What sort of asshole thinks they can best improve things by destroying that which others have created?
I’ve added a page about a band. I added images in compliance with policy. Now some asshole and his fucking bot have marked them for “speedy deletion”. The use of the images is obviously fair use, and complies with the rules:
But some legalistic-minded scumbag has decided to take his “griefing” to Wikipedia by challenging every instance of an album image appearing on a page about an band. Not every band is significant enough to require separate pages for each album.
Bots should be banned from Wikipedia! If a human being has not identified it as a problem, it’s not a problem!
At some point, nobody is going to be left on Wikipedia willing to put up with all the doctrine bullshit.
Thanks. The asswipe’s bot tagged all three album images. Why? Becasue the asswipe has interpreted Wikipedia’s image policy as “the only images on a page about a band should be pictures of the band”. Never mind that, while they have played on national television (a Jerry Springer special), they aren’t well0known enough to bother separating each album to a separate page.
Check out this asshole’s talk page. This is obviously someone who gets off on bullying people with his rigid, doctrine interpretation of arcane rules. Wikipedia is already protected perfectly well under the “Safe Harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You remove stuff when challenged, no legal problem. But these cyber-bullies are making it very unpleasant for regular human beings to bother adding to Wikipedia.
It’s nearly enough for me to say fuck Wikipedia and all these digital Pharisees.
This tag was applied by a bot? Either AI is much further along than I’d been led to believe, or the claim that the fair use rationale is “disputed” in any meaniingful sense is total BS.
You are completely misunderstanding the situation here. Did you even read the bot’s message?
The bot is part of Wikipedia itself, not some third-party mercenary. The problem is that you have not properly followed the procedure for justifying your use of a copyrighted image as fair use.
They are not disputing your rationale - you’ve just not properly included the rationale on the image talk page.
The bot’s message tells you exactly what you need to do. Don’t get all pissed off because you can’t read instructions.
You mean the boilerplate that had not one fucking thing to do with the images? The exact same boilerplate on all three images?
If these had been tagged by a human being, I’d not have a problem. The problem, if you looks at the scumbag’s user talk page is that he’s planning to tag every image on Wikipedia. That’s bullying.
Bullshit. It’s a program run by a user. It is not a “part of Wikipedia”.
It’s an album cover. The problem seems to be that a fairly stupid piece of software is automatically tagging every image where the rationale given does not fit into the pre-programmed expectations. What more needs to be included than the information already given? Did you even look at the image talk page?
So, what bullshit boilerplate do I have to paste in to appease this motherfucker’s idiot bot?
So you didn’t read it, then? It’s not boilerplate. It describes exactly what you have to do to be in compliance with Wikipedia’s rules governing the use of copyrighted material. The message contains a direct link to the rules you’re violating.
And it’s the exact same message because it’s the exact same problem for all three images.
The user is a Wikipedia administrator. He is planning to tag every image on Wikipedia that does not follow Wikipedia’s rules for fair-use justification. It’s simply automating a task that a human would do anyway. I don’t know where you got this idea that he’s on some crusade to remove all images from Wikipedia.
The software is fairly stupid because the rules are fairly simple. And one might argue that you’re fairly stupid because the rules are very clear, and you seem incapable of following them. Just read the goddamn message that the bot posted. Don’t just glance at it, yell “BOILERPLATE”, and stalk off ranting.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is include a link in your rationale to every article that the images are used in, along with an independent description of why it constitutes fair use for each article. That’s like, one sentence in this case. You could’ve done that in less time than it took for you to blow your stack over here.
In what possible universe is text pasted in on hundreds or thousands of images NOT boilerplate? It says nothing about the image in question, just that it was pinged by this son of a bitch’s perl script. It’s boilerplate.
It’s ranting because this bullshit pops up not because there is a problem, but that some cyberbully has decided that his contribution to Wikipedia is to paste boilerplate and cause images to be deleted. Fuck him and fuck Wikipedia. I’ve been dealing with these assholes who don’t contribute one fucking thing other than grief.
Because Wiki administrators seem to have crusade that everything must meet their standards of doctrinal purity.
Again, bullshit.
Please feel free to paste in the boilerplate that will appease the asshole and his pet bot. I no longer have the stomach to deal with wiki-fascists.
Neither the rouge admin and his pet bot or Absolute has bothered to say exactly what is supposed to be the problem with these particular images. Absolute just said, in essence “Read the rules!”…which are so poorly written that, like the Bible, you can grovel through and find justification for nearly anything.
It says it right beneath your image - the concern is that you don’t meet rule 10c of the non-free content criteria, i.e. you need to include a valid fair use rationale giving a rationale for each article in which the image is used. There’s even a template specifically for album cover rationales; you’ve just got to fill out the fields.
Free efforts like Wikipedia live or die on their careful use of copyrighted material. Is it really so much effort for you to put up a fair use rationale that follows their rules? They’re hardly arcane in this instance.
It says something about - well, something, I don’t know what* - that Wikipedia, the grand communal experiment in knowledge-sharing, has become co-opted. Not by any direct action of lawyers or money men, or even by conditions they impose indirectly - but simply by the mindset they create.
One admin has decided, apparently by himself, that insufficiently chickenshit behavior relating to image use poses a serious enough danger to the whole grand experiment that it’s worth any amount of obnoxious Big Brotheresque “policy.”
Has Wikipedia content been seriously restricted as yet by any direct legal action? I’ll bet a lot of people who might consider contributing have given up on the idea as the system becomes more and more rigid, intricate, and about itself.
*Maybe one of the “somethings” we could learn about here is what made it possible to create the first all-volunteer information bureaucracy.