Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Exclusion of pages in the file namespace

< Wikidata:Requests for comment
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Exclusion of pages in the file namespace" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After carefully analysing the original proposal and the previous discussions as well as this one, While only a few supports are developed enough to have wait a most opposes are consensus leans more in the exclusion of items linking to locally uploaded files only. With this, local files will be added to the exclusion criteria and local file site links will no longer be classed as valid. Which also goes into Notability. I also took into consideration the value and scope of Wikimedia Commons in the decision of closing this. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, some questions related to unfree images uploaded to local projects were raised up on WD:PC. In my opinion, the situation has to be clarified for Wikidata. Should we allow items linking to locally uploaded files? Or should we only allow files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?

One problem with locally uploaded files is that they cannot be included to items via Property:P18, whilst another problem is that unfree pictures do not really fit in the scope of "free" knowledge projects and are simply not allowed in all countries due to different legal situations. For both reasons, for the technical and legal restrictions, I propose to exclude items linking to files which aren't allowed on Commons. Vogone talk 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal edit

  1. Vogone talk 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makes sense. --Stryn (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fair Use images are only allowed if they have a justification stating what they are to be used for and why that use qualifies as fair use. Anything on Wikidata is available to be used in many different ways so
    • it is not possible to write a justification that covers all the ways wikidata images might be used
    • nor can we ensure that the files will only be used in ways that comply with fair use
    given these issues I believe wikidata should not use or link to Fair Use images i.e. Wikidata should only link to free licensed images on Commons. Filceolaire (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably note that it is not necessarily images usable for fair use but images which are not free. Please do not confuse the two. --Izno (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I completely support this. I see no reason nor desire for Wikidata (or at least, Wikidata editors) to do the work of Commons (which Commons has been forced not to do, apparently). --Izno (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support, there are wikis with disabled local upload. Wikidata should be among them - no uploads and no links to non-free files. JAn Dudík (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per nom. --Ricordisamoa 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. yes ·addshore· talk to me! 21:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. seems reasonable --Stevenliuyi (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --DangSunM (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this proposal edit

  1. If Wikidata is to serve as the new interwiki system, then why should it exclude images? No-one's asking for non-free images to be uploaded here, just to link them together in the same way as an article would be. I don't see how Commons is connected to this. Also, one can quite easily link Commons images to an item, as well as the "logo image" provision for Commons-eligible logo devices, we already have a "Commons category" statement. Simply add the relevant Commons image to that category, then add the category to the item. Easy. To the worries about not all Wikipedias allowing non-free content, I say this: if the respective Wikipedia does have such a ban, then they won't appear in the item, nor will the item appear in their Wikipedia. How could it? There'd be nothing to link it to. Malpass93 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, commons was created to be the central place where files can be uploaded, making them available from each project and to avoid the necessity for interwiki links. I don't see why we have to do a step back, just because some projects allow to host non-free content locally. If there is a real local need for such linking, the old method ([[xx:xxxx.xxx]]) is still available. Like also for user pages. Vogone talk 20:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To paint Commons as the ultimate media repository is to miss the point of Commons altogether. Commons does not feature every single file used on every Wikipedia (thanks to a combination of fair-use provisions on certain 'pedias and certain subtle copyright situations where a free upload on en.wiki is inappropriate on Commons), Until it does, we shouldn't ignore the use linking them may have. The key difference between this and the userpage is that a logo is a quantifiable quality, there's a distinct time it was used, and a time in which it was scrapped. Also, since this project has effectively depreciated the old interwiki system, why not take advantage of this opportunity. Malpass93 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If multiple WP's have the same non-free image uploaded, they should be linked together using a Qxxxxxx item, just like other pages. They should not be used as valeus for a property, but they should be the subject of their own item here. Courcelles (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I nearly supported this until I re-read the question. This is about linking to a picture, not the picture itself. The supporting arguments are more focused on the latter issue. A link ban principle is a nonstarter. Mrwojo (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments and suggestions edit

  • So, let me get this straight. So an issue is brought to the fore, we hold an RfC on it, it closes, and we immediately create another? Is that how we should be operating? Smacks of "didn't get the result wanted, so we'll try it again". Malpass93 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, smacks of "we want resolution", given that that particular question was closed as no consensus: "However, there is no consensus as to whether or not there should be items for files that cannot be uploaded to Commons; therefore such items will be allowed until and unless there is a future consensus that they should not be." --Izno (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Exactly. There was a majority which supported to exclude such files, but it was not sufficient to close it as consensus. Let me quote the closing admin: "such items will be allowed until and unless there is a future consensus that they should not be". That's exactly what I try with this RFC. Trying to get a consensus on this particular matter. Either for allowing, or for disallowing such files. Vogone talk 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other RFC seems a bit odd: several users voted both support and oppose, but I don't quite see in which cases they would support. Items for "files soon to be moved to Commons"? --  Docu  at 07:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The technical issue can be remedied if the more important legal issue is clarified, which really seems to be a question for lawyers, not Wikidata editors. Why don't we let m:Legal and Community Advocacy decide whether linking from Wikidata to non-free images hosted on Wikipedias would be legal before voting on this? Silver hr (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Exclusion_of_pages_in_the_file_namespace&oldid=604386845"