User:M.O.X/Admin coaching/Lesson 3

Let's move on to media files. In this lesson, we will be covering everything you will need to know about media files on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons: speedy deletion criteria of Media Files, components required on file description pages (and what do when they are not there), FFD/PUF, Copyrights/WP:NFC/WP:NFCC, WP:IUP, Upload Log Patrol, Commons, and any other related subfields. Because you've mentioned earlier that you're familiar with media files, we'll be moving through this lesson at a faster pace than some of my past coachees. If you would like me to slow down or if would like me to clarify something for you, don't hesitate to let me know.

Let's start by considering the value of sources/source information, and citing sources in regards to files. Recall that all content submitted to the article namespace must be verifiable by others, no exceptions. The same applies to images: the copyright status of files must be verifiable by others. A detailed and specific source is therefore indispensable for media files uploaded to Wikipedia.

Please answer the following question:

1. In your own words, please describe (in general) what constitutes a good, verifiable source and what would not be a good source. Provide several examples.

A: A reliable source is a source that is generally known to be accurate and is well-received. Examples would be a well-known academic journal, a publication from say Oxford University Press, newspapers (The New York Times), magazines (Time magazine) although I have my doubts about the reliability of magazines as they're primarily just expositions or editorials. Unreliable sources would be the topic's own website, any random website and social networking/gossip websites (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Youtube etc.).

Good. Indeed, while magazines can be unreliable at times, they are generally considered reliable sources. Source information is critical for media files, as it often pertains to copyright. If the source of a file is not readily or easily verifiable, it should be tagged with {{subst:nsd}}. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to review non-free media files, which tend to be easier to review as opposed to free files, because policy is so well defined in these areas.

Let's begin by reviewing Wikipedia's Non-free Content Criteria. Same instructions as before, summarize each criterion in your own words, and be sure to note any exceptions. If you you get stuck, you may find it helpful to reference this dispatch. A word of advice - be careful with these criteria, there are many subtle exceptions.

#1 - No free equivalent exists and the media must be of sufficient quality (decent EV) or will illustrate the article as supplementary material well. Free media always take precedence.
#2 - Not used in a manner that they replace the role of the original image in the market.
#3a - Minimal usage, an abundance of non-free material should not be used where one free item can convey the same meaning. (also reduces clutter :P)
#3b - Limited extent of usage, if one portion of the medium can illustrate the article as supplementary material then that is the portion to be used (for example, in speeches, the phrase iconic of that speech should be used eg. "Houston we have a problem" or "that's one small step for [a] man... one giant leap for mankind")
#4 - The media is used outside Wikipedia, not just on Wikipedia itself (eg. newspaper appearance).
#5 - Is encyclopedic and meets Wikipedia's content standards.
#6 - Meets Wikipedia's media-specific policies (WP:IUP for example)
#7 - Must be used in at least one article
#8 - Used in a manner it increases the reader's understanding of the topic and where its removal would be detrimental
#9 - Must only be used on non-disambiguation articles, if located in a category should be added to prevent display.
#10a - The source of the material must be clear, with info about the author, publisher and copyright holder.
#10b - A copyright tag indicative the Wikipedia policy provision (the subject is dead, for example) under which the media is used
#10c - Name of each article on which it is used and a claim of fair use specific for each use.

Good. The most criteria most frequently cited in discussions are #1, #3, #8. Be sure you're very familiar with these criteria! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to file CSD. Same instructions as before, summarize each criterion in your own words, and be sure to note any exceptions.

F1: - Redundant images or low quality duplicates of existing images, not including duplicates of Commons files.
F2: - Corrupt or empty files, files containing non-metadata information or file description pages for Commons files.
F3: - Media with inappropriate file licenses, eg. no derivative use, non-commercial, for Wikipedia only, unless there are provisions for non-free use. Files licensed under the GFDL prior to version 1.3, without allowing for future versions are also eligible to be deleted under this criterion.
F4: - Media lacking license information. Such images can be deleted 7 days after the original tagging of the image.
F5: - Unused non-free images, those without a free license or licensed in the public domain or those which were used only on deleted articles and are unlikely to ever have another use.
F6: - Files with a claim of fair use, lacking rationale. This criterion does not cover files where a rationale is given and disputed.
F7: - Media with an invalid fair use claim, such as images using the incorrect fair use tag or images identified as replacable by a free image.

Files that fail WP:NFCC criteria 2-6, 8-9, may also be deleted under F7, after being tagged 7 days. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

F8: - Identical copy of an image available on Commons, provided the image is not protected, the Commons version is in the exact same format, the license and source status are beyond doubt and the license is accepted on Commons, all information is copied over, including file upload history, if the file contained information relevant to another project, the file description page is to be restored post-file deletion.
F9: - Blatant copyright infringment, where the uploader has not made the file available under a claim of fair use.

More broadly defined: copyright infringement occurs when an editor claims someone else's work as their own, or publishes a copyrighted work under a free license, without the consent of the copyright holder. Please note that this criterion may also be used to delete obviously non-free files that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair-use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

F10: - Files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are orphaned and which will unlikely be used in an article.
F11: - No evidence of permission obtained from or provided by the named source. Files where it is highly unlikely permission will be obtained, can be deleted immediately under F9. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:16pm • 08:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. Be sure to familiarize yourself with F7 if you haven't already. This criterion is the most misunderstood out of all file speedy deletion criteria. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a few application questions. Please answer them to the best of your ability. If you aren't sure about a question, feel free to leave the answer field blank or ask me for help. These are difficult questions, so there is no need to be discouraged if you are unable to answer some of them.

1. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A: No, to the best of my knowledge if there is no free alternative, then said image may not be used.

A non-free alternative may only be used if it is impractical/impossible to obtain a freely licensed photo of that person within reasonable means. This is an important exception to WP:NFC#UUI, #1, and is a common subject of larger FfD debates. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about this written in policy, though I suppose I should have applied common sense to the question :P —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:09pm • 05:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-self}} (public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with this and why is it a problem?

A: The problem is that the Disney characters are registered trademarks and are not available under a claim of fair use, the photographer cannot release it into the public domain, because they do not own the trademark, nor do they have authorisation/permission to use it.

This is a copyright violation. The use of copyrighted components to create a derivative work does not make the uploader the exclusive copyright holder of the resulting work. You're right that the uploader cannot release the work into the public domain, but it seems you are unsure as to why. No worries, we'll go more in-depth on this later. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. I was somewhat confused there. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:09pm • 05:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

3. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2 in a gallery. What is the problem with this and why is it a problem?

A: Non-free content should only be used as supplementary material to illustrate text in an article, the use of such galleries is a violation of NFCC no. 2, 3a and 3b, as their use is abundant and because one image can illustrate the text sufficiently and may replace their original use in the market/market value.

Good, but NFCC#2 does not apply here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

4. A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article, Sea turtle. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially problematic?

A: This is allowed only for such instances, I believe, only if there is no available free equivalent and where that part of the image can best illustrate the article as supplementary material.

This is never allowed. Textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1. Also, note that derivatives of copyrighted work are still copyrighted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez, how stupid of me >.< there'd be an abundance of free images of sea turtles on Flickr and elsewhere and they'd be of higher resolution and quality anyway and even then copyright is applicable to derivative works as you say. This is a mistake I, hopefully, won't ever make again. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:09pm • 05:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

5. During your duties as a sysop, you come across an article regarding an upcoming film. You note that someone has uploaded a screenshot from that upcoming film and that it is obvious that this image has never been published anywhere. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible

A: The solution would be to delete the image as the film has not been released and a trailer is not available for public viewership, if the image were to remain there would be legal repercussions, serious legal repercussions. The only possible explanation as to how that user took that screenshot was if they were in possession of a pirated copy of the movie. I'd block said user and refer them to the Arbitration Committee.

Good. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Say for instance, on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a user adds 25 images (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) to the article to 'illustrate gameplay'. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible

A: Same with Q3, this violates NFCC no. 2, 3a and 3b, if the images are similar some of them could be removed so as not to replace their original market value, where only portions of the images could appropriately illustrate the article then only those portions will remain, the rest will be cropped. If the remaining images have no encyclopedic value I'd tag them for deletion in accordance with policy.

Again, #2 does not apply here. By adding a hodgepodge of non-free images, nothing is really being advertised -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

7. A user adds multiple screenshots of Gandalf, as seen in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, to Ian McKellen, none of which are accompanied by any critical commentary. How do you react?

A: Given there is already 1 image of McKellen as Gandalf, they serve no encyclopedic use and do affect their original market value/use. I'd also tag these for deletion. BLPs aren't galleries.

Specifically, tag these files for deletion under WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not bad. It's alright if you didn't do as well as you expected. These are hard questions, and these are things you will have to deal with as an administrator working with media files. Treat your mistakes as learning experiences! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I see where I was wrong, adding multiple screenshots of games does not breech NFCC#2 because it is not used in a promotional manner, rather I'm assuming from the given hypotheticals the user(s) intended for them to be used to illustrate the game(s)'s content. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:09pm • 05:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try a few more. Please answer them to the best of your ability. Again, these are hard questions, so there is no need to be discouraged if you are unable to answer some of them. This is an open-book test, so there's no need to recall material from memory. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

1. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.

A: No, the WMF seeks to provide free information for all, that does not necessarily mean that the content itself has to be copyright-free. The use of non-free content is rare and is only applicable where there is no free equivalent, even in those cases the image must follow all the NFCC, not breach copyrights, US or international. This Board Resolution permits the use of non-free content on all projects except Commons. The use of non-free content is limited and should only be used to illustrate articles, where no free material exists and does not conflict with the WMF's principles and mission.

Good. While not of utmost importantance, a few other wmf projects aside from Commons do not permit non-free content. If you're interested: wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and m:Non-free content. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Photos from press agencies (like that of the AP) are predominantly prohibited on Wikipedia. Is there ever an instance in which usage of these images is permitted? Explain.

A: Yes, when they are the subject of sourced commentary, otherwise they must be deleted immediately.

Excellent. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

3. As a rule of thumb, images from Google Maps are generally prohibited on Wikipedia. Why? Explain in detail.

A: They're copyrighted and easily made/replaceable, I think that's one of the primary reasons why they aren't used. I couldn't find anything for this question. Sorry.

Close enough :) the term "replaceable" was what I was looking for. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

4. An editor uploads an image of a Bluebell, noting that the image is only to be used for non-profit organizations (like Wikipedia) and educational purposes only. How do you react?

A: Delete the image under WP:CSD#F3 and leave a note on their talk page as images on Wikipedia must be freely licensed, reusable by the public or available under a claim of fair use. An image where the uploader releases it under certain conditions are not allowed, unless usable under a claim of fair use.

Good. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

5. An editor uploads an old black and white photo. On the file's description page, the uploader applies the {{pd-self}} tag, and under source, specifies "Own work". No date of creation is specified and no metadata details are available. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.

A: The problem here is that because of the photo's age we cannot prove that the uploader is the owner of the photo, perhaps refer them to OTRS or FFD. I couldn't find anything on this either :S

Good. Don't forget to consider PUF as an option to dispel uncertainty surrounding media files bearing questionable copyright claims. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

6. An editor uploads a movie screenshot, and tags it with {{non-free logo}}. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.

A: Retag the image under {{non-free film screenshot}} if it is to be used for critical commentary and discussion and where its use on enwp would not conflict with US copyright law. If FUR is missing, I'd leave a note on the uploader's talk page and tag it with {{db-f6}} as it's missing FUR.

Alternatively, you could speedy the file under WP:CSD#F7, but I like how you're taking an inclusionist stance. Good. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

7. An editor uploads a movie screenshot under the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, citing a Flickr link as the source. You go to the link, and find that the photo is licensed under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license at Flickr. Detail how you would react, if at all. Map out the possible problems and solutions in as much detail as possible.

A: I'd delete the image, then notify the Flickr uploader about the improper license they applied to the image, as the image conflicts with Flickr's terms they are obligated to remove the image. If not a Flickr admin or someone of higher authority will have to be notified.

Flickr washers. Hate em. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There now, that wasn't so bad was it? Part 2 should have been easier :) Over time, I've compiled a list of questions I like ask admin candidates who wish to work with media files. These questions involve more obscure areas in file policy, or common misconceptions. I like to call them my "Humbler Questions". If it's not too much trouble, and when you have time, would you mind answering the following optional survey questions? Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

1. What did you think about these questions? (You just sampled a few pertaining to NFCC/NFC/CSD, there will be more to come!) Were they too easy or did you find them challenging? Why?

A: They were very helpful and quite challenging, particularly the application questions, they really got me to think quite a lot.

2. In your opinion, is this a good way tutor coachees? Why or why not? (Feel free to be as negative as you want - criticism is good)

A: Indubitably, if it was all textbook work it would be uninteresting! The use of application questions help both the coach and coachee learn more, for the coach they can focus on the weaknesses of their coachee and for the coachee it's an opportunity for them to reflect on their answers and find out where they were wrong, why they were wrong and how they could improve.

3. I see you rated yourself as an 8 in terms of familiarity with media file policy when we first started coaching. Do you still think you're an 8?

A: No, I think I'm more of a 6/7, my knowledge of media file policy is nowhere near as adequate as I originally thought!

At this point in my coaching syllabus, I like to have my coachees do some hands on work, i.e. Upload Log 'patrol'. Reviewing policy and hypothetical situations are good and all, but nothing comes close to knowledge gained through experience.

When reviewing files at the Upload Log, some things to remember:

The same rules apply to the upload log as they do with the NPP log. For courtesy reasons, don't tag a file until a file has been live for more than 10 minutes or so.
Respond to queries regarding your tags promptly.
You can tag files with twinkle or manually. If you're using twinkle, the deletion/maintenance tags you will need to use can be found under either the "csd" or "di" tabs. Be sure to notify the uploader of the file's deletion. If you use twinkle, it will be done automatically. If you tag manually, you will need to manually notify the uploader with the provided messaging template.
If you're tagging manually, the following table should be helpful:

No license	No Fair Use Rationale	No Source	No Evidence of Permission	Disputed	Non-free replaceable	Fails Non-free content criteria	Orphaned	Orphaned b/c replaced
{{subst:nld}}	{{subst:nrd}}	{{subst:nsd}}	{{subst:npd}}	{{subst:dfu}}	{{subst:rfu}}	{{subst:Dnfcc\|#=yes}}	{{subst:orfud}}	{{subst:orfur\|REPLACINGFILENAME}}

Tag 25 or so files, and list them here below via copy+paste from your contributions. Use <pre> and </pre> tags to make it pretty :P If you come across any files in which you are unsure about, list them below and we'll go over them. Let me know if you have any questions. Good luck.

* 06:30, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:KomputerMuzikcover.jpg ‎ ({{subst:orfud}}) (top) [rollback]
* 06:45, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) File:SiapaDiaSebelumDaku.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}} This is probably a copyright vio too, since it wasn't obtained from "Roy and Fran's" website) (top) [rollback]
* 06:54, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) File:Crashproof.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}} {{subst:npd}}) (top) [rollback]
* 07:17, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:KomputerMuzikcover.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}} probably copyvio too, not from artist's official website) (top) [rollback]
* 07:16, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:BersamaPertemuanInicover.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}} probably copyvio too, not from "Roy and Fran's" official website) (top) [rollback]
* 07:15, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:SiapaDiaSebelumDaku.jpg ‎ ({{subst:npd}} This is probably a copyright vio too, since it wasn't obtained from "Roy and Fran's" website) (top) [rollback]
* 07:13, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) File:FranRoof.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nsd}}) (top) [rollback]
* 08:04, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:G-M foods2.png ‎ ({{subst:orfud}}) (top) [rollback]
* 08:04, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:G-M foods 2.png ‎ ({{subst:orfud}}) (top) [rollback] 
* 08:00, 20 June 2011 (diff | hist) m File:Zeeident2.jpg ‎ ({{subst:nld}}) (top) [rollback]