Talk:Archive:Media Assets Workgroup

I see no reason for "media assets editors." Editors properly so called are decisionmakers about content in particular fields. "Media Assets" does not correspond to a particular field, ergo it is interdisciplinary. The workgroup would be listed under "Project Workgroups," or some such general title, at the bottom of CZ:Workgroups, along with the Topic Informant Workgroup. No one in the TI Workgroup may approve articles, so mere membership in that workgroup does not confer editorship. --Larry Sanger 08:47, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

More to the point, if a particular person or body of persons is supposed to have authority to make binding decisions of any sort, what sort of decisions those are, and the processes whereby the decisions are made, need to be very carefully spelled out. Generally, and this is true not just here but in all cases, I think it is better not to give anyone any special authority unless it is really necessary. Is it necessary that any special workgroup have some particular authority you have in mind? That's the #1 question I would want to ask myself. --Larry Sanger 09:05, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Agree about "Editors" -- but could there be, perhaps, Media Assets Constables? Or, if not that, a specific constable or constables already empowered could have the special task of montitoring an e-mail address for Media Assets questions requiring constable assistance? I do think that, as CZ grows, and more and more media materials are uploaded, it might be very helpful indeed to have some kind of 'dedicated line' for these issues. Russell Potter 09:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Quick Question, has it been determined if individuals will be appointees or volunteers? If the latter, I'd like to assist.--Robert W King 09:20, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't care if we call them Willy Wonka, but the functions I am laying out are important:

• In panel, act as arbiter in difficult cases regarding "fair use", in accordance with Archive:Fair Use Policy, Media, Media.

Who else? No one? Anarchy? Individual editors? A non-specialized body? Would it not make sense to let people who deal with these matters everyday deal with it? People like, oh, lawyers for example?

• Along with other content editors, request deletion of media content when

1. It is of such low quality it would be better to delete it and search for a replacement.
2. The media would reasonably be considered offensive to a living subject depicted therein (e.g., an image, especially the lead image in an article, depicts the subject in a way that may infringe their personality rights).

My thought here is to not have to bother subject editors with this, and since this is content, constables cannot do this.

• Acting individually or in panel, approve project-wide templates?

Who else? No one? Anarchy? The Editor-in-Chief (why bother him or her)? Individual editors and authors (read: anarchy)? What's to ensure that templates correspond to an overall strategy? "If I like my set of templates better can I use them? Who sez no?" Which body will do this? Even WP has a process to approve major templates before using them!

Stephen Ewen 12:29, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, let's think some more about this. Imagine that there were a dozen of you out there, each wanting to start a different project workgroup, each wanting a different kind of authority over a different aspect of CZ. This makes me nervous. I'm not saying we won't do it, I just want to step carefully. --Larry Sanger 13:02, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, I can appreciate that nervousness. At the very least, this Workgroup needs to have approval power over media templates. I will make some edits along these lines. Stephen Ewen 18:31, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

A vote?

For one, I'd love to join this workgroup. Specifically to help with the overall layout of the site and its templates.

Secondly, can we have some sort of a vote, amongst the constables, or maybe even the entire community? This way the decision to make a new workgroup isn't left solely in your hands, which eliminates the "If I do it for you, then I have to do it for everyone" problem? Just a thought. Mike Mayors (Talk) 00:58, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I have no power to decide anything like this on my own. ;-) Stephen Ewen 02:34, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

"The world needs a better image commons. Help create it."

The more I have thought about this, why not just take the additional steps of creating a Citizendium Commons? It would be a commons where people could actually use all of the images, because they are all tied to a real name, and that allows images with any open content license.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:51, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that it's time to create the CZ Commons. R. Versuri (Talk) 18:19, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

I would say there must be high standards for images: We don't need another Flickr where people must wade through 3,000 crap images to find what they need, and there must be higher standards of documentation above the WM Commons. People must be confident that what is hosted really can be reused.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:13, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Extensions needed

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryPermissions - to allow only those of the group "Media Assets" to access Permissions pages, maybe a few others.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:03, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

What are these "Permissions" pages and why does it need to be protected? Especially with a hacky extension that I would not recommend. What if some random user adds the category to a page, or worse, to a template, like the subpage one? That would be a edit based DoS attack... Aaron Schulz 01:14, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Oy, I know "permissions" pages means various things. What I have in mind is - here is an example: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image_talk:Wessel_1954_fig4.png/Permission. They ought be locked and currently only full sysops can. I am thinking another class of user ought be able to.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:19, 14 October 2007 (CDT)