Wikiversity:Community Review

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Wikiversity:CR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png This page documents an official process on English Wikiversity that has wide acceptance among participants. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

This page is for the polite establishment of consensus through civil discussion of issues that are a source of community tension. Please let us know what (if any) past efforts to resolve issues have been attempted. A good attitude to have is "I see a problem, I have attempted to resolve the problem by doing X, and I am not sure what to do now, what do you think?" A good attitude to have, when responding, is to suggest novel ways to resolve issues that most Wikiversity participants can live with. Please stay focused on ways to resolve issues. You can help keep discussion productive by focusing on solutions, and ignoring comments that distract from solutions. Please look over the Policy regarding Community Reviews before initiating one.

How to list a page here[edit]

Add {{auto subpage|page=<page>|preload=Wikiversity:Community Review/preload}} to the end of this page. Replace <page> with a short descriptive name and save. If a link appears at the bottom of the page, click it to add your comments, otherwise the page already exists and you need to pick another name.

Useful resources[edit]

Current reviews[edit]

Fair Use and EDP[edit]

Non-free content such as images that are claimed to be Fair use must follow both our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) and the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy.

Each image must have a "machine readable" identifier of the license type: {{Fairuse}} and an explanation of why the usage on Wikiversity is justified using: {{Non-free media rationale}}. --mikeu talk 02:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


This discussion was originally at User_talk:Dave_Braunschweig#Files_with_no_machine-readable_license --mikeu talk 01:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious about the ~10k media files in Files with no machine-readable license such as File:-1--4tiles.png. That file contains a legitimate license template which places it in the correct (GFDL document) category. I don't see why this is not machine readable. Other files like File:1-6.png have a correct license template but are not auto-included in the correct category. The reason that I'm asking is because I plan to use a bot to upload images and I want to configure it to include the license info in the correct format. I'd also like to write up a description of how to correctly provide machine readable info in a media description page for our style guide. We should review the license templates to make sure they include an auto-categorization. Another consideration is that we should compare our file tagging to commons to insure compatibility so that any free license files moved there will require minimal changes. While I'm on the topic, there is a disturbing lack of usage of {{Non-free media rationale}} which should be included on all pages where fair use is asserted per our exemption doctrine policy. I'm a bit relieved that the WMF has not noticed our lax treatment of this as it has legal ramifications. This is not an urgent issue, but something we should look into. --mikeu talk 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See the introduction at Commons:Category:Files with no machine-readable license. I didn't have time to look through the details, but that seems to have an explanation of why and how to fix "machine-readable".
Regarding non-free rationale, there are two parts to the story. The first is we have a lot of "own work" files that were contributed without proper licensing. The engineering instructors from both Florida Howard County asked that the work be kept if possible. The community decided that tagging it all as Fair Use was the best approach. That addressed the usage, but not yet the rationale. The second part is that we need to switch to using the File Upload Wizard so that files are properly licensed when they are uploaded. So far, I have been unable to get the community to support this. There haven't been clear objections, but no one willing to Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding using File Upload Wizard to get files properly licensed initially, as I recall I was the only other Symbol support vote.svg Support after yourself. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If Mu301 is also interested regarding using File Upload Wizard, we could see if one of our curators say user Atcovi who already has experience at submitting requests at the Phabricator is interested and try again at the Colloquium. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the guidelines at commons. Re: classwork, I wasn't even considering the obvious "self" or "own work" files, I was thinking of uploads where a file was taken from a commercial website or Google image search - the ones that could be a possible copyvio. I would be tempted to re-tag the obvious self produced class work as CC given that the instructor should have explained this to students. It might be a little late to make a decision like that. We should inform new instructors of the need to explain copyright to students when they assign editing here as homework.
I wouldn't make any requests to change the user interface just yet until we know exactly what we want it to do. I think the first step is to verify that the templates are correctly categorizing files and that they are used in a machine readable format. In the short term we could modify the upload page boilerplate message to make it clearer and to emphasize the important aspects of the license policy. If it is technically possible to implement I would like to see public domain on the dropdown menu redirect to commons. That would save us having to monitor that category of files.
Our community doesn't have a choice regarding this - we are required by WMF Resolution to implement an Exemption Doctrine Policy if we accept fair use files, or we are required to not accept such files if our EDP system is not correctly implemented. Even just hosting files that do not have a machine readable EDP or a valid rationale violates Resolution:Licensing policy. We are supposed to be immediately deleting these files, regardless of community consensus to keep them. Luckily for us the foundation is not paying attention to our lax enforcement of this. --mikeu talk 16:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI but Fair Use as included on our files is the EDP rationale. See for reference Fair Use rationale. Sorry about forgetting to sign. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Just FYI but Fair Use as included on our files is the EDP rationale."
In order to comply with foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which reads in part:
  • "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users."
  • "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable rationale"
...we created {{Non-free media rationale}}. I see many files in Category:Fair use images that lack this rationale. For an example of proper usage see File:GarageBand's help menu.png. --mikeu talk 02:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the exact meaning, "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." And, here's the source: United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 107. The misunderstanding appears to be coming from a confusion of EDP being equivalent to those licenses and in this case {{Fairuse}}, which is the rationale. If you review the case law regarding section 107, no additional rationale is required. The declaration of Fair use is the rationale, which uses the Fair use template. No court case has ever gone against Fair use of any copyrighted image when used for non-commercial, educational purposes. Wikiversity is an educational website. Wikipedia, for example, may not qualify as such, so they put an additional rationale on their images. The law as quoted above lists four criteria the courts used to decide if the use of the copyrighted work qualifies for fair use. The educational provision quoted above is much more the deciding factor. You are right that this is not a matter of consensus. If you read the primer Fair Use rationale, then you noticed no mention of a rationale. Anyone including their opinion of the four points in an additional rationale is unnecessary and redundant. These are presumed for educational purposes. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of acceptable Fair use: File:01 atlantic quakes noland900.jpg which contains under "Licensing":


The gravity model of the North Atlantic ocean basin reveals tectonic history in sharp detail. Red dots show the location of past earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 or higher.


The image appears on a website entitled, "Gravity map uncovers sea-floor surprises" at url=


02 October 2014


David Sandwell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

(Reusing this file)

Fair Use

{{Fairuse}}, following underneath. The image is unique as published and has no free equivalent. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are quoting US copyright law, but WMF projects need to comply with numerous jurisdictions. The meta:Wikilegal/Primer_on_U.S._Fair_Use/Copyright_Law_for_Website is merely a tutorial. It is not a legally binding document like foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which we are obligated to follow per the instructions of the WMF lawyers. This has nothing to do with the differences between Wikipedia and Wikiveristy, as this is a WMF Official Policy that applies to all projects. Your example lacks an explicitly stated rationale in machine readable format as required by the Foundation. The file should be modified to include your statement "The image is unique as published and has no free equivalent" in the "rationale =" section of {{Non-free media rationale}} along with the other information like the pagename. If you are uncertain about applicability of the requirements that I'm describing I could invite the WMF lawyers to review our EDP policy and procedures as we've been implementing them. I've been very hesitant to do that as I am concerned that they might shutdown the upload feature on our project due to our lack of diligence in complying with required policy. --mikeu talk 06:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the file I used in the above example is not in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Perhaps we are discussing two different types of images. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing numerous problems including the lack of machine readable license data and also templates that do not correctly categorize files by license type. I don't think that the example that you've given is in violation of the EDP, we just need to cleanup the wiki code for how the information is formatted. --mikeu talk 07:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, referring to "I'm a bit relieved that the WMF has not noticed our lax treatment of this as it has legal ramifications." I do not speak for WMF legal, but they are probably not "lax". With all due respect, they are very likely aware of the points I've made above and that as per the example above, such images are legally correct regarding fair use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 06:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that the WMF lawyers were lax, I said that "our lax treatment of this" (emphasis added) is a problem. I'm not at all convinced that they would not consider your suggestions about EDP to be within WMF policy. In fact, I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't based on the implementations on other projects. --mikeu talk 07:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent free use files[edit]

There are some files in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license that are uploader designated free use or appear to be free use but probably would not remain at Commons if uploaded there due to a lack of copyright information.

Here is a preliminary list of those found so far. How would the community like to handle these?

  1. File:080924 cookbook2.jpg linked to by Food writing, the file lacks copyright information, specifically who owns the copyright to the photo, cook book age also needs verification, -
    Copyrighted image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. File:1 Success is counted sweetest Franklin.jpg linked to by Emily Dickinson's poems in translation/Polish/Success is Counted Sweetest, may be free use but needs verification,
    Copyrighted CC-BY-NC-ND image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. File:1 Success is counted sweetest.jpg linked to by Emily Dickinson's poems in translation/Polish/Success is Counted Sweetest, this file lacks a verifiable free license for upload to Commons as free use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC). Here's a few more
    Copyrighted CC-BY-NC-ND image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. File:11707461 10205143631373813 4898737516949131265 n.jpg linked to by Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Nicotine and addiction, lacks a license,
    Copyrighted image. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. File:119-Reflections.jpg linked to by Ideas in Geometry/Symmetry Groups, lacks a license,
  6. File:119-Rotations.jpg linked to by Ideas in Geometry/Symmetry Groups, lacks a license. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  7. File:User Sebmol.jpg, it has a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License but when I tried to use CommonsHelper to upload it, I received an error message stating that the file had been deleted from Commons,
  8. File:Save page.png has a GFDL-self license but when using CommonsHelper, received "ERROR: Warning was-deleted : Save_page.png duplicate-archive : Save_page.png". --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  9. File:12-1.svg has in its permission line: "In case this is not legally possible: anyone has the right to use this for any academic purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." This reads like Fair use.
  10. File:12-2.svg has the same permission as the immediate above. Neither file is used on anything and can be deleted,
  11. File:12-3.svg, ditto,
  12. File:12-4.svg, ditto.
  13. File:12240080 10205143636613944 3236422460620291551 n.jpg has no license and links to Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Nicotine and addiction. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  14. File:14224 23 2.jpg has a GFDL but the website where the image was found is a .com with a ⓒ at the bottom of the page to the .com. This image may be copyrighted.
  15. File:14989592.jpg has a GFDL but the image appears to be a front cover of the book and the GFDL text states no front cover texts. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 17:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've been reading the GNU: Free Documentation License. Here's my interpretation on how Commons is able to take the image and apply license information to it. The GFDL allows derivative works. The Commons approach to the license is to treat it as a derivative work, simply noting where the file came from. We should be able to do the same, filling in available information based on the upload. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This worked for File:025 PM Project Organization.png! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This also worked for File:030 PM Project Preparation.png! I will start removing the successful transfers to Commons from the above list. If needed the files are contained in the history of the page, if anyone wishes to check. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on a Google image search of the first three files on this list and other research, I suspect many of these images are copyrighted and not free use. They can be tagged as fair use if someone is willing to put in the effort. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You, me and Atcovi are the only ones so far working on this mess. More help is really needed. The simplest thing to do with most is tag them with {{fairuse}}, especially the two from Motivation and emotion, some of the others may need Template:Upload Information applied and filled in, that takes longer. Any file tagged GFDL gets put into Category:Files with no machine-readable license automatically so simply tagging those that we may not want to upload to Commons with {{fairuse}} takes them out of the category. File:User Sebmol.jpg is a problem. The username sounds familiar but if this user hasn't been here in say four years perhaps I should put a prod on this. What do you think?
I've been conferencing with Commons on some of these and the selfies are likely to get deleted for being out of scope. These are on user pages of users who haven't contributed in at least 4 years. I'm reluctant to delete their personal GFDL images so simply tagging as fair use is an easy answer for these as well. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The simplest thing to do is have a bot delete them all. I'm not advocating that, but it is simpler. Files in user space do not quality for fair use, because they are not in use on an academic resource page. See wv:EDP item 7. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


I am currently updating {{GFDL-self}} files based on information provided during upload. The files should be checked to see if the uploader provided additional information in the comments that should be added to description or author. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This worked out for File:100 1236.jpg in the list above! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Contributed by Author - Missing License[edit]

We have a large number of files that were contributed by author without license information. For example, File:119-Reflections.jpg and File:119-Rotations.jpg. Most of the engineering project files fall into this category. I would like to see us come up with a template that would be similar to fair use, but specific to this situation. It would indicate that the file was uploaded by the author for use at Wikiversity, but there is no license for reuse beyond the article already linked by the author and copyright holder. Maybe we call it single use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at {{Singleuse}}. It's probably okay with US Copyright law. And the WMF/EDP compliance might need some tweaking. I just composed it. In theory I think it may be okay for Wikiversity to use. We might need to add something to indicate it's only for use on Wikiversity. What do you think? After we've discussed it I'll test it on one of the special cases that don't qualify for fair use to see if it ends up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. If it doesn't we may be good to use it. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
After I wrote the above I got to thinking that testing {{Singleuse}} might actually add to the discussion one way or the other. I tested it on File:21012009624.jpg by removing its {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}} and replacing it with {{Singleuse}}. This was successful in taking the file out of Category:Files with no machine-readable license. I've since returned the original license and it's now back in the category. Such a license would work for selfies of any kind on user pages. We could add the disclaimer "For personal or social used only" for selfies on user pages. From discussions on Commons, they will most likely delete (and have deleted one selfie movie) selfies. It might be a reasonable way to make Wikiversity not just a university but also a social network. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Read your clarifications on {{Singleuse}}. Replacing "single use" with "fair use" should be okay. That saves us from composing policy regarding non-free media that are not fair use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't done yet. I've now added the single use icon as well. There is no legal standing for single use, so we have to leave it as fair use. We'll still need rationale supporting the single use, but I think we can do that relatively easily. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks great! An added benefit of keeping this under fair use is that Category:Single use images can be a subcategory of Category:Fair use images.
I re-tested it on File:21012009624.jpg by removing its {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}} and replacing it with {{Singleuse}}. This was again successful in taking the file out of Category:Files with no machine-readable license. I will leave it with this license for now as a demonstration that the template works. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Singleuse is showing up in Category:Wikiversity pages with incorrect protection templates so I protected it to auto-confirmed users. Let's see if that takes it out of the category. Didn't work! I raised the protection to Custodians but it's still in the category along with 11 others. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

YesY Done. Also changed images to files as being a more inclusive category. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So what would you like to do? Personally, I'd like to start using {{Singleuse}} for our author uploaded, no license files. Should we ask for general community input on it with a site notice, wait some period to see if anyone else writes an opinion, or start using it and see if anyone objects? What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you can start using it. You could also post in the Colloquium. I'm not sure it needs a site notice, as it doesn't change anything except assert that we do not have license to reuse these files. We do have to come up with an associated rationale statement. I think a good bit of that could be added by bot, at least for the engineering projects. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the Colloquium idea! That way hopefully we can get four or five opinions (at least three or four in favor) so that we have community support for the template and its use.
I'll do both the Colloquium and start using it. By including those or some of them in the Colloquium entry, it will give others an opportunity to comment, criticize or object to certain choices.
I may try a suggested rationale but for the non-engineering project images that's going to be tough. Some of these images come from users that may still be active. I might try pinging them. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Having spent two days on this, I'm now not seeing any value in having {{Singleuse}}. The files are just fair use files that the contributor uploaded without providing additional license. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been thinking the same thing, when I was going through some of the files up for deletion. Those in resource space I could designate {{fairuse}} but some appeared to be in learning projects being developed in user page space. These I used {{singleuse}} for. It's a subtle difference that may have benefits for those wanting a license for use of copyrighted or possibly copyrighted files in user space before they take their product to resource space. What do you think?
Also, I checked in again with meta regarding their license change. Now they're claiming the problem you fixed has been addressed and fixed. I don't think so! Kudos again for having to do their work for them! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
We need a community decision on whether Fair Use is allowed in user space or only in main space. There's nothing about Fair Use itself that would require main space, only our current EDP. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree, but it's a tough call with some files. Some appear to be a user-developing project that may (will?) end up in resource space. Others appear to be personal photos for their user page only. As Single Use is a subset of Fair Use albeit more restrictive, it may be free of our EDP or not. A sub-issue that could need a community decision. My tendency is to try a short, limited modification to the EDP per community consensus if we can get one. I'll check to see if the EDP ever had a consensus in the first place. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The EDP cannot be bypassed. These files are not licensed files, so they are Fair Use. Fair Use must meet EDP requirements. We can change the EDP, with approval from the community and WMF, but we can't bypass or ignore it.
I think it's relatively easy to determine whether a learning project has educational purpose. This becomes a content vs. activity decision. The content must be educational for the image to remain as Fair Use. If only the activity is educational, there's no need for the file to remain after the activity has been completed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in bypassing the EDP or ignoring it! The problem we may have is "Fair Use must meet EDP requirements."
Here's what I've found so far: Our Exemption Doctrine Policy was "modified [extensively] from w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria" by User:JWS, which redirects to User:JWSchmidt, as of 16:11, 17 September 2007. So far I have found no consensus on the EDP anywhere. It appears to be based on the WMF Board of Directors' Resolution:Licensing policy although I haven't performed a word count match up yet. While there is considerable re-writing of the Wikipedia EDP, the section about article namespace only (i.e. resource space only here) comes from Wikipedia. But on Wikipedia, there is "Subject to exemptions." These exemptions are administrative pages. The only wording that may have been interpreted as article or resource space only in the RLP might have been "They [non-free content] must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content." Directly, there's nothing in the RLP restricting Fair Use to resource space only. It appears to be the case that without any direct consensus this EDP was just declared Official Policy. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 03:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Revision as of 19:33, 5 August 2010 by Geoff Plourde". User:Geoff Plourde added the check mark declaring the EDP as official policy. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Either the EDP is accepted policy, in which case we need community approval to change it, or it isn't accepted policy, in which case we need community approval to accept it. I don't see any advantage in trying to fight the EDP. My recommendation is to make a proposal to improve it and move on. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
There's an extensive discussion of the EDP and some of our concerns on Wikiversity talk:Uploading files. While I haven't made a head count, I'm not sure they agreed on anything. Unfortunately, most or all of these contributors are no longer active. WMF-Legal made a comment through their intermediary, "They suggest that if contributors are uncomfortable releasing their own images, they may wish to use alternate images that are free. --Mdennis (WMF) 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)".
Professionally writing, I'd have to agree that the EDP never has been accepted policy. Judging from the arguments on Wikiversity talk:Uploading files and some comments I've read by the EDP's composer I agree with "make a proposal to improve it and move on." I'd like to try to make the EDP simpler and as close to the letter and spirit of both the WMF Board of Directors' Resolution:Licensing policy and US Code. This may take some time and thought. I've had to do this in the past and it accomplished nothing! The main reason for accomplishing nothing is everyone wants to have it their way or their own interpretation. Ugh! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 05:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the structure around Wikiversity:Community Review/Exemption Doctrine Policy! I was very tired last night. Well, what's next? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It terms of EDP, what's next would be describing what issues exist with the current policy so that improvements that address those concerns can be identified. In terms of content missing licenses, there are still several hundred files with missing licenses and/or no machine-readable licenses. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Working on the latter. I'll start listing the former. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
They are already listed at Category:Pending deletions and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:No license. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Status Update[edit]

On February 7, User:Mu301 initiated this review of our {{fair use}} files. It quickly turned into a review of the 10,000 files in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. Research identified the problem as being missing metadata information in our various licensing tags. The resolution is described at meta:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata and the various Wikiversity:License tags were corrected. Any files remaining that did not have license tags were tagged as fair use, with the "fairness" of that use still remaining to be reviewed.

This left something like 8,000 files in Category:Files with no machine-readable source and Category:Files with no machine-readable description. A review of these files identified several problems and solutions. First was likely a misunderstanding by many users, myself included, that either {{Information}} or Wikiversity:License tags were required, but not both. Our Special:Upload page was not as clear as it should have been on how to correctly add information, and the design of the page still leads users to neglect to select one of the licensing options. Instructions on Special:Upload have been revised, but we would still be better off using the mw:Extension:UploadWizard. The {{Information}} template itself was also not as clear as it should have been. It was revised based on code from Wikipedia:Template:Information and is now much more effective in indicating which fields have missing information.

Of the 8,000 or so files with missing information, most had been tagged with one or more of the {{self}} licenses. This allowed for a bot approach to fill in the missing information based on data captured by the MediaWiki software when files are uploaded (username and date) and the {{PAGENAME}} magic word can serve as the description. Files that were not tagged as self, but were in a learning project where self-creation could be assumed (engineering projects, homework assignments, etc.) were tagged with a source of {{own}} (assumed). Files that were clearly not the uploader's original work were retagged as either fair use and/or missing information.

This left maybe 1,000 files with no source and no clear indication that the uploader was the author. Google image search was used to attempt to find either the original source of the image, or at least a valid source of the image. When a source could be identified, source information was added. This left approximately 300 files still missing a source. The 86 users who uploaded these files have been notified that the files are missing information, and the files will be deleted if the information is not added.

Not done yet is community agreement and implementation of the mw:Extension:UploadWizard and community review and update of the Wikiversity:EDP (Exemption Doctrine Policy) regarding fair use files. That should be followed by a review of fair use files to verify that they are consistent with revised policy.

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice Work!

Well, I tried to get Mu301 interested in the Upload Wizard. As I recall it's a great option even for Fair use files.

I've been looking at some and added info to a couple so far. The one's in the projects I'm curating will probably get done first. The other's that pinged my watchlist may take longer. I still believe there may be some confusion about fair use but this may have to wait until the Year of Science project on Wikipedia is over. Your approach to adding the info in looks good on those I've checked so far. If I find something special or important that might alter anything I'll either mention it for discussion or go ahead and modify the file where needed. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Stalled reviews[edit]