Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted prior to debate closure for user request. Navou ^banter 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Inspection Team

This project would create a select group of users who would be the only people allowed to review image licenses, under the smug little name "Media Inspection Team". Do I really need to point out just how bad an idea that is?

We only restrict who can do what when there has been a history of, or a significant potential for abuse. Administrators, sure. But what is this about? Any old user, anonymous or otherwise, can review an image license. There has been no history of mass image mis-reviewing. It wouldn't be the end of the world if someone did make a mistake while reviewing an image. The idea of a select group of people and a process for electing them is simply preposterous, as well as introducing needless bureaucracy and probably power-wielding too, knowing you lot.

-- 86.157.254.67 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close, bad faith nom by IP (86.157.254.67 (talk · contribs)) whose entire contribution is this nom. It may be a banned user. -- Cat ^chi? 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's your pet project doesn't make it a bad faith nomination. And kindly refer to me as a "user", rather than "IP"; anonymous users have the same rights as you do -- 86.157.254.67 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that this is bad faith. A concern has been raised -- IPs are not automatically on suspicion of being banned. GDonato (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When the IP is User:Gurch who has a history of being a dick, trolling and project space vandalism I would not be so sure. -- Cat ^chi? 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      - Ignoring the personal attack, last time I checked there was no rule that said I couldn't nominate project pages for deletion, anonymously or otherwise -- 86.157.254.67 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Personal attack? I just quoted Gurch's block log. -- Cat ^chi? 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        You may wish to bear in mind that you have a significantly larger block log, hidden behind a user rename though it may be... -- 86.157.254.67 22:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was never blocked for trolling or being a dick. -- Cat ^chi? 22:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We have enough problems with image backlogs. We do not need to review every single free image uploaded. And we definitely do not need to restrict the right to do this to a small group of "inspectors". -Amarkov moo! 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one member, no indication as to how these "inspectors" are to be accredited. Sounds suspiciously like beauracracy creep. John Carter 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have JUST created it and advertised it TODAY (4 hours ago). I have no indication because I have no idea. Anyone who understands copyrights is fine by me. Community opinion will determine who is worthy of "inspector" status. I just feel an average user doesn't understand copyright well enough to determine if a freely licensed image is really free. -- Cat ^chi? 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A user who doesn't understand copyright status enough won't involve themselves with image license checking in the first place, will they? I know I don't. Just like users who don't understand 17th-century Dutch art don't tend to make significant contributions to articles about the same. Do you really not trust people to identify for themselves what they can and cannot help with? Because virtually all of the rest of Wikipedia does – with the exception of things for which the risk of abuse is just too high, such as blocking, deletion and checkusering. This is not one of those cases -- 86.157.254.67 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the wikiproject is the median for that not MfD. Hence WP:POINT. -- Cat ^chi? 22:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak neutral. I can see Gurch's opposition to having a selected group of users, but what I get from White Cat is that the selection criteria will be loosely applied. —Crazytales talk/desk 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not want a newly registered "self righteous" user dictating things. See commons:Commons:Flickr images/reviewers (more restrictive) or tr:Vikipedi:VikiProje Medya İnceleme Timi/İnceleyiciler (what I have in mind for this wikiproject but wanted community opinion first) -- Cat ^chi? 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh? I don't see any newly-registered users here... -- 86.157.254.67 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want newly registered users dictating things, either. But if this thing doesn't exist, then there's nothing for them to be dictating, since there is currently no rule saying all free images must be meticulously checked for freeness. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to such a check being required. I do very much object to the idea that only some subset of users are entitled to carry it out, however -- 86.157.254.67 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you are nominating the page for deletion to simply illustrate a point. -- Cat ^chi? 22:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is. All images uploaded MUST NOT be copyright violations. We do not allow fake free licensed images either. See the below quote from default upload form. -- Cat ^chi? 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

“

This form should be used to upload an image that you created from scratch. The act of scanning or photocopying someone else's work is not considered to be "creative". Additionally, it is important that your image not incorporate third party clip art unless that clip art is public domain. The image must be completely your creation - meaning that you took the photograph, painted the painting.

”

Of course free images must truly be free, and I never said that they needn't be. But do we need a text inspection team, to determine if all edits are copyright violations? No, because at some point, we have to assume that people aren't lying about copyright status in the absence of evidence to the contrary. -Amarkov moo! 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because there are far too many images that are freely licensed that would not be even allowed under fair-use on wikipedia. Basically if you do not want to deal with fair use rationales and other workload that comes with fair use images, simply call it "free". Reviewed images can be more safely moved to commons (that'd be a review by two people for stuff like "derivative works" as well) -- Cat ^chi? 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: we already have a process for raising copyright problems. Unnecessary bureaucracy. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What bureaucracy? -- Cat ^chi? 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Huge new system for reviewing stuff, appointing reviewers, etc. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the existing system. All free images are to be reviewed. Till today you didn't have had a way to "tag" good free images. I merely created that. "appointing reviewers"? That can be anyone if thats what the community wishes. I was hoping to get opinions from people on how it should be done. But of course I am not to be ever given such most basic courtesy. -- Cat ^chi? 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per David Mestel and WP:BURO, also concerned about "inspector" selection criteria, more elitism, etc. east.718 at 22:43, September 8, 2007
If I create an "any body can join" group (CVU), people complain. If I create an "anybody can join after a review" group (this thing) people complain. I guess I am a hopeless case. -- Cat ^chi? 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per David Mestel. Good idea on paper, terrible idea in practice. Nick 22:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What practice? 4 hours is hardly any practice. -- Cat ^chi? 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Poor idea. If this is not deleted it should be explicitly marked as a PROPOSAL ONLY; the wording on the WikiProject page makes it sound like it has authority and consensus. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. my biggest opposition is the idea that a project can declare itself the exclusive arbiter of such things. If a group of users want to get together and work on common standards for image reviewing, I have less of a problem. It's when they think they can decide for everyone else ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"group of users want to get together and work on common standards for image reviewing" is the entire point of it. But people wont even give it a chance. -- Cat ^chi? 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. It has already been deleted. Is that a good idea while this debate is going on? I see it had a lot of edits, not just from the originator. --Bduke 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:White Cat/Poll forced leave. Please vote. -- Cat ^chi? 23:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.