sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
10d ago
How would you be able to tell that the image had licensing information after it was deleted?
That's irrelevant to the question. Your claim is that if the Brooks photo was not deleted and had no licensing information, nobody could tell. The question is, are there any photos on Commons/wiki without licensing information, and are there any copyrighted photos on Commons?
How is that evidence of anything?
How is the fact that the guy who deleted this is running an automated unlicensed image deletion dragnet evidence of anything?
In the same minute that he deleted the Brooks photo, he deleted 18 other unlicensed images. In the ten minute window, he deleted 147 images total. All of them had been without a license for 8 days at that point. He then deleted the category that held images that were tagged as missing a license on July 3.
It's pretty obvious that this is an automated process where images without licensing information are tagged, added to a category, and then in 8 days those without licensing information are automatically garbage collected. I don't see any reason to add epicycles to this.
"When the Brooks mugshot was deleted from Wikipedia, it was the worst day of your life. For krd, it was Tuesday."
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
10d ago
You're claiming that the Wikipedia editors are just neutrally applying their internal procedures.
It's crazy that you would say this considering that I acknowledged that there are plenty of rules that can be bent to make things happen. My actual claim is that there isn't evidence that the photo was removed for this reason, and that the actual reason the photo was removed is actually quite unambiguous.
What is a way to disprove yours? Isn't it unfalsifiable?
If you upload the photo to Wikipedia with licensing info and it gets removed, I'll agree that the licensing rule is also abused.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
10d ago
If someone deleted the Charlottesville photo, and kept the mugshot, would you be able to tell that the policy was misapplied? If not, how can you tell that it was applied correctly here?
Yeah, I've never seen an image on Wikipedia without licensing information, and I've never seen an image on Commons that is copyrighted.
And you have evidence no one bothered writing such a section for the mugshot?
Yes, this user regularly does what seem to be (based on the rate and uniformity of log messages) semi-automated deletions of photos without licensing sections, including those illustrating such hot button issues as some kind of "flag map of Embera-Wouanaan", the logo of Sporge-Jorgen, and of course, the accursed demodex mite.
The point of the "Licensing" section is to lay out why the image is allowed for use on Wikipedia/Commons. This can be if the image is freely licensed, or (on Wikipedia) if it's copyrighted but still usable under free use. If there is no "Licensing" section, then the image is subject to deletion. I am not sure what the point of confusion is here.
Do you want to make a bet on how long it will stay up if I reupload the image, and state that it's fair use?
If you upload the image to Wikipedia and state that it's free use (similar to the Charleston example), I do not think it will be removed due to missing licensing info (which is what happened last time). Will it stay up forever and ever? I have no idea.
By the way, it seems that the image was not even deleted manually, but rather by automation.
If someone reversed what's written under which photo, and it remained unquestinedd by other editors, would you be able to tell something is amiss?
I don't understand the question. If there's no license for a photo, it can be deleted per the stated policy. This is a simple, binary question - does the photo include license information?
edit: Now that I look at it, you cannot upload copyrighted images to Commons at all, even if they are fair use (I did mention I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy). The mugshot was on Commons, so even if it did have a licensing section, it would have been deleted since it's probably non-free. It would need to have been on Wikipedia, which does allow non-freely licensed images, provided, again, that the TPS report is fully filled out.
There is literally no license for the Charlottesville photo.
There is licensing information, hence the section entitled "Licensing" in large print, which is the requirement (see policy linked above).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
10d ago
This image has an extensive licensing section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_mug_shot.jpg
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
I don't understand why you find this hard to believe considering that's plainly the justification written for the deletion. This is not one of the (many) rules that can be bent for fun and profit, this one really is just that simple.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
The problem is that it did not include that, and thus it did not have a license attached. Hence, removed for not having a license.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
It's not "working" because the trump photo deletion attempt is for "invalid fair use" rather than a lack of a license. That's a totally different argument, and sure, I can believe that it's not always applied in good faith. A license being totally absent is pretty black and white.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
Quite the opposite. There's a licensing section that clearly indicates that it's a copyrighted image that's used under fair use.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I would suspect that likelihood of being sued is not a consideration when evaluating if a photo should have a license attached or not.
As far as I can tell, the policy is very simple - photos must have a license. Happy to be corrected if I'm overlooking some policy details here.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
It is not generally the case that works of state and local governments are public domain.
State and local governments usually do retain a copyright on their works. 17 USC §105 only places federal documents in the public domain.[11] However, laws and/or court decisions in some states may place their work in the public domain.
Even if the photo in question was in the public domain, it's still required to indicate this on the photo (example). Having no license on a file is not the same as having a PD license on it.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
This photo continues to exist, so it seems that in this particular example the tactic is not working.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
What is the licensing issue with a mug-shot?
The licensing issue with the previous photo appears to be that there was no license on it.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=355493040
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
will note that there is not a picture of him in the Wikipedia article,
Edit history suggests that it's a licensing issue. If you can find a photo with an appropriate license you should add it.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
His hypothetical involves no speed control.
Getting into doomer territory, car makers might... increase speed limits to ridiculous levels
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
This is where I can only stare and wonder if these people actually function and operate in the real world. Large-scale interstate travel already happens through what's basically suburban areas. This is already a problem, and solutions can be very obvious - just build a goddamn wall.
You can't build a wall around every road, and you don't argue that self driving cars would increase the number of cars on the road - so you don't seem to actually contradict his point here. Even ordinary non-interstate roads can be quite noisy (ask me how I know).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11d ago
I don't know exactly what you mean by "healthy young adult" (healthy young adults by definition die rarely), but life expectancy at every age has increased since 1900:
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages
Life expectancy at 20 years old in 1900 was just under 65 and is now over 80.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
12d ago
I'm pretty sure it's a reference to Reddit moderators locking a thread with a stock phrase like "y'all can't behave".
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
12d ago
If they are being flagrantly misused to spread proven lies and undermine the public which owns them, why shouldn't the license get pulled?
Completely agree. Anyone broadcasting vaccine misinformation or transphobia contradicting consensus public health science on public airwaves should be shut down.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
14d ago
Agree, the length especially made me think that it was real. It would cost a pretty penny to generate a video that long.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
15d ago
Covers still live. But also sampling serves a similar function.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
15d ago
If 1.5ppm reduces IQ's by 2-5 points, what is the reduction in IQ's from the recommended level of 0.7? Keep in mind that the recommended level was 1.2 until recently.
The number is between zero and 2-5, assuming no hormesis. Based on Cremieux's arguments here, I lean towards closer to zero.
Markets of ideas can't work if everyone just buys an index fund. Aren't you at all curious about this?
Far be it from me to compel people to buy index funds. Let a thousand flowers bloom. For my part, I'm not convinced that there is a there there at all, and I don't see anyone making any argument that would suggest that the scale of the problem is anywhere near spewing lead from every tailpipe.
There also has to be someone buying puts for the market to function, after all.
You're missing the point. The point is that there's nothing to distinguish this photo from the 150 other photos deleted in those ten minutes except that you feel strongly about this image. There's no indication at all that the process has been abused.
At this point, it seems it is you who has the unfalsifiable belief, namely, that this entirely routine, automated action was actually politically motivated.
More options
Context Copy link