Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Patrol

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created. Closing proposal due to insufficient interest. Ajpolino (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

WikiProject for performing the task outlined at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale behind this proposal

We have WP:NFCR to deal with NFC that might not be compliant with WP:NFCC. There is a huge number of NFCC#10c violation and bringing them all to NFCR is completely infeasible, as that would overwhelm the page. I already perform the task as outlined in the task description in my userspace, but since there are a lot of violations, helping hands would be very welcome.

Support

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

~~-- Toshio Yamaguchi 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)~~ Proposal withdrawn. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This seems pretty lame/non-constructive "wikipolice work" in its objectives (per discussion below, where the proponent says that fixing file info is not an objective, only deletion is) and certainly redundant to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, which is the appropriate venue for discussion of such matters, and which is (by the way) rather backlogged, so in need of help, not of splitting discussions between multiple fora. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having said that only deletion is an objective of this project. What I said is that in the task I already perform I do not write rationales, as the burden to do that is clearly on the people who want to use non-free content per WP:NFCCE. Yes, some images might get deleted, but only after several days in which the people responsible for writing the rationale have the time to write one. If people want NFCC patrollers to write rationales, they should get consensus to change the policy. And by the way, the NFCR backlog is actually one of the reasons for proposing this project, because it could help to deal with the 10c violations without bringing them all to NFCR. There would be no split of discussions, as this proposed project is not intended to deal with cases that need discussions (such cases would be left for NFCR). This project would only deal with the black-and-white cases where a rationale is missing. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Question 1: Why does this need a wiki-project? If all you are doing is enforcement of black-and-white cases (which don't need to be brought to WP:NFCR), what is wrong with the existing structures? On the face of it WT:NFC seems to have worked well enough in the past when issues have arisen, and would seem to be the proper place to bring policy questions. Jheald (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Do you intend to use the WP:FURME tools to repair/supply rationales for standard cases where the content is being used appropriately, but there is no rationale, or the rationale is broken? Jheald (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict, related to the questions above) Looking over the task at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/NFCC task, it seems to me that an NFCC patroller will frequently come across non-free images that are useful and encyclopedic, that do not have a valid rationale, and that could have a valid rationale written if anyone wanted to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the standard procedure outlines in the directions would be to tag the image for deletion within 7 days, rather than to write a valid rationale. So my first question is, wouldn't it be better for the instructions to suggest that a patroller write a valid rationale, at least as an option? Of course, in many cases the image will not be very valuable, and in many other cases a rationale would be somewhat questionable... but in cases where a non-free image is useful and clearly "rationale-able", what should a patroller do? – Quadell ^(talk) 11:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Question 1: The reason why I want to establish a WikiProject is to get more editors involved with this task. While there are other editors patrolling NFC already, many cases are brought to NFCR, which is quite backlogged already. My hope is that this project might prevent some clear 10c cases from being brought to NFCR, so that NFCR can focus on the cases where there is an issue with NFCC#8. Also, the intention is not to discuss policy matters on this project. As you said, WT:NFC is the proper place for that. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Question 2: The task I perform is patrolling NFCC violations, not writing rationales. I already repair broken rationales that were damaged by a page move. However, per WP:NFCCE, it is the responsibility of the users who want to use the non-free content to provide a rationale. Thus, as long as NFCCE is part of the policy, they have to provide the rationale. Also, for many of the 10c violation, the primary issue is not 10c, but NFCC#8. That issue cannot be resolved by simply adding a rationale so that compliance with 10c is achieved (while NFCC#8 might still not be met). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Quadell: The way I currently handle the task, no image will be tagged for deletion within 7 days. I only tag an image for deletion if two conditions are met:

1. The image had been tagged as violating 10c for 7 days and

2. the image has been orphaned for 7 days

On the second point I am almost always beaten by User:Hazard-Bot, which seems to tag them faster. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment on Quadell's point (and partially to Jheald) - this was a huge issue around the time of BetaCommand/Delta of what is "reasonable" to assume a NFCC reviewer should do, with some expecting the NFCC reviewers to do a lot more than they reasonably can do, even though NFCC itself puts the onus on those that upload or want to maintain the image; this point was a major point of contention. At best, there are trivial cases (such as images that clearly meet NFCI#1 + #2) where the intent of the mission rationale is obvious (Thus if deleted by the NFCC editor, that's really being BITEY), but for all other cases, it is really the uploader/image reusers that known best how that rationale should be written and really is on their shoulders to do that. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think this needs to be a Wikiproject. I fear it would be taken negatively in the first place, and would be seen in the same light as something like the Article Rescue Squadron, where, for the most part good work is done but it only takes a few bad apples to turn the project into one with a bad reputation. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this does need a WikiProject due to the large number of cases involved (at least, the task is a lot of work, which would reduce if it were split among more editors). It is not my intention to have a gang of editors removing large quantities of images in as short a timespan as possible or something like that. The editors in this project would need to follow the agreed upon process for handling the violations (which in the process I currently use includes 7 day deadlines for possibly fixing things that can be fixed). In other words, it would increase the number of cases that can be dealt with in the same period of time, but wouldn't allow more leeway in performing the task. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe your intentions are good and anyone that joins will do so with good intentions, but I would be naive to not think that there will be some editors that see a Wikiproject devoted to enforcing policy the equivalent of a vigilante group, and worse one that is "authorized" to do so by being an official Wikiproject. It is work that has to be done, but I don't think a Wikiproject group is needed, at least with the social burden it would carry. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the Article Rescue Squad was the first thing I thought of, too. I suppose there's some good value in trying to recruit more editors, per the answer to the first question, but I think that it would be very important to have a project page that clearly points out the pitfalls to be avoided. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Images and Media , WP:NFCR , WP:PUF , WP:FFD , WP:CP ... seems like there's alot there already. I think if a cleanup project were to be created, it should be a general cleanup project, and not specialized to this extreme. A workgroup or taskforce under such a project would cover NFCC. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PUF is only for files tagged as being under a free license, so that is not covering what would lie within the scope of this project. I agree that the projects scope would overlap with FFD to some point, although the box at the top of FFD explicitly says that files lacking a rationale shouldn't be listed there at all and be tagged with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} instead, so if that is followed, then I do not really see an overlap between this project and FFD. WP:CP is for textual copyright violations, so I don't see an overlap between this project and CD either. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.