Category talk:Photographs by Alan Levine

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category content

[edit]

This content of this category has been considered controversial and it was suggested to the delete the entire category (see template notice above). While the category was kept for formal reasons, the debate about the images in it may be continued here, so I copied the original deletion discussion for reference. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk-imported image category that contains an incredibly high proportion of fluff and derivative copyvio images. As per User_talk:Ubcule#Notices, even the primary uploader concedes that there is a problem here.

To my mind, this is symptomatic of what is wrong with too many bulk imports; it puts the onus on everyone else to filter out the rubbish (i.e. the hard work next to the relatively simple process of importing in the first place) simply because that wasn't filtered out- as it should have been- before upload in the first place. There are almost 13,000 images in this import category, which it's unreasonable to expect anyone except the uploader to deal with by hand.

My gut reaction is that this should be pulled and started again. Ubcule (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest moving zero-value files to either a specific junk category, or the more general Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion, with the visual cat-a-lot tool. I'm happy to support all such speedies for this Flickrstream in good faith, which I think is sufficient for us to avoid the hassle of managing bulk deletion requests. Apologies for creating a backlog burden which should have been avoided. --Fæ (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment@Ubcule: @Fæ: Several of the files that are being moved to Uploads by Fæ needing speedy deletion are related with events and graduations in the University of Guadalajara. It seems to me, skimming on the files, that several if not all are in scope. Tm (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This was done based on apparent value of the Flickr album. About 15% of images have been marked for speedy, at 1,484 photos. I'm presuming that folks that have added value with categorization or similar will spot the speedies and remove or convert them to DRs if they feel it has reasonable value. There's a balance to be had between how much volunteer time we invest versus losing a handful of photos with what is likely to still be quite low value. --Fæ (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There *are* some good photos in there; the problem is the amount of work that would have to go into filtering them out. The other problem is that the cute filenames don't give a good hint to whether the file is useful outwith the personal scope or not, and it would take too much time to click on each one individually.
I've copied a few images to the deletion category- mostly near-certain copyvios- but I still don't have the time to come anywhere near doing all of them. Ubcule (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: - Hi again. Are you finished working on this, or do you plan on coming back to it? Ubcule (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I was planning on having at least one more go, maybe in a few days. The last run only really touched two Flickr albums. --Fæ (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: ; No problem, thanks for letting us know. Ubcule (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added just over 500 to the speedy category today, mainly dogs, people and possible copyvios, but it's getting harder. Using album name is probably not more useful than surfing the collection at this point. That may be a good thing as it's probably only a small minority left that can be thought a problem. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess the above is the background why I get an error messages when I try and upload files using the "Share images from Flickr" utility: "There was an error in your submission. Unfortunately, no images from this Flickr account can be uploaded on this site." I've identified three useful photos. The photographer was kind enough to change the licenses for them to be compatible here (well, two of the three photos). Definitely his photos and something that I had specifically looked for on Flickr (found no photos by other photographers). What do we do next? Schwede66 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Schwede66 and Fæ: ; The original problem had nothing to do with licensing; please see my original comment above for details. In essence, it was that the entire(?) account was bulk-imported with insufficient checking
As per my original comment above; the problem was nothing to do with licensing, it was due to the fact the account was bulk-uploaded with insufficient checking on the suitability of the images, and left us with a huge amount of out-of-scope (e.g. personal fluff) and copyvio images.
I should make clear that this isn't a criticism of or problem with the original photographer, who's entitled to upload what he wants on his personal Flickr account. The problem was with the decision to upload everything on it here, regardless of suitability.
Regardless, I'm not sure whether it's been blocked against further bulk uploads or against *any* uploads, but... (a) this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and (b) missing the point. I'm sure the account has *specific* useful images, it's just blatantly unsuited for uploading in its entirety- but then, that applies to the majority of Flickr accounts.
That's my answer to Schwede66. However, while I'm here...
I was distracted from the original problem around nine months ago by other things and never had the time (or inclination) to check back.
However, I notice that despite the most egregious examples having been removed, the category is still full of fluff and images of questionable usability that I doubt would have been imported in the first place if they'd been considered individually. For example, just flicking through the first few pages, I can see...
It's all very well for Fæ to have said, "move them to Category (whatever) and they'll be deleted"- but this still requires work to be done by others that is only needed due to insufficient time having been spent on checking in the first place. While Fæ acknowledged the upload was a mistake, they seemed to think this was the best course of action. I still maintain it would have been better to delete the entire bulk upload and start again. Ubcule (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did read that, Ubcule. But now, the photographer's account is blacklisted and I can't import selected photos. If there isn't a fundamental problem, why is the account blacklisted? How do we take the account off that blacklist? Schwede66 22:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
No idea, I didn't even know it was blacklisted until you brought up the issue. Ubcule (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
JuTa, you were the last admin I had dealings with. What would the process be for sorting this out? Or could you possibly flip a switch and the deal is done? Schwede66 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Schwede, please see Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors and the version history of both files to check who had entered when "your" flickr user. You can then ask him why. regards --JuTa 15:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JuTa. Much appreciated. That did the trick. I can see that the blacklisting happened earlier this month by Ronhjones with these two diffs: Commons:Questionable Flickr images/Users and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. Ronhjones, how do I get these two images across to Commons without upsetting the apple cart? This one (blurry but exactly what I was looking for) and that one? Schwede66 09:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not against policy to individually upload the images, via your local hard disk, and add the source links afterwards. This discussion is sufficient evidence of good faith. --Fæ (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Any admin can remove an entry in User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors, then it will not be blacklisted. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Category:oBike in Melbourne Schwede66 23:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: you added it, so generally (at least I've seen that before) another admin would ask you to remove cogdog from the list again. I also took a look at their photostream and I see nothing massively problematic to warrant an entry on the blacklist. The vast majority of photos is just fine. Bulk-import (without sorting anything out) was a really poor decision, but that would be true for almost any Flickr account. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Removed Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Schwede66: File:2010 in Photos (4585559343).jpg looks like a stock photo for "woman reading", I think that alone should be enough to keep it. I added some categories to File:2010 in Photos (4702581690).jpg. In general I agree though that bulk-import of this Flickr account was a mistake. Images like these can have value, if they have usable categorization and keywords. Without that, they are impossible to find. Also, the only thing that had any possible informative value, the title on Flickr, wasn't imported. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Stale. Not discussion about the category (CFD), but discussion about files (DR). Discussion should take place at Category talk:Photographs by Alan Levine, or at concrete, problematic files. Any objection to close this out-of-scope CFD?--Estopedist1 (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Agree: The category makes sense as long as the images are there. Maybe copy the above discussion to the category talk page, then close this CFD. El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Photographs_by_Alan_Levine&oldid=708157341"