No more derivative works on Commons

[Captain Occam]

Today I was trying to upload an image on Wikimedia Commons that's a derivative work from an existing image there, only to discover that it's no longer possible to do this the standard way. On the Commons upload page, the third listed choice is "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons". This link goes now to a 403 error.

This was discussed at the help desk about two weeks ago. It received barely any attention, and the thread's now been archived from lack of activity.

I know it's possible to manually enter all of the template information for a derivative work, but inexperienced people probably won't know how to do this, and a lot of other people (such as me) are going to think it isn't worth the trouble. If the people who run Commons are too lazy or incompetent to fix this, it's probably going to mostly mean the end of derivative works being uploaded there.

I'm kind of amazed how indifferent the people who run Commons seem to be about this. Is this a worse example than usual of the mismanagement there, or is it par for the course?

[Clipperton]

Today I was trying to upload an image on Wikimedia Commons that's a derivative work from an existing image there, only to discover that it's no longer possible to do this the standard way. On the Commons upload page, the third listed choice is "It is a derivative work of one or several files from Commons". This link goes now to a 403 error.

This was discussed at the help desk about two weeks ago. It received barely any attention, and the thread's now been archived from lack of activity.

I know it's possible to manually enter all of the template information for a derivative work, but that's a lot more trouble than I feel like going to, and inexperienced people probably won't know how to do it at all. If the people who run Commons are too lazy or incompetent to fix this, it's probably going to mostly mean the end of derivative works being uploaded there.

I'm kind of amazed how indifferent the people who run Commons seem to be about this. Is this a worse example than usual of the mismanagement there, or is it par for the course?

The question is why Common's most user-friendly interface for uploading files relies (for that particular link) on one person's (expired) toolserver account.

Increasingly the less popular sites seem to be building lab tools into what might be considered core aspects of the interface. Unless the lab tools are under the purview of Engineering (or whoever) it's asking for trouble. Maybe it's time to get those excess programmers off the surprisingly expensive "Editor Engagement" group -- responsible for VE, Flow, god knows what else; the group has 20% of all WMF staff, and is asking for a 44% budget increase for 14/15, to $6.7 million -- and reassigned them to working on community-requested incremental improvements to the core .... maybe THAT would actually be Editor Engagement.

[Hex]

Maybe it's time to get those excess programmers... working on community-requested incremental improvements to the core .... maybe THAT would actually be Editor Engagement.

Just think what the core could have looked like by now if they gave it the attention it deserved

[Vigilant]

Maybe it's time to get those excess programmers... working on community-requested incremental improvements to the core .... maybe THAT would actually be Editor Engagement.

Just think what the core could have looked like by now if they gave it the attention it deserved

Or if anyone at WMF engineering knew their ass from a hole in the ground.

[Captain Occam]

I'm not going to upload the image I was trying to upload on Commons until I can do so without entering the template information manually, but I guess I may as well post it here. (Click the image for a full-size version.)



This is retouched from this photograph. The original image is under a CC-BY-SA license, so that's what mine is under also.

Considering how many people here have made Orwell analogies for Wikipedia's society (such as calling banned editors "unpersons"), it's hard to imagine nobody's ever made an image like this before, but I looked for one and couldn't find one. While I was making it, I found it uncanny how well Jimbo's face lends itself to this sort of poster.

[Poetlister]

I never use the automatic system myself. I have boilerplates in files and just paste them in and make minor alterations.

[mac]

I'm not going to upload the image I was trying to upload on Commons until I can do so without entering the template information manually, but I guess I may as well post it here. (Click the image for a full-size version.)



This is retouched from this photograph. The original image is under a CC-BY-SA license, so that's what mine is under also.

Considering how many people here have made Orwell analogies for Wikipedia's society (such as calling banned editors "unpersons"), it's hard to imagine nobody's ever made an image like this before, but I looked for one and couldn't find one. While I was making it, I found it uncanny how well Jimbo's face lends itself to this sort of poster.

Penyulap did a similar thing with Wales' image. Here are the deletion discussions:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo_in_%2784.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo.jpg

[Randy from Boise]

Why would anyone upload anything at all to Commons?

RfB

[Captain Occam]

[Penyulap did a similar thing with Wales' image. Here are the deletion discussions:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo_in_%2784.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo.jpg

Did anyone save a copy of the previous image? I'm curious how similar it is to mine.

I would've assumed this sort of thing falls under "legitimate social commentary". As far as I'm concerned it isn't attacking Jimbo himself, so much as the cult-like reverence that the Wikipedia community has for him.

[mac]

[Penyulap did a similar thing with Wales' image. Here are the deletion discussions:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo_in_%2784.gif
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Whambo.jpg

Did anyone save a copy of the previous image? I'm curious how similar it is to mine.

I would've assumed this sort of thing falls under "legitimate social commentary". As far as I'm concerned it isn't attacking Jimbo himself, so much as the cult-like reverence that the Wikipedia community has for him.

A copy of at least one of them was uploaded to Encyclopedia Dramatica by JuniusThaddeus. As I recall, Penyulap's was in color, and also incorporated the "Editor Retention logo", which is eerily similar to that of Ingsoc:

[Hex]

Oh bloody hell Mac, that's funny.

Captain Occam: the "Whambo in '84" image was this, with Wales' face poorly Photoshopped into it.



BTW, I think using Gill Sans would add a touch of authority to your image.

[EricBarbour]

This was the original "Whambo", I saved the only copy I could find after deletion.


Just BTW: Do a deep "Whambo" search on Commons, and this is one of the things you see.

[The Garbage Scow]

Why would anyone upload anything at all to Commons?

RfB

Because how else can 32 year old virgins get maximum views of their penis selfies?

[HRIP7]

There's a bigger version on Dramatica, but that is down right now.

[Poetlister]

Why would anyone upload anything at all to Commons?

RfB

I do it to annoy certain people.

[Captain Occam]

Has anyone ever attempted a detailed comparison between Wikipedia's society and Orwell's Oceania? Comparing Jimbo to Big Brother and banned editors to unpersons probably aren't the only analogies it's possible to make.

Here are a few others:

The Inner Party = ArbCom: The group which holds most of the acting authority, while shielding their decision-making process from public scrutiny.

Telescreens = Checkuser: The way that the inner party (that is, ArbCom) monitors others' activities. Evidence collected with this method often is a factor in the decision to turn someone into an unperson.

Emmanuel Goldstein = Larry Sanger: Formerly an equal to Big Brother (Jimbo) until there was a split between them, and now this society's most notorious critic.

Can anyone think of more than these?

[Poetlister]

Oversighting corresponds to dropping "incorrect" newspapers down the destruction chute.

[Johnny Au]

Outer Party: Admins
Proles: Regular users (both IP and registered)