Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
Shortcuts:
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Before commenting, note:

  • This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
  • Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
Β« Older discussions, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22


Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.


Automatic 'shared/static IP' template bot[edit]

During my vandal hunting I've noticed that, when dealing with vandalizing IPs, adding the {{shared IP}} template to their Talk page usually stops them in their tracks. When they see their WHOIS info pop up about half of them seem to think "O shit, I'm not that anonymous" and stop vandalizing. So, what about a bot that would automatically add the template with WHOIS info on those Talk pages once they've reached (for example) a level 2 warning? Maybe it could be an extra task for ClueBot? Yintan  14:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan: I personally add the shared IP templates straight away if I get the feeling that it's a mobile IP or a school IP, because I want to keep it documented just in case. While a bot might not exist to do this yet, there is a userscript (I made) that automatically fills out the Shared IP template for Twinkle users, so you don't have to go to the WHOIS link and then to the rDNS link to grab the AS and the hostname. Hope that helps. – 🐈? (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@What cat?: That's interesting, I'd like to give it a try. How to install and make Twinkle see it? Yintan  19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yintan: It should work if dropped in common.js, as it waits for Twinkle to load before doing anything so it'll work loaded at any point in time. – 🐈? (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@What cat?: Yep, works. Now that's a pretty cool script. Thanks! Yintan  19:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Disparity[edit]

Requirements for deletion: none, you can delete whatever you want and then people need to individually resource and justify everything when they undo your vandalism. Adding something: painstaking process, resource everything, justify everything on the talk page, inevitable edit warring, insults and ad hominems, constant stress.

This is a big, big problem. Some guy deleted a sentence in a wikipedia page which had been there for almost four years, without proof, despite the phrase being factually correct. It took several weeks and edit-warring and someone getting banned to even get it back to how it was before his vandalism. This is ridiculous. EVERY CHANGE, whether deletion or adding, should be discussed on the talk page and justified. UtherPendrogn (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@UtherPendrogn: Discussing every change on a Talkpage first would slow Wikipedia's development down to a crawl. Furthermore, it would generate even more vandal warnings since a lot of editors wouldn't do it anyway. Because where do you draw the line? A simple typo fix can go without discussion? What about changing 1961 into 1962? And why discuss a deletion, or addition, if it's clearly within Wikipedia guidelines? Etcetera. By the way, which article and sentence are you referring to in your message above? Yintan  14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's been dealt with, so there's no point. If you want to see an example of it, go on to every single article of this "encyclopaedia". Perfectly valid facts are deleted, yet unsourced lies aren't corrected. Perfectly valid facts can't be added either. Methamphetamine is factually similar to amphetamine, but if I added that fact to the page, it would be deleted within an hour. Hell, let's put that to the test:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methamphetamine&action=history UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@UtherPendrogn: No, there is a point, I want to see your previously mentioned example for myself. And adding an important claim without a source, as you did in Methamphetamine just now, is against WP policy. WP:V and all that.... Yintan  14:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not a claim, anyone who went to secondary school knows it's true. http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/EP0371253A2/imgb0001.png UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's TRUE? Well, in that case, why do we bother with references and citations at all? Seriously, that's just not how Wikipedia works. Add a reliable source and you can add anything to any article. But without it, you'll be challenged. Quite simple, really. Yintan  14:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
And where do you stop?
Methamphetamine[citation needed] (contracted from N-methylamphetamine[citation needed]) is a strong[citation needed] central nervous system (CNS)[citation needed] stimulant[citation needed] that is mainly used as a recreational drug[citation needed] and less commonly as a treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder[citation needed] and obesity[citation needed]. Methamphetamine was discovered in 1893[citation needed] and exists as two enantiomers[citation needed]: levo-methamphetamine[citation needed] and dextro-methamphetamine[citation needed]. Methamphetamine properly refers to a specific chemical[citation needed], the racemic free base[citation needed], which is an equal[citation needed] mixture of levomethamphetamine[citation needed] and dextromethamphetamine[citation needed] in their pure amine forms[citation needed]. It is rarely prescribed[citation needed] due to concerns[citation needed] involving human neurotoxicity[citation needed] and potential for recreational use[citation needed] as an aphrodisiac[citation needed] and euphoriant[citation needed], among other concerns[citation needed], as well as the availability of safer substitute drugs[citation needed] with comparable treatment efficacy[citation needed]. Dextromethamphetamine[citation needed] is a much stronger CNS[citation needed] stimulant than levomethamphetamine[citation needed]. Methamphetamine is similar[citation needed] to amphetamine[citation needed] and the two are sometimes confused for one another[citation needed].
UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't play dumb and don't edit my replies, thanks. Yintan  14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not playing dumb. It's ridiculous that idiotic statements go unsourced, yet even the most basic, secondary-school level chemistry facts don't pass without excessively pedantic sources. UtherPendrogn (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced "idiotic statements" should be removed. Simple, too. Yintan  14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
They aren't. This isn't a utopia, you put far too much trust in "the system". Plenty of glaring mistakes in articles I've seen. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜@Yintan: A reliable source isn't enough for inclusion. See WP:NPOV. In any case, this is really about a dispute at Fuck and I've blocked the OP for a edit warring. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:Of course, and there are other considerations too, but I didn't want to link to all guidelines here Face-wink.svg. Anyway, I had just about given up on this thread, WP:NOTFORUM, so it's a good thing it ends here. Cheers, Yintan  15:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
[citation needed]. You have no proof it was about Fuck, since it isn't. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Earlier you wrote: If you want to see an example of it, go on to every single article of this "encyclopaedia". That is completely false. We have five million articles. Most of them are uncontroversial. There are probably more than a million where no information has ever been removed for any reason. Some articles are controversial and require discussion of many things but it would be an absurd burden on editors to demand that everything on all articles must be discussed on the talk page. Consider for example the tables in 2016 WTA Tour#Schedule. They are updated hundreds of times during a tennis season. Do you really want editors to discuss on the talk page before every time they add the name of a player who won or lost a match? It's all easy to verify on the website of the tournament or WTA, and there are never conflicts about it. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Someone expressed this as "Do I need a reference to prove that the sky is blue?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Complete Reliability/Factual Accuracy Solution[edit]

  • Problem: Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. According to Academics [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] & Harvard [8] ,Carleton [9],livescience [10] ,forbos [11] ,guardian [12] ,nature [13] wikipedia articles are "not enough RELIABLE" for academic research/study.some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [14] [15] [16] . And there is "Lack of methodical fact-checking "...Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. [17] .. For a list of hoaxes that have occurred on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia .
  1. Accuracy is the biggest problem about Wikipedia . Anyone can add subtle nonsense  or erroneous information to articles that can take weeks, months or years to be detected and removed (which has been happening since at least 2002). Deliberate hoaxes can also be perpetrated.
  2. Even unregistered users are capable of this. For example, some one can just come and edit this very page and put in "khats r four doughs onlee" or add mention of some unrelated topic: ===like how great pineapple pizza is===
  3. Dross can proliferate, rather than become refined, as rhapsodic authors have their articles revised by ignorant editors.
  • Who would benefit: all wiki reader & editor . 18 billion user every month . pageview 18 billion every month.[18][19][20]
  • Proposed solution:I have a five step solution .

1.(Easy reporting): by Making it much easier for people to report "factual accuracy", misinformation faster. google,google news,facebook [21] ,twitter,bing everyone have a interactive reporting & feedback system .We can have a interactive reporting in wikipedia similar to google feedback [22] (with screenshot ; highlight issue in "yellow" & Black out private information private information) for highlighting a specific block/line . In wikipedia articles , we can have a [Report] link in every section ,beside [Edit] link . In reporting , there should have features for adding ,section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category., There are several noticeboards (for  inaccurate content  &  factual inaccuracy) at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the Dispute resolution , Fringe theories , reliable sources, no original research, neutral point-of-view, Conflict of Interest and biographies of living persons noticeboards.All report should go there or open a request for mediation (RFM) & Requests for Comment . some report should go here and here.In this way, we have a possibility  to get 18 billion "factual accuracy" report in every month  :) . [23][24][25]

2.(Algorithm): Leverage algorithms and artificial intelligence.Stronger detection Algorithm .Facebook already using machine learningβ€”different algorithms than the ones that drive the Trending sectionβ€”to try and catch misinformation on the platform . We can have a Algorithm similar to google,facebook [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] & twitter  [32] fake news algorithm .When a user create a article with Factual Accuracy/misinformation,claim,Fringe theories , original research ; without proper citation ; then the Algorithm should automatically add section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category. ...from reliable sources guideline , we can create a algorithm for "cross check ". when a editor insert a citation then it & will automatically start cross-checking the content with other similar reliable source & will create a " reliability meter ".

3.(Third party verification): Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by many respected fact checking organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter’s Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself. Google added a fact check tag on Google News in order to display articles that contain factual information next to trending news items.[33].Facebook using snopes [34] .snopes.com is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture, receiving 300,000 visits a day. [35] The Reporters’ Lab at Duke University maintains a database managed by Mark Stencel and Bill Adair of fact checking organizations. The database tracks more than 100 non-partisan organizations around the world. Articles are also examined based upon whether the site examines transparency of sources and methods, tracks political promises, examines all parties and sides, and examines discreet claims and reaches conclusions.

4.(User Right): We can have a user right group "Fact Checker". This user group will have some expertise & tools .Or, this right can be added to Admin group. they will get notified , when point 1.(Easy reporting) will happen , mainly for good , A ,GA &  B  articles. They will try to solve Factual Accuracy from these category as much as they can .

5.(reliability meter): in visual editor cite templates , we can add reliability meter . from the help of point 2.(Algorithm) ; every reader will see "reliability meter " , when they click in the "citation " & in "REFERENCES" .there is third party databases [36] [37] [38] [39] or we can create our own . when Reliability/Accuracy 100-81% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 80-61% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 60-50% ; we will see Red dot . We can have a system that designed to flag all citations to academic journals in Wikipedia, like Green (free to read): Freely accessible, Freely accessible ; Yellow (free, with conditions): Free registration required, Free registration required, Free registration required, Free registration required, Free registration required, Free registration required, Free registration required ; Red (not free): Paid subscription required, Paid subscription required

  • Proposer:--- md masum (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are just a few of the thoughts that this set of proposals has prompted.
  • I am not sure that using services which collectively provide "thousands of fact-checks a year" would be a lot of use on a web site which has hundreds of thousands of edits per day. I am also not sure that those services would be willing or able to take on the task of checking Wikipedia edits, as doing so would swamp them, leaving them unable to do any other fact checking.
  • We have algorithms to detect likely misinformation: they are called edit filters. If you have ideas for specific algorithms which would be better than the existing ones, then by all means suggest them.
  • You say we should make it much easier for people to report factual accuracy. What specific suggestions do you have to do so? How would your proposals make it easier than the existing array of provisions such as Twinkle, Huggle, AIV, ANI, etc?
  • How will it help to have a user right group "Fact Checker"? Will they have some sort of rights to check facts that other editors don't have? If so, what will be the benefit of restricting such rights, rather than letting anyone check facts?
  • If we get 18 billion factual accuracy reports in every month, as you suggest, what will happen to them? Will they get filed away in some archive somewhere? Obviously, there would be no way for the few thousand active Wikipedia editors who try to cope with problematic editing to deal with more than a minute fraction of them, even if they were to dedicate all their time on Wikipedia to the task, and do nothing else. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson , thank you for your response. firstly,

I think you have some unique idea about "" Complete Reliability/Factual Accuracy Solution."" .what can we do ? . please share it.THANKS. -- md masum (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:discussion review[edit]

I've been thinking. Perhaps we should have another venue on reviewing closures of non-deletion discussions in general. It can function like WP:DRV or WP:MRV, but the scope should be wide, i.e. it can be anything unrelated to deletion discussions. Someday, when "discussion review" venue comes true, I thought about merging MRV to "discussion review" (DCV?). --George Ho (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you think the benefits of this are going to be? Increased visibility/transparency, or maybe keeping discussions of this type off AN? I'm asking because I don't think AN is currently that overwhelmed, although I may be wrong. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussions at a user talk page prompted me to think about the idea. Now maybe I broadened too much. It should apply to discussions at talk pages, project pages, and project talk pages. WP:arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment already reviews decisions done by ArbCom, so take that out of the scope. Overwhelmed or not, sometimes either administrators might not handle controversy well, or they... I don't see much of discussions yet at AN. --George Ho (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
While anyone can comment on closures brought to AN for reveiw, having a venue called "discussion review" would be more inviting to non-administrators, and separate discussions of that nature from other things that are posted there.β€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Specific templates[edit]

I have been thinking that we used template aimed at something that constantly change. For example, instead of write the new president, we could use some kind of template (for example {{POTUS}}, for President of the US). Sorry for my english. Hddty. (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide an specific example where this could be used? For the president of the us, either it would be a specific president that did something or it would be a general mention about the office of the president.Brightgalrs (/braΙͺtˈɑæl.Ι™rΛŒΙ›s/)[1] 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brightgalrs: I mean instead of using this:

| president = [[Barack Obama]] | vice president = [[Joe Biden]]

We could using this:

| president = {{POTUS}} | vice president = {{VPOTUS}} Hddty. (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think that Wikidata is meant to allow that kind of data requests. --167.58.90.46 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

signature timezone[edit]

We use UTC for signature timezone now. Let's use each users' timezones in Special:Preferences. --γ…‚γ„±γ…‡ (talk) (Bieup Giyeok Ieung) 13:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That would probably just make discussions very confusing, and there's already a gadget in user preferences to change timestamps in UTC to be relative to the user's local time. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Right now, each user can easily see the relative time of any 2 posts (simply see which has a later timestamp, and subtract the times to know how long passded between them); this would no longer work if we each used our own time zone. Additionally, any user can easily check out once which time zone (s)he is in (and probably most of us know anyway) to see how long ago a specific post was made; if each user used his/her own time zone, this would be much more difficult, as the user would need to check out the time zone of the posting user. Χ’Χ•Χ“ ΧžΧ™Χ©Χ”Χ• Od Mishehu 12:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot proposal[edit]

If there are x (this can be determined by replies) amount of reverts in a space of x time, then the bot will make a request for page protection. MusikAnimal and I agreed that adding a bot section would be simplest, and CP678 said that it is also easy to incorporate in their bots' code. Thoughts? Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this needs to be given more thought. Will this only run on mainspace pages? Are good-faith reverts counted? What if the reverts are only for one vandal, shouldn't it report to WP:AIV and not WP:RFPP (since a block would be more appropriate)? If does go to AIV, will the bot know that the user was properly warned first? How would the bot know the reverts are actually vandalism in the first place? What if it is two editors edit warring, shouldn't it go to WP:ANEW instead? Again, how does the bot differentiate vandalism from an edit war, so that it knows what noticeboard to report to? β€” MusikAnimal talk 17:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
It runs on every space. Every edit with an edit summary of "revert", "undo", "undid" will be counted. However, it is possible to check if there's good-faith/good faith in the summary (I believe in ruby there's the scan command?). I'm not sure about checking if there's more than two users since also edit wars should be protected as to avoid disruption of the project while attempting to reach consensus. I rarely see users rollbacking/undo-ing edits that aren't vandalism/disruptive in any way. If they do, then they'll be stripped of rollback. I could add it so that it might report to WP:AN/EW. In addition, the bot could check if there are only two editors, both are extended/autoconfirmed, and will request protection of the page to the appropriate level. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If there are only two users, page protection generally is not the answer, blocking is. If it's an edit war, you'd report to ANEW, but the bot has to somehow know it was an edit war and not someone reverting vandalism by a single user. Next, you don't need rollback to "revert", "undo" or "undid". What if I as a new user I wanted to undo my last 10 edits, so I "undid" each of them, one by one? What if I was testing the undo function in my userspace? What if my edit summary said "The Queen of England has undone her decision...", etc. You will need to use regular expressions. Overall I would actually forego reporting to noticeboards entirely, and instead have the bot generate a report in its own userspace, listing pages that have recently experienced numerous reverts. Admins can then refer to it at their leisure, and we don't risk false positives polluting the noticeboards, or having the bot report to the wrong place. With time we'd be able to see how accurate it is, and reconsider if reporting to noticeboards is appropriate β€” MusikAnimal talk 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If there is consensus, I will run the bot in my userspace to see how many false positives there are. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Bot is nearly done. Pinging frequent administrators who work at AIV for comments @KrakatoaKatie, Drmies, CambridgeBayWeather, BethNaught, Samsara, and Vanamonde93:. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion at WT:RFPP. Samsara 19:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
So, is there a page in your userspace that shows the results from a test run? I think that will be the best time to ask for comments. Samsara 19:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Samsara that I'd like to see test results before commenting further. I can see the need if it's done correctly. Katietalk 22:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I'm way too old-fashioned for this. Sure, a test run etc., but for now I don't see the benefits. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
    So long as this is making low-speed edits to its own userspace go for it - if it seems useful after that you will be able to get more review after filing a BRFA. β€” xaosflux Talk 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to this in principle, remains to be seen how the practicalities will be worked out. It might be helpful if the bot could somehow use Cluebot's reverts as a starting point, because the filters/algorithms on that seem decent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As protection is a variable term nowadays this would need to be conditional. If the reverts mainly involve IPs and or newbies then semi protection could be useful. If this is an edit war between vested contributors then semi protection isn't going to help anyone, but maybe a note on an admin noticeboard might be appropriate. Ο’ereSpielChequers 14:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Acquiring property rights[edit]

I was thinking, maybe there are photographers who might be interested to donate their photos to Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), after they die. Or their families might be interested to do that. Or maybe they would be interested to sell their rights for decent amounts of money. Probably for the vast majority of photographers, their work is not sold and never licensed and their families never benefit from it. That's a big loss for all the humanity. WMF can ask the photographers associations if there are such photographers who might be interested to sell or donate their work, in order to add it to Wikimedia Commons. Considering that such an action is enriching the cultural heritage of the world, I think it is possible to secure funds and donations from the government and corporations for such acquisitions. I'm completely sure that there are lots of journalists who work(ed) for local papers and making modest incomes who would be interested in such a deal. Or their families are interested in such a deal, after they die. Outside of the USA there should be plenty of such photographers also. In the poor countries, probably more than 90% of the photographers would be interested in such a deal.

Maybe this is a perennial proposal, I don't know. If that's the case, I apologize for that. β€”  Ark25  (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because you buy a photo doesn't mean you own the copyright to it and can release it under a free license. That is a common misconception in copyright law. Think of it this way. You buy a book. You don't own the copyright to that book just because you bought it. Donation is a very different story and we already have a process for that. See WP:COPYREQ. But just purchasing a work doesn't meet the same standard. Copyright is a complex legal issue with loopholes, traps, and laws within laws (and I'm only exaggerating a little there). It is just not as simple as you make it out to be. Copyright terms also expire automatically. Sure, it is 70 years after the death of the author in the United States (every country has different laws) but it does happen. Living photographers can already release their photos under a creative commons license right now. This is not the public domain. The work is still copyrighted and reusers still have to follow the terms. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Even Wikipedia uses the term "donate" to mean release under a free license or into the public domain. – Finnusertop (talk β‹… contribs) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: β€” @Finnusertop: I already knew that, but thanks anyways for explaining it. I was talking about buying the ownership, not to pay for the license to use the photos. Let's imagine that I'm a photographer working for local newspapers in Happyland and during a few decades of work I made and licensed some 10,000 photos that I still have on my hard disk. Nobody wants those photos anymore, and they take too much space on my hard disk. So I decide to transfer the property rights to someone else who can make use of them. So I will donate them to the WMF - or to sell them for a modest amount of money - say for $100. After doing this, the new owner of the photos is WMF and they do whatever they want with them: they can release the photos the Creative Commons or even in the public domain. The thing is: I can't be bothered to release my 10,000 photos into public domain or creative commons license and to upload them. I simply want to give them and forget about them.
I am quite sure that there are lots of photographers who would be interested or even happy to do that. Even more so if this move is going to help them to become known - when uploading the photos on Wikimedia Commons servers, the photos can mention the original owner. So they get free publicity simply for getting rid of the photos they don't want to bother with. Others might do that just for making sure that their name remains written and never completely forgotten.
And this applies even more for the deceased journalists: their families are interested to donate or to sell the ownership but they certainly aren't interested in learning what Creative Commons or Public Domain means and into uploading thousands of photos on a free internet encyclopedia. It's important to understand their position and to help them do do this easy, without complications. Various people might do this for all kind of reasons if only they could do it easy.
I have a few questions though: Is there any known case of a photographer selling the ownership of their work? Or families of deceased photographers selling it? And how much of the photographers' work is lost simply because nobody cares to archive it (rough estimate, ofc)?
Sorry for the long reply. β€”  Ark25  (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Going to try to respond to every aspect of your post. Forgive me if I miss something. Family members do not automatically gain copyright ownership after the photographer dies. Copyright continues to lie with the dead author unless already transferred by legal contract (such as in a will). And if they are going to transfer it that way, just release the documents into the public domain in the will.

Second, we already have a method of donating large numbers of works. OTRS handles this. We have a whole queue dedicated to photo submissions.

Third, if they were taking the photos as part of their work for another company the copyright very likely doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the company as a work for hire. So every journalist, unless completely freelance, would be off the table here.

As for your question at the end, nobody can answer that with any sort of mildly definitive answer. --Majora (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Thanks, that's really informative. Please forgive me for answering with even more questions. However, this is a big topic and eventually those questions will be asked anyways.

  • First, maybe there are photographers realeasing their photos in the public domain in their will, but their photos remain forgotten on their hard disks. And then, the WMF should be aware of that. To me, it looks like the best way to find such instances is to approach the photographers associations. Otherwise, how can the WMF find that, say, last year, a happy photographer from Happyland died and released their work in the public domain?
  • Second, maybe many photographers didn't contemplate much about releasing their photos in the public domain, because they don't know anyone interested to make use of those photos. If WMF would encourage them do do so, I'm quite sure that many photographers would think about it.
  • Some photographers die before even thinking about making a will (accidents for example). And then, the families decide what to do with the owned photos.
  • For the families who managed to gain the ownership of the photographs: Is there any known case of a family selling the ownership of those photos for modest amounts of money? And probably some families are simply not interested to gain ownership because they have no idea how to make use of those photos or they think they have too little value - so why bother? And then, if the WMF would help them to do the paperwork to gain the ownership, then those families might be interested to do the transfer and then to donate / sell the ownership of the photos. For example I recall a psychologist telling me that some famous psychology tests used in the USA were invented by a Romanian scientist and then the Americans bought the ownership of his work from his family, for very cheap.
  • In the USA, from the photographers who got their work published in the news media (not in ads, ofc), how many of them are hired photographers and how many are freelance? I was told that big names like Reuters works with freelancers for example.
  • When a newspaper goes bankrupt or simply closes, their liquidators are interested to sell the photos the newspaper owned (photos made by hired photographers). Is there any known case of such an outlet selling their database for modest amounts of money? How about outlets failing to find clients for their databases, even for modest prices?

To me, the bottom line is: OTRS is very good but whenever there is a photo collection available for free or for cheap, the WMF should be aware of it and it should benefit from it. And that can only happen if there is a serious mechanism in place to make it happen. β€”  Ark25  (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to approach anyone you want. You don't need anyone's permission to do so. The WMF doing this is probably not going to happen. They neither have the staff nor the will to get involved in that manner.

Your third point is untrue. If there is no will the copyright continues to lie with the author until automatic expiration (70 years after their death in the US). Copyright is property. So just like a house wouldn't automatically pass to the children upon death, neither does copyright. This site explains that in a little bit more detail.

I'm sure it has happened that heirs that have actually gained the copyright over an image have went on to sell that copyright to someone else. I don't have specific examples of that.

I also can't answer your question about how many are freelance. But just because they are freelance doesn't necessarily mean that the work is still not a work for hire. It depends on how the contract was written and how the payment was made. I'm also not aware of any newspapers going bankrupt and selling all of the copyrights to their images. But that is not to say it hasn't happened. The true bottom line here is that you are more than welcome to send out requests to each and every photographer, every association, and every newspaper asking for donations. I don't see the WMF ponying up money for this and I really don't see them helping. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind answers! That's a really good idea, someone should try to contact associations, newspapers and photographers in order to ask them for donations or cheap deals. I'm quite sure there are enough funds to support such an activity. Hopefully I'll find the time to do that, one day. β€”  Ark25  (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing "Good lists"[edit]

What I propose is creation of new category in Wikipedia assessment, Good lists. Presently we have Good articles project article (prose) type ones, but there is no such thing for list type of articles. The primary reason behind this, prose type articles have assessment at different levels. Individual projects review for stub, start, C, B classes. A few also have A-class review. But for lists there is no such thing. It is a list or a FL, that it (MILHIS project has assessment for listsβ€”CL,BL,ALβ€”only one such project). Once a list is nominated for FL, directly from list class there are a lot of issues that has to be dealt, also the process will be grueling for the nominators. So I propose to create a WikiProject Good lists as it is WP GA, and create the necessary stuff. I think the LegoBot that is currently used to manage good articles can also be used for this. I know this is not an easy task, it can take 3–5 months once the proposal is approved to be effective at full scale. But it has to be started somewhere. Please share your ideas regarding this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk β€’ mail) 04:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your idea is already a RFC (check T:CENT). Should probably go there. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Request for comment on stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles. --Majora (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A new button "contest edit on talk page"[edit]

I'm suggesting a new button for the diff/s-view that for challenging edit/s on an article's talk page:

next to the (undo)-button there could be a button saying "contest", "challenge" or something with e.g. "contest edit on talk page" as hovertext.

Pressing the button would automatically open up the talk-page-editor with some info prefilled, like the following example:

Subject: "Contested edit 4353 (03-05-2015) by UserA"
Description: "[linktouserA UserA] recently [linktodiff/s made an edit], saying "[automatically fill in edit description/s here]" in which he/she [insert action/s here] which I challenge, because [insert reason here]."

The user just needs to replace "[insert action/s here]" & "[insert reason here]". Maybe much of it could be standardized further - like by the type of dispute etc. and instead of having the user to manually edit the talk-page entry wikitext one could have a form that just asks for e.g. actions made & reason for the contest in the appropriate way etc.

So here's why I think it might be useful:

  • it streamlines such contests in that they all follow one familiar and efficient style/setup
  • it encourages users to contest edit/s which is useful in that
    • they don't just revert edits on their own but first let themselves in for a discussion on the talk page with the person who did the change/s as well as other people watching the talkpage which leads to better mutual understanding, consensus and ultimate content on the page
    • they are encouraged to participate and bring arguments for/against specific changes of an article instead of doing nothing at all: this leads to better ultimate content and increases participation

As a sidenote the (undo)-button could get "Alternatively contest the edit/s on the talk page by pressing 'contest'." added to its hovertext.

This could also be implemented for the Twinkle gadget even though much of its use would be lost by not having it built into Wikipedia itself (maybe Twinkle as a whole could be built in?).

--Fixuture (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=754410642"