Commons talk:Problematic sources
Contents
Suggestions[edit]
It seems to be additional to Commons:Bad sources, I think it should be linked at "see also" section. For the "Fan sites section" I think it would be good to add a notice that images from blogs also mostly not should be uploaded on Commons. --GeorgHH • talk 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know about Bad sources... Michael has linked to it. Blogs should, IMO, be mentioned at Bad sources. I have yet to see a blog that is a usable image source. They all hotlink to wherever they feel like, and very rarely give any copyright info. Lupo 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Added blogs and forums anyway. Lupo 09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Any reason for not mentioning w:Wikia as problematic? Many of their wikis are fan sites for individual copyrighted entertainment franchises in which basically the entire image collection consists of excerpts of this copyrighted material included under a rather-shaky stretch of "fair use" (one can quote copyrighted material to comment upon it). In some cases, commercial and non-commercial licences are being mixed haphazardly to the point where the same project in a different language may have a different, incompatible license. It is also very rare for a questionable image to actually be removed, short of the copyright holder demanding this be done. It doesn't happen proactively. Wikia is a fan site, nothing more. It is not Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 13:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Project Gutenberg almost always ok at English Wikipedia, correct?[edit]
In Commons:Problematic sources#Project Gutenberg, I’ve written that PG images are almost always acceptable at English Wikipedia, since PG and en:WP both operate under U.S. law. The one exception are items that are not public domain, but for which limited permission has been granted to PG.
I believe the summary is correct and as concise as possible, given the issues – modifications and clarifications are welcome.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Google Book Search[edit]
- See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Sep#Google Pdf Scan, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Jan#Google Book Search, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008Apr#Images ripped from Google Books, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Nov#Google copyright.3F
Someone suggested to add Google Book Search here. --Nemo 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Washing[edit]
We have an ongoing problem with Flickrwashing that seems unresolved. Is there some standard for identifying potentially problematic images? Some scripted way of checking for problems? (For instance: bot-uploaded images from Flickr whose Flickr uploaders have had their accounts removed, which are not used in any articles but have tineye matches elsewhere online?) --SJ+ 07:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Doujinshi websites e.g. Pixiv and Deviantart[edit]
Shouldn't we mention those as problematic or just bad? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
