Commons talk:License review

File:Madagascar hissing cockroaches munching on an apple.webm

Can anyone see the file on Flickr? Do I need a plugin or something? --MGA73 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Also File:MVI 5738.AVI.webm --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I've been constantly reminding myself to reply this and I kept forgetting. Ugh. It's late now, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I can see the thumbnail for both but can't be played. "The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported." Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 06:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Plays fine for me. I'll review. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: That's strange. But happy you could see and review it. Perhaps you could also review File:MVI 5738.AVI.webm? --MGA73 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Plays fine here. I am using Midori browser, I cannot recommend that you switch to it because 1) It breaks some other things (bigChunkedUpload for example does not work for me) 2) Their website is actually down. Anyhow, I'll review the file now. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup in Flickrreviews

Hi! We have a lot of photos in Category:Unsourced Flickr images and Category:Flickr public domain images needing human review and some videos in Category:Flickr videos review needed. I have added many of the photos in categories like:

• Category:Photographs by Scot Nelson
• Category:Photographs by Gobierno de Guatemala
• Category:Photographs by LBJ Library

I think if we can have someone get us a permission in OTRS we can save all the files. If not we may have to start a mass DR. The last one may be covered by PD-USGov? If so we can easily change the license for those.

If you notice any Flickr users with a lot of files uploaded to Commons you are welcome to put them in a similar category or ask someone with a bot to do so. --MGA73 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For Scot we now have an OTRS. See {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}. --MGA73 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Could someone set up an abuse filter (or similar) which warns about things like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@~riley: Help pls :) --Minorax^talk _{(formerly 大诺史)} 08:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Can you lend a hand on this? At my capacity for the week. ~riley (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's also Special:Diff/420768722 where a different template was added. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan2: What sort of changes do you wish to be managed/watched? Here we have a complete change of template by either an IP address, or a user with an account less than a day old, and less than a handful of edits. So what is problematic, and you think should be the content/circumstance/happenstance that is to be watched and checked. I lack the familiarity to guess and focusing on content changes alone is going to be problematic.

• Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1389336755 Perseus123 edit
• Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1390601750 IP edit

Have a look at the changes in the various fields to see what is evident to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Instructions for uploaders (and bystanders)

The current instructions are:

Editors uploading material whose license depends on a declaration in an external website should tag the file description page with one of the tags in Category:License review tags. Use {{Flickrreview}} for images from Flickr and {{LicenseReview}} if no website-specific tag is available.

This makes it sound like you should use the most specific tag possible, say, {{YouTubeReview}}.

That’s wrong though:

The template is intended to be used by the following user groups: Image reviewers

But people are not likely to notice that message. So they will go ahead and try to add that template, only to be greeted by an abuse filter:

You do not have the permission to review images, this edit was therefore disabled.

Huh? What’s going on here? Why are some templates usable by everyone and not others? Should we change the templates and abuse filter, or should we change the instructions here?

See also: Commons talk:Abuse filter#Report by Brianjd.

Brianjd (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Flickr images from bad authors

I made a notice at this category. Images are most likely bad and should normally be deleted. But admins and reviewers can make exceptions after a careful check. But now we have a ban of a Flickr user so no matter what files from that Flickr user should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

License reviewers: please remember to check that the file you are reviewing has a license when you have finished reviewing it. Too damn many files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license had their licenses removed by license reviewers. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&sort=last_edit_desc&search=incategory%3A%22Files+with+no+machine-readable+license%22+insource%3A%2Feview%2F&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&searchToken=5tivuhdvets8ns8zxvdu2gk69

roughly 200 such files exist right now. sorting by latest edition date, the oldest problematic file was last edited on 7 June 2020, so look for files after that. (you cant simply scroll to the bottom because there're false positives https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T259599 .)--RZuo (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

PDM and SD

At Category:Flickr public domain images needing specific copyright tags 2000-something files are pending deletion due to misuse of the PD mark in their Flicker source, possibly meant to be “saved” by manual reviewing, although how to do it may not be clear. User:A1Cafel seems to have dealt with the matter this way; I hesitated being that bold but eventually arrived at the same result here. Is this correct? Should be done to all files in question, even though not all have individual authorship (example)? And what’s the next step? The “rescued” files still show the [change license] button, and it doesn’t seem to offer confirmation for the PDMark-owner tagging. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I reviewed that file. I think these files should not be in the "no license" categories. There is a big risk that an admin will just delete the files without checking them.

I was thinking of having a bot remove the speedy tag and change the license to {{PDMark-owner}} so reviewers only have to accept or fail the file. That will be much faster than having to change the license manually. --MGA73 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I made a comment at MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js#PDM some time ago. We need someone to fix the script. --MGA73 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also cleaned up so many files now "only" have {{PDMark-owner}} and {{Flickrreview}} so now they are no longer in a speedy deletion category and reviewers can pass them with 1 click. --MGA73 (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed MediaWiki:Gadget-LicenseReview.js so now it should be possible to change license to {{PDMark-owner}} (and {{Cc-zero}}). --MGA73 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• @MGA73: Excellent, thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we put all old files in a sub category?

Reviewing old files is a problem because they are often no longer online and uploader may no longer be actice. So what if we moved all old files to a sub category so only new files go to this category?

Then it might be possible to keep the category empty if we all help. And if we add a one click "Permission not found" to inform uploaders (like if there is no source, license or permission) then it would be easy to mark file where we can't verify the license.

The template/notice should tell uploader to add a specific link to where the permission/license can be found and perhaps they should also copy the text. That would help us if the website is not in English. For example I just reviewed a file where the website said "За исключением случаев, когда указано иное, контент на этом сайте лицензируется по международной лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0" I do not speak Russian but Google Translate helped me.

What do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I just found out it is easy to view the latest files in the category (like this). So I guess it is not really needed. --MGA73 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggest to add more info to uploaders

In Commons:License_review#Uploaders there is a short text telling uploaders to upload {{Licensereview}} etc. I suggest we add a few tips for uploaders. For example:

1. If it is a still image from YouTube make sure to add time where the image can be found. For exampe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM-0zmCz9yI&t=0m40s (0m40s)
2. If the license is not clearly visible over/under/next to the image add a link and short text in "Permission field" telling the reviewer where to find the license
3. If it is a file from Flickr, iNaturalist (and other pages ?) where we have a bot to review the file please upload the original file and when the bot have reviewed the file (usually within 1 minute or 2) you can upload a cropped/edited version.
4. Concider to go to http://web.archive.org/ and check if the webpage is archived there and if not you can save a copy.

--MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good; very useful. (Typo, though: "Consider".) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Thank you. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the text and found another typo that I also fixed --MGA73 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I personally always force manual archival on my uploads from YouTube on archive.today; sometimes I archive even those videos that did not suit my fancy, in case if the licence will change and somebody else will want to mirror them here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Support for more review templates

The script have been updated and it now support review of iNaturalist and Pixabay. If you find any bugs or have ideas to improve the script please add a comment at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-LicenseReview.js. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The script also works for files in Category:License migration candidates now. Just an info if anyone notices and wonder what the new stuff is. --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)