there is always room for another educationally distinct image, for example illustrating some aspect of bird behaviour that we do not currently cover, even if the image is perhaps not of the highest quality.
There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value.
New educational files of exceptional quality are always welcome, and the later uploading of such files may in principle render earlier unused poor quality files educationally redundant. However, as indicated above, a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor quality file that remains in use is not liable to deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available.
New and existing files of poor or mediocre quality may or may not be realistically useful for an educational purpose depending on what they illustrate and what other files we have of the same subject. Where a subject is rare and/or difficult to capture, even a poor quality file may be of significant educational value, especially if Commons has very few or no similar files already. On the other hand, poor or mediocre files of common and easy to capture subjects may have no realistic educational value, especially if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples.
Image quality is just one of the factors that may limit the educational usefulness of a file. Other limiting factors may include low-resolution and hard-to-remove watermarks.
PDF and DjVu formats
Although PDF and DjVu file formats are permitted, they are expected to be used only in appropriate cases. There should be some reason for the choice of format that is in line with Commons' aims. All of the above rules apply as well, of course.
An admin considering whether to delete a PDF or DjVu file may have to exercise judgement as to whether the chosen format is in line with Commons' aims, and the context and intent (if known) may be relevant. For example, while a published University thesis in PDF format may be OK, a user-created original-research article that is making use of Commons as a free web-host may not be.
Files that might realistically be useful to one or more other Wikimedia projects, e.g. Wikisource or Wikibooks, should be kept; deletions should not be based on the sole ground that the file would be better hosted on one of those other projects. Any media file that is realistically useful to or is within the scope of even one other Wikimedia Foundation project can be hosted here.
Remember that Wikisource may use PDF or DjVu files in order to proofread or create source texts: Therefore, scans of suitable editions of notable public domain works are almost always within scope for this reason. That said, remember that editorial decisions involved in preparing a text from several sources may allow a new copyright, so the editions used must be out of copyright themselves.
Allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats
- The format has been selected for convenience of printing.
- The format has been selected to allow viewing or printing of special fonts (e.g. documents in advanced mathematics or linguistics).
- The file would be within the scope of another project of the Wikimedia Foundation if it were to be uploaded in the same format to that project, for example:
- A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons. Examples of in-scope documents include published books (but not vanity-publishing), peer-reviewed academic papers etc., university theses and dissertations.
- The file is a scan of a document of historic or other external significance (e.g. scans of existing copyright-free or licensed books, reports, newspapers etc.).
- The file is usable as a fixed, verifiable source document, for e.g. Wikisource or Wikibooks (appropriate fixation of content).
- The format selected provides technical advantages to at least one other Wikimedia Foundation project.
Non-allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats
- The format has apparently been selected by the author or uploader to prevent or to discourage the creation of derivative works contrary to Commons' aims. Such inappropriate fixation of content would include a self-published vanity article or a self-created image that the author has uploaded in PDF format in an effort to discourage others from creating derivatives.
- The content is essentially raw text (such files are not considered media files). Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images.
- The content would be prohibited under another section (for example, promotional material is outside Commons' scope regardless of the file format).
A word on some areas of particular concern
Files and other materials which are not lawful for Commons to host on its servers in Florida will be deleted immediately upon being identified as illegal (this includes copyright violations), even if the material otherwise falls within Commons scope, as set out above. However, Commons is not censored, and does quite legitimately include content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. The policy of "Commons is not censored" means that a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offense to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons.
The counterpoint to this, is that the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose.
A balance has to be struck between accepting useful media files with legitimate educational content that some may find offensive, and not allowing Commons to be used as a general-purpose media-hosting service (like Flickr, Photobucket, YouTube, etc.), without regard for the project's stated goals. The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and as a public service freely accessible to everyone.