Wikiversity talk:Deletion policy

From Wikiversity

Contents 1 Inital Start 2 Internamespace redirects 3 Ratifying... 4 Media file deletion 4.1 Having Wikiversity participants learn about licensing before uploading files 5 So, is this criteria for SPEEDY deletion then? 6 Unneeded redirects

[edit] Inital Start

The initial guideline/policy that I have added is borrowed from s:Wikisource:Deletion policy. Some or all of these items may not apply or need altering to make sence for Wikiversity. Matteo 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internamespace redirects

I am assuming the these are redirect pages that direct you to another wiki, but I am un sure. Matteo 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be an interwiki redirect. An example of an internamespace redirect would be Topic:Example → School:Example, or something to that effect.--digital_me 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratifying...

Where would we put this up for ratification through consensus? --Remi 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable place. If you want to attract more attention to this page, you could try posting a message about deletion policy at Wikiversity:Community Portal or Wikiversity:Colloquium. --JWSchmidt 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media file deletion

Consistent with other WMF projects, we need a method of deleting images with no license information, or which have GFDL-incompatible licenses. I recommend essentially using Wikibooks' policy. I imagine that people more familiar with Wikiversity that I will make some minor relevant changes, but the spirit should be the same. All uploads need to have appropriate source and license information. If they don't, it gets {{no license}} and deleted after a week if no change is made. Perhaps you'll want it to be 2 weeks or somesuch. This is a fairly basic way of protecting the Foundation and the project from liability.

I've only added a little blurb - it should certainly be expanded, or perhaps moved to an image use policy/policy proposal. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to raise for discussion the "game" that has long been played at Wikimedia wiki projects. We allow participants to upload media files without requiring that they provide copyright and licensing information. Then we set up policies for deleting media files that are uploaded without copyright and licensing information. Many Wikiversity participants frequently see this: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL," and it is not unreasonable if they assume that the media files they upload are licensed under the GFDL by default. Given these conditions, it seems silly and destructive to let Wikiversity participants create and upload media files only to have us delete them later when we decide that not enough copyright and licensing information exists for those files. If we want to actually require that Wikiversity participants provide copyright and licensing information then we should make it impossible to upload files without selecting check boxes that indicate basic copyright and licensing information for each file. I believe that our legal obligations do not require that we automatically delete all media files that lack copyright and licensing information. However, if I am wrong about that, then it seems like we should make it impossible to upload files without selecting check boxes that indicate basic copyright and licensing information for each file. --JWSchmidt 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• The key point is that the image is uploaded with a licence. The common method of indication of this fact is a tag. However, this is not the only means - for example, a public statement on his user page that it is so is also possible. Thus,
• Is the tag mandated by the Foundation?
  • If not, is the tag formally mandated by the community?
    • If not, are there good reasons that it should be so?
      • If so, should these rules apply retrospectively?

Hillgentleman|Talk 20:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Licence information is definitely required (or should be). As a rule, it should done on a per-image basis, since the vast majority of people do not upload images which are all under the same licence. Certainly a declaration on a userpage is legally sufficient, but policy can equally require more than what's legally necessary. At they very least, a link to said declaration should be required; otherwise, how is one to know that the image(s) are licenced as such? If that's the case, then it's just as easy (in fact, easier) to append a licence template to the image at upload. Nevertheless, the policy should include that those declarations are valid, and that the image should be tagged with the appropriate template instead of being deleted if the admin is aware of the declaration. As well, users adding {{subst:nld}} should be encouraged to apply the appropriate template if a userpage declaration is made.

As for deleting images without licence information, I'm quite sure that your legal obligations compel you to do so. As for requiring a licence to be chosen from the drop-down before upload will complete, I'd say that instead, the default should be {{subst:nld}} - this gives uploaders x amount of time (1 week currently) to add licence information before it's considered a candidate for speedy deletion. On en.wb, we've added a nifty little feature which automatically moves images from Category:Images with unknown copyright status to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after 7 days, which makes things easier to manage. A warning to that effect should be added to the appropriate Mediawiki: page.

As a point of mitigation, you should try (I would say that this should be required by policy) to get images uploaded to Commons unless they're fair use. Not only does this offload a burden from the local community to a community which is dedicated solely to this area, but it also allows the images to be used on any WMF project (and indeed beyond). – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. One might suggest that the link to the userpage can be found in the upload history, but, to some, that may be a little too arbitrary.Hillgentleman|Talk 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"As for deleting images without licence information, I'm quite sure that your legal obligations compel you to do so." <-- I'd be interested to see a description of the reasoning and laws that generate your certainty. With respect to Wikibooks, the default in the licensing drop-down menu seems to be "I do not know". Are you saying that when someone selects "I do not know" then the uploaded file is automatically marked for deletion? --JWSchmidt 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"I do not know" adds {{subst:nld}}, which gives them 7 days to provide licence information before the image is considered a candidate for speedy deletion. Whether deletion happens on day 8 is another matter; in reality they'd usually get more than the week. As well, we try not to delete images unless they've been notified that licence information is required on their talk page. So if {{subst:nld}} was added automatically at upload, they wouldn't receive a notice on their talk page. When we sort through the images for deletion, we (generally) check to make sure they've been notified. If not, add {{image copyright|image.jpg|– Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)}} and give them some extra time.

I'm sure you're required to delete images with no licence information because a) it makes sense and b) every other WMF wiki I know of has that as policy.

A link to the userpage is not a link to a licencing declaration. Checking the userpage for every upload that has no licence template before adding {{subst:nld}} and again before deleting is just not feasible. A "licencing declaratio here" should be required. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I still do not understand the reason for providing this kind of option for "I do not know". If a wiki editor does not know, then why not direct them to a learning resource that will help them figure out what to do? --JWS 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• The nld template includes a link to such a resource on WB and so does the msg you see when you goto the upload page. --darklama 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My question is, why not have Wikiversity participants figure out how to license their files before allowing them to upload files? Why let files be uploaded without license information? --JWSchmidt 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What would determine that someone has figured out how to license their files and included license information? --darklama 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking how Wikiversity would help people learn how to license the files they upload or how you could tell if someone else had learned how to license the files? --JWSchmidt 21:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking what would be used to tell or indicate that someone has learned how to license their files and included license information in order to enable uploads, since you seem to be proposing uploads be disabled until a person has learned how to do so. --darklama 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I asked the reason for allowing people to upload files when they select "I do not know" from the "license" drop-down menu. I guess an option would be to "disable uploads" for people who select "I do not know" from the menu and send them to a page like Uploading files. --JWSchmidt 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• On the basis of my experience on a different project, I think it is important to have a don't know option.

1. Very often, people don't know, and the lack of a don't know option usually pushes them to be dishonest rather than back off. Any policy which encourages widespread dishonesty is bad.
2. It allows quick categorisation of dubious images for custodial action.
3. It allows identifícation of users with a media learning need. Think about it: what's the fastest way to find out if someone knows their way around media licencing? (a) Ask "Do you know your way around media licencing?" or (b) ask "Please upload a file" (and then watch how they do it).
4. The 7-day window for correction is good, because it allows time for a custodian to prompt the user to jump through the learning hoops.

--McCormack 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty good summery of my thinking as well. "I don't know" is pretty much for people who don't know and for whatever reason won't take the time to read up on it before uploading files. Its worked rather well so far on WB in catching people and helping them to understand what needs to be done and the importance of doing so. Since the no license tag and the upload msg itself both contain a link to read up on it, it also catches people who are willing to read up on it before uploading. It decreases dishonesty, provides a quick way to categorize files which are going to have to be deleted if there not fixed anyways, decreases the work load of manually finding images that need to be marked for deletion and decreases WB's chances of having a backlog again. --darklama 12:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Having Wikiversity participants learn about licensing before uploading files

• I'm trying to compare and contrast the "I don't know" upload (Wikipedia's "solution") with an alternative approach in which we would have Wikiversity participants learn about licensing before they upload files. It strikes me as a logical contradiction to say that we absolutely must delete files that do not have licensing information but we invite people to upload files without licensing information. I do not believe that the Wikipedia "I don't know" upload is the best path for us to take when Wikiversity participants do not know what license to use. If we adopt the Wikipedia "I don't know" upload approach then we are adopting a strategy based on bad faith assumptions about Wikiversity participants: that they will lie about the licensing of files if they are not allowed to upload files when they select "I don't know". I think we should assume good faith. The culture of Wikiversity should be such that participants are encouraged to say "I don't know" and when they do so they should be efficiently directed to learning resources that will help them learn what they do not know. I'm troubled when I see a few Wikiversity participants who are eager to assume the worst during a rush to delete the work of other Wikiversity participants. Yes, Wikiversity has some files that are not correctly licensed, but there need be no rush to delete them. Wikiversity has allowed people to upload files without licensing information, so we have created this problem. In my view, we should find ways of explaining to Wikiversity participants how to correctly license their files. Wikiversity is supposed to be a place for people to learn, not a place for good faith editors to be harassed by people who think every problem can be solved with a template. "This approach is good enough for Wikipedia" does not satisfy me. Wikipedia has a serious problem due to alienation of good faith editors. I'm not as familiar with Wikibooks, but my experience there has been that Wikibooks has essentially adopted the Wikipedia approach which includes zealots charging around threatening to deleting uploaded files without even bothering to read the licensing information provided by the people who uploaded the files. This has happened to me repeatedly at both Wikipedia and Wikibooks. People invent a new system of templates and then threaten to delete all files that do not display those templates. I spent a large amount amount of time making image files for those projects, but I don't anymore because of the harassment that was directed at me because I did not use someone's magic template. I'm not pleased to see the same thing happen to Wikiversity participants. I welcome the help of people who want to get licensing information for Wikiversity files, but I'd like to see some serious attention paid to Wikiversity:Assume Good Faith. It might take more work to educate Wikiversity participants about licenses but we should make the effort required rather than risk driving away people who are good faith contributors. I know from personal experience that systems of warning templates can drive good faith editors away from wiki communities, so lets discus our options here and not just do a knee-jerk "but its good enough for Wikipedia". --JWSchmidt 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly part of Wikiversity, so I'm not going to harp on about what I think you should do, save to reiterate that you need a policy and that the Wikibooks system works for us (and I think it can work for you).

Regardless of the above discussion about policy, do you want {{subst:nld}} added to your untagged images? I can do it (slowly; I'm busy for the next week or so) including notifying uploaders on their talk pages. (I'll make a new message that is more in the direction of education than "here's the problem; fix it!") So: does the community want that done? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the Wikipedia page w:Wikipedia:Upload, it's much more along the lines of helping people select the correct license and educating them about what's acceptable, what's not, and how their image fits into things. I don't particularly like the giant Your image will be deleted notices everywhere, but it makes sense for them; I'm sure Wikiversity could do without those. Compare this to b:Special:Upload, which does instead links to the educational pages, and has little detail to help uploaders determine the correct license. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how Wikipedia does things, because I'm not much of a contributor to Wikipedia, so I can't say much about the Wikipedia way of doings things. The changes made at Wikibooks I hope are just the beginning. I have to admit that I would like to eventually have an interface that helps narrow down the choices of licenses for people who aren't sure to just one license, thats quicker and easier to use then whats used at Commons and includes additional options on the page then just a summary field and a license menu, while providing whats currently being used at Wikibooks for people who want to go directly to uploading. --darklama 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not really know how large of a backlog problem we have with uploaded files that lack licensing information. A month or two ago I tried to categorize all the .ogg files and found about half a dozen files without licensing information. Most (if not all) of those oggs are probably files created by Wikiversity participants specifically for use at Wikiversity. I suspect that Wikiversity probably has a significant number of files without licensing information and I agree that we should try to do something about this problem. I do not really like Template:No license because I'm not sure Wikiversity has a policy structure to support its rather heavy-handed approach. When I went looking for a deletion template, the best I could find at Category:Deletion templates was Template:Deletion request. Later I came across Template:GFDL-presumed, which seems like it could be applied to most of our unlicensed ogg files. One thing I do not like about Template:No license is. "consider notifying the uploader on their talk page". I think we should always notifying the uploader unless we are dealing with some kind of image vandalism (in which case we just delete the file). I think there are probably two main classes of existing files without good licensing information. First, files from active participants at Wikiversity. In dealing with these files, the emphasis can really be on education.....making sure that Wikiversity participants understand how to license their contributions. In the case of the off files I looked at, the files without licensing information were from editors who did not spend much time at Wikiversity and seem to have moved on.....there does not seem to be much hope of contacting these former participants, but I think Template:GFDL-presumed is a reasonable option for most of the files they uploaded. The other issue facing Wikiversity is creating a system that will deal effectively with new file uploads. I'm thinking we should start a discussion thread at Wikiversity:Colloquium, do a post about this issue to the Wikiversity mailing list and try to get participation from as many Wikiversity participants as possible. Maybe a key issue is design of a version of Template:No license that fits better with the Wikiversity community and emphasizes education about licenses rather than threats. I think Wikiversity now has a good start on pages with information about licensing and we should try to direct everyone who uploads files towards those pages. --JWS 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So, is this criteria for SPEEDY deletion then?

It kinda seems weird to call this a deletion policy, when it seems more like a speedy deletion policy. ViperSnake151 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity custodians can delete vandalism pages on sight....I think of that as speedy deletion. For most other pages there is no hurry. Some of our page deletion discussions last for months. --JWSchmidt 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded redirects

"Unneeded redirects include alternate mixed-case capitalisation (one redirect for all-first-letter capitals suffices)" —I disagree; I think there's no reason to forbid multiple spelling/caps redirects, if it will help people find appropriate content sooner. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - plausible misspellings and changed case are sometimes useful. Most orphaned redirects are unneeded, but this is one case where they may be worth keeping. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)