Jump to content

Talk:Requests for comment/Disable local uploads on smaller wikis

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Second repository


According to German law many images are usable which are not allowed to us law. That is why they cannot be hosted on commons. Currently these images must be duplicated and hosted on every german wiki (dewiki, dewikinews, frrwiki, ndswiki, ....). Most of these wikis would be happy if all these images could be hosted on a single wiki (dewiki) and shared by all these projects. The same situation would be for all american wikis which could use fair use images hosted on enwiki.

frrwiki requested to use dewiki as second repository, so that local upload could be disabled. This is technical possible, but techs on irc told me on 2010 that they won't enable this.

So first i would like to discuss if this situation has changed meanwhile. The possibility to use a second repository would dramatically decrease the number of wikis who still needs local uploads enabled. Afterwards we could ask every wiki and may offer this alternative way to host images at the same time. Merlissimo (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is a good idea, however the second repository would need to be hosted in Europe in order to be free of US laws. I think Wikimedia Deutschland could be the hosting company. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
While I do not know the motivations for the current set up, I believe it would be counter to the expressed wishes of the Wikimedia Foundation to support legal but limited use media files. Although this intrinsically prevents the accomplishment of the first mission of WMF, it is the current policy from the Board of Trustees. I do not believe it is likely a second repository would be enabled for any WMF project. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 04:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, it would just make the German projects work in the same way as the English one. English Wikipedia has lots of files which are free in the United States but unfree in Germany. See for example en:Category:Images published abroad that are in the public domain in the United States (2339 files but some may actually be free in Germany). There are other, much bigger, lists of files which are also free in the United States but unfree in Germany, for example here. Also, English Wikipedia's use of fair use material makes English Wikipedia articles unfree in most European countries. If the German projects host lots of files which are free in Germany but not in the United States, this would basically be the same situation but reversed. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't want a second repository only project like commons. I want that the existing dewiki project can be enabled as second repository for smaller german projects by adding it to $wgForeignFileRepos for e.g. frrwiki config. Merlissimo (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
If these media files are allowed by German law, they must be hosted on a German server. They shouldnt be hosted on dewiki, because dewiki is hosted in the United States. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
See also Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Commons Abroad and related ideas for a discussion on similar matters. An EU work which is in the public domain in the entire European Union is in the public domain in the entire world, except possibly in the United States, which makes it a bit silly to delete the files from Commons as copyright violations, but that is what the law says, so that is what we have to do. I understand that German users don't like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Proposal 2


Moved from main RFC page as not a genuine proposal. Rd232 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disable editing on every and any wikimedia-project where you can find a copyvio, text or image, remaining for longer than one week. Seb az86556 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see an audit undertaken before small wikis are treated as criminals. A week is too short; and I think it is reasonable that they copyvio should be brough to the attention of a local sysop (talk page or central copyvio discussion page) before we say the wiki has a problem. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't talking about small wikis. I was talking about every wiki. This naturally means en.wiki will be included since they break the law at any given moment. I agree that sippenhaft is morally wrong and repulsive, but if such an approach is to be taken, as this proposal clearly says, then everyone needs to be held accountable for the crimes of some. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome to come up with a separate proposal, this RfC focuses on file uploads only. -- とある白い猫 chi? 14:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  1. 2bis – disable editing on any wiki where trollish "proposals 2" are posted (I think the result would be the same?). :-p Nemo 07:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  2. Copyvios are a legal problem when they are visible to the public, so I guess it would be more logical to shut down access to any wiki that hosts copyvios. SPQRobin (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Including Commons? -- Lavallen 12:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Then Commons is the first candidate, English Wikipedia is the second one.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Those who have the ability to "disable editing on a project", are also able to delete the copyvio. -- Lavallen 19:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Assuming it has been identified, yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why this was moved, but yeah, that's the problem — those who could be doing something are too lazy to actually do it, so a proposal is made to punish others for their laziness. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

smaller wikis


How exactly is smaller wikis meant? Smaller than English Wikipedia? Less than 10000 artciles? Less than 10 sysops? Less than 20 active users? Less than a million native speakers? → «« Man77 »» [de]·[bar] 12:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, the exact details vary in the various proposals, but generally one could say: It's the Global Sysop wikis; especially those which don't have active users (most proposals on the page suggest that they won't affect wikis whose communities doesn't want to get uploads disabled). --MF-W 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ist das die erste oder zweite Gruppe auf der von dir verlinkten Seite? --NeuerNutzer2009 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
"Opt-out (umfasst alle Wikis außer den angegebenen)" - Es ist also die Gruppe unter "Wikis, die oben nicht enthalten sind", wo Global Sysops aktiv sind. --MF-W 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply



Da ich kein vernünftiges Englisch kann (jedenfalls nicht genug, um die Diskussion in ihrer Tiefe und Breite nachvollziehen zu können), die Frage, ob es irgendwo die Möglichkeit gibt, die wesentlichen Punkte auch auf Deutsch nachlesen zu können. --Mogelzahn (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nein, die gibt es bisher nicht. Ich kann dir die wesentlichen Punkte aber gerne zusammenfassen:
  • Der Grundvorschlag lautet, in irgendeiner Weise (d.h. die Details sollen in der Diskussion herausgebildet werden) das lokale Hochladen von Dateien auf kleinen Wikis auszustellen, da es - zumindest laut Meinung des Eröffners, und so Unrecht hat er m. E. darin nicht - in vielen kleinen Wikis (das reicht von Wikis in denen es kaum aktive Benutzer gibt bis zu solchen wie der armenischen Wikipedia, um ein beliebiges Beispiel zu nennen) das Problem gibt, dass hochgeladene Dateien nicht auf ihre Lizenz überprüft werden, offensichtliche URVs einfach mit einer Creative-Commons-Vorlage gekennzeichnet werden, oder einfach jahrelang sich niemand darum kümmert.
  • Die Diskussion dreht sich dann ein bisschen darum, welche Wikis denn genau betroffen sein sollten/wären. Den Tenor (der sich auch in den verschiedenen Proposals auf der Seite zeigt) zitiere ich mal von der Vorderseite: If "your" wiki is not a graveyard of copyrighted files, this proposal would not affect you. - Wenn "dein" Wiki kein Friedhof urheberrechtsgeschützer Dateien ist, berührt dich dieser Vorschlag nicht."
  • Vorschlag 1 lautet einfach: Um überhaupt voranzukommen, sollten wir eine globale Sitenotice aufsetzen, die da lautet "Lokales Hochladen wird standardmäßig deaktiviert. Wenn ihr in eurer Community lokale Uploads weiter erlauben wollt, beantragt es [hier]." <- jeder solchen Beantragung soll stattgegeben werden. So würde man die Uploadmöglichkeit im Gros der inaktiven Wikis, die meist nur von Vandalen besucht werden, schon mal ausschalten.
  • Vorschlag 2 will im Prinzip das gleiche, aber - wichtiger Unterschied - lokale Uploads sollen nur weiter erlaubt bleiben auf Wikis mit einer ausreichenden Zahl Administratoren; oder mit einer Community, die aktiv über die korrekte Lizenzierung ihrer Dateien wacht.
  • Vorschlag 3 ist Polemik, die aus dem Verlauf der Diskussion entstanden ist: "Das ganze liegt nur an der Faulheit der Global Sysops, die sollen einfach mal in allen Wikis aufräumen, dann gibt es auch keine Probleme!"
  • Vorschlag 4 ist wieder ähnlich Nr. 1 und 2, nur hübscher aufgemacht ;-) Wikis, wo die Dateilizenzen ordentlich geprüft werden, sollen im Status quo verbleiben können; die Wikis, wo niemand oder nur Urheberrechtsignoranten unterwegs sind, sollen die Hochlademöglichkeit ausgeschaltet kriegen. (Das ganze ist allerdings ein bisschen genauer formuliert, als ich es jetzt hier zusammenreiße).
  • Vorschlag 5: Lokale Uploads werden standardmäßig deaktiviert; es kann ohne Voraussetzungen beantragt werden, dass die Admins eines solche Wikis Hochladerechte bekommen. Sollen alle Benutzer eines solchen Wikis Hochladerechte bekommen, muss "bewiesen" werden, dass die Community zur Lizenzüberprüfung in der Lage ist.
  • Vorschlag 6: Lokale Dateien auf den kleinen Wikis sollten, bevor die Öffentlichkeit sie zu Gesicht bekommt, von einem Admin auf Lizenz geprüft werden.
  • Alle Vorschläge betreffen explizit nicht die "großen Projekte", für die klar ist, dass sie ihre lokalen Uploads im Griff haben, wie en.wiki, de.wiki, usw. usf.
Ich entschuldige mich für allen Meta-Slang und Denglish-Murks, den ich verwendet habe. Du sprichst da mit der Mehrsprachigkeit übrigens einen interessanten Punkt an ... im Moment ist an dieser Diskussion allerdings nichts drängend, hier werden einfach lustig Vorschläge gemacht. Einige der Vorschläge sind sicher realistischer und ernster zu nehmen als andere. Disclaimer: Ich beteilige mich auch an der Diskussion und unterstütze "for a start" den Vorschlag 1. Alles andere ist Verwässerung desselben ;-) --MF-W 19:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Local uploads policy: moving forward


As noted on the RfC, the different proposals are only slightly different; it doesn't make much sense to !vote them as is. I've expanded Rd232's draft at Local uploads policy and I propose to archive the current comments and discuss that text instead. We could have a two-weeks discussion of the text and then start a vote on this RfC, maybe, I don't know. Should the board be contacted? --Nemo 11:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a good idea -- for some variation on the language. No need to notify the Board at this point. I think you should start with a local uploads policy that follows the letter of the Board resolution, and nothing more: which is to say, you have to have an EDP in order for uploads to be turned on. Then those who care to can make their own higher standard, identify those wikis that don't seem to meet it, and reach out to them to suggest improvement / let them know there is a discussion about increasing the standard. (For instance: I can imagine a community of 30 that otherwise does the right thing but didn't *need* 2 sysops before for any reason; it's not clear this is what matters.) But this discussion of specifics should happen on the draft page. SJ talk  06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply