some statistics

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

some statistics

Zirland
Speaking about statistics...

I looked on WhatLinksHere of deprecated {{PD}} tag and it gives 22.500 <
x < 23.000 links. I seriously doubt anybody can solve this manually.

Deprecated {{Redundant}} gives "only" little less than 1.000 links.

What shall we do with it?

--
Zirland

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
On 15/06/06, Zirland <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Speaking about statistics...
>
> I looked on WhatLinksHere of deprecated {{PD}} tag and it gives 22.500 <
> x < 23.000 links. I seriously doubt anybody can solve this manually.

I made this point at the time it was proposed to depreciate {{PD}}.
People didn't seem inclined to do anything in particular about it,
thinking that eventually they'd all be updated (or deleted :)).

I certainly can't say it's high on my priority list, but is another
one of those good opportunities to examine licenses. "Is there any
evidence this is PD, or did they just put that because it 'looks
old'?"

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
Brianna Laugher wrote:

> On 15/06/06, Zirland <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Speaking about statistics...
>>
>> I looked on WhatLinksHere of deprecated {{PD}} tag and it gives 22.500 <
>> x < 23.000 links. I seriously doubt anybody can solve this manually.
>>    
>
> I made this point at the time it was proposed to depreciate {{PD}}.
> People didn't seem inclined to do anything in particular about it,
> thinking that eventually they'd all be updated (or deleted :)).
>  
People on Wikipedia hav written 3? 4? million encyclopedia articles in a
few years. Fixing tags on 23.000 pages sounds like something to fix on a
weekend, by comparison ;-)
> I certainly can't say it's high on my priority list, but is another
> one of those good opportunities to examine licenses. "Is there any
> evidence this is PD, or did they just put that because it 'looks
> old'?"
>  
If it's a picture of someone, it should be safe to assume that it was
painted during his/her lifetime (except for Jesus pictures, maybe:-)
So, if the person died in the 1800s or earlier, the author either has
very sharp fangs or is dead 70 years or more. Also, it was likely
published before 1923 (meaning, people could look at it somewhere).

There are also most likely several USGov images that are only tagged {{PD}}.

Then there are the obvious fake {{PD}}s.

All these are simple to fix, IMHO, and should cover a huge slice of the
23.000 images in question. We should try to backtrack the others to
their uploaders or google for their source pages. Of those untracable,
we should mark those unused on wikipedias {{delete}} or something.

As for the rest - maybe a "replacement drive", to replace them with free
images of verifyable source?


Magnus
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l