precautionary principle

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

precautionary principle

Gnangarra
I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle

The policy states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"  yet when it comes to nominating a file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to believe its not free because....."  there should more onus on the nominator at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt 
 

We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

I think a change from the current
  • Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
to
  • A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: 
--
​Gnangarra


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precautionary principle

Federico Leva (Nemo)
It would probably be easier to specify that "significant doubt" means
raising some specific fact and source for it (even if falling short of a
complete proof). For instance, a bad reason for deletion is "I don't see
a proof this is <1923"; a better one is "I think this photo is from 19xy
or later so the copyright tag Z may not apply".

The reason for this is that the significant doubt must be debatable,
otherwise it's just a variant of the Russel teapot.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precautionary principle

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
Folks are terrible at agreeing what "significant" means, including some immovable admins who regularly read it as "any". 


On 30 Jul 2017 04:08, "Gnangarra" <[hidden email]> wrote:
I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle

The policy states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"  yet when it comes to nominating a file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to believe its not free because....."  there should more onus on the nominator at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt 
 

We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

I think a change from the current
  • Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
to
  • A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: 
--
​Gnangarra


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: precautionary principle

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
Hi,

I agree that the "precautionary principle" has been used repeatedly to delete files while there wasn't a "significant doubt" about a copyright violation.

Alas, the community has had difficulties (euphemism...) to read a sain consensus on this point.
If you have any receipt for a solution, I am all ears. ;)

Regards,

Yann


2017-07-30 5:07 GMT+02:00 Gnangarra <[hidden email]>:
I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle

The policy states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"  yet when it comes to nominating a file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to believe its not free because....."  there should more onus on the nominator at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt 
 

We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."

I think a change from the current
  • Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
to
  • A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: 
--
​Gnangarra


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l