User talk:Sj/Archive2
My Board platform · Questions · Suggestions · Experience · On the Projects · Support future elections
| Babel user information | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||
| Users by language | |||||||||
Opt-out discussion[edit]
Hello Sj, I am trying to develop a larger consensus around the opt-out issue. Consistent with that, I have started a new section on the talk page and plan to advertise it widely. Your previous comments are linked from that page, but I am mentioning it here in case you want to address the issue directly in the new thread. Apologies, for the duplication of effort, but I think restarting this is more likely to gain participation rather than trying to draw new voices into an thread that had already grown stale. Dragons flight (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for the update. Sorry I missed this last week, I'll take a look at the new thread. +sj + 03:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the discussion was helpful, and the # of opt outs hasn't been tremendous. We still have to address what to do with future GFDL uploads. +sj + 15:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Mauro David[edit]
Done. Actually, if this picture was uploaded on it.wp I would have deleted it per our rule of "consider it a copyvio in the image was already published elsewhere and/or without proof that the uploader holds the right for it": if I got a reply, I'd process it through OTRS to get a ticket for that pic. And, I'd bet that the upload was done only for promo reasons, and they have actually no idea of what a CC license is: licenses' awareness is still very, very low in my country. Bye! --Elitre (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Congrats on your re election[edit]
Hey Sj. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. --James Heilman, MD (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Aphaia[edit]
Hi! Sorry it took so long for me to get to your comments - I replied at User talk:Aphaia WhisperToMe (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I would start Commons:Village_pump#Naming_order_of_Japanese_people WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you![edit]
|
For supporting the cause!! Missvain (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC) |
Template:Consent[edit]
Hi SJ,
Kaldari and 99of9 created and wrote the documentation for Template:Consent as a way to affirm the consent of identifiable people.
See the link for the documentation.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent/doc
Hopefully by getting affirmation by the uploader early on, we will resolve any issues while the user is still active.
Also, there is a discussion on AN about the WMF Board May 2011 resolution.
I replied there with my interpretation of the situation. Thought that you might have something to add or correct since you have advocated for model consent for uploads as a part of the solution for managing our files. [1], and [2]. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sw-Wiki / JWLetter[edit]
Hi Sj hopefully you still have some access to the people running the place. On sw we have an ugly version of JW's call for donations. Somebody made it a 4-liner which just to wide for the average laptog screen like mine - other wikis I looked at have it as a 3-liner. And secondly the text is lousy Swahili. Should read: "Usome tafadhali: Barua kutoka Jimmy Wales, mwanzilishaji wa wikipedia!". The text tself is not this years appeal but probably last Year's, which I annot check. No idea who provided the bad headline or put it on site - but if you know anyone who can correct the Swahili and make it a 3-liner, I appreciate. (kipala) 86.97.34.32 11:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
RE: Hello[edit]
Prezado Sj,
Primeiramente gostaria de me desculpar por somente hoje, depois de um ano, estar respondendo a sua mensagem, isso é pelo fato que raramente acesso a Wiki desde de que as imagens minhas foram todas deletadas, em outras palavras, perdi a motivação da Wiki desde os fatos. Mas tenho sim interesse, se possível de reaver as imagens e atentar as possíveis falhas que levaram fotos por mim tiradas ou pertencentes ao acervo da minha família serem excluídas. Reitero meus agradecimentos pela atenção. Deiwyd (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
My take on the sexual content debates[edit]
We'd be better off talking about appropriate content in general.
- An alternative one-sentence proposal
- "accept everything that is legal and notable, and improve project interfaces so readers can choose what images they want to see, and so that widely-used images sort to the top in all views". Commons should be a good universal repository; people should have ways to customize their reading.
- A useful focus
- on model release / personal release for any identifiable image of a private person... and on reliable copyright release from images that may have been flickrwashed. If we solve this part we've solved half of the major concerns about sexual content (copyvio, personal rights vio, images of a minor) and have addressed the far more prevalent problem of innocent bystanders who have photos of them posted permanently on Commons against their will (because some friend / fan / passerby took a photo of them in a private place that they don't want published, and released it under a free license without getting their consent).
- A useful focus
- on the spectrum of disturbing or contextually-inappropriate images. Sexual images are hardly the most disturbing. Gmaxwell suggested an interesting list on the pump. This is usually a problem of curation and context, not of the image in itself. So: a broken search engine produces bad results. A broken editorial process produces bad articles. A broken curation process on Commons can also produce a bad collection of media: of dubious legality (if copyright or consent aren't clear), or dubious quality (if there are no standards for relevance or notability), or dubious usability (if categories / filenames / descriptions are random, or all categories are dominated by flower pictures, &c). sexual images are not the worst example of any of these problems; the problems are real.
- A generalized proposal that makes me wince less
- User:Sj/Appropriate content
- A related issue to think about
- the majority of Commons viewers are people coming to see sexual content; and finding it directly from external search engines. Are they the primary intended audience for the site? If so, they are probably underrepresented in discussions by editors. If not, how do we define that intended audience?