User talk:Slowking4/Image Rescue Squadron

I don't get what we do here?TCO (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

well, we see that images are critical to quality; user feedback says "Requests for images are frequent, which does not help if no suitable images are available." Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback, lol since most are not going to add, save images stop the unhelpful feedback.

so save what images are available, which means fixing licenses. there is a lot of deletion, when it merely thrashing the dysfunctional image system, and there is an active anti-"fair use" clique.

modeled on the article rescue squadron, see also action plan, which is for individuals. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 13:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The comment to mrg (first link) was interesting (segue)

I think that the crown copyright sounds very similar to an NC license. Or a license not allowing modification.

I don't see why we don't allow those. Hear me out.

For the purposes of OUR ARTICLES on WIKI, NC licenses are fine. Sure, others can not reuse that specific image...but so what! That is secondary use. The VAST MAJORITY of usage is immediate online use. And ruling in those other licence classes would be a huge increase in image availability. And you don't even need to do fair use justifications. There is even a tangential benefit to donators who now may preserve some financial stake in their work.

The reason stopping us is just free-tard bias. There is nothing about the encyclopedia itself that would be hurt. At an extreme, for freetards, consider how they will not allow the FORMAT of mp3 to play. So the majority browser (IE) loaded on every grannies machine...does not play our strange format videos. In fact even several other browsers don't. And then instead of fixing the problem, we have messages telling people to change their browser? Like WTF. They can go to blogs, youtube, FB and the videos just work. They come here and we tell them to change their system. Oh...and a lot of general users do NOT have feel lke they have the capability to change browsers (or desire to). I have even proposed a REQUIREMENT to do two versions of the video. Duplicating any mp3 in ogg (so it is there and preserved in non mp3). But just ALLOW compatible viewing. But the free-tards will not allow it. TCO (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

i agree, but the minds are made up. the difference between SA and NC, is that we like the free restriction, but we want the right to profit. it's a libertarian, privileged bias that won't compromise with older institutions that view diffusion of knowledge mission as "free = non-profit". see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Differentiating_between_use_on_Wikipedia_and_Google: google is showing "fair use" headshots; the sky is falling, maybe people will put them in wikipedia. ultimately wikipedia will be the loser as traffic goes elsewhere.

plus ogg sucks, Brion Vibber is trying to sell mp4 [1], us glam folks are using external video extensively for example The Iron Mine, Port Henry, New York.

the MRG interaction is an epic fail. it's US copyright bias. the upload "wizard" check box tree is an epic fail. people will go elsewhere. we should reach out to this person; upload to flickr, just as a sign of good faith. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 14:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I definitely use external video. (I just wish the template box looked a little cleaner...is confusing with the multiple clappers and blue forward buttons, that do not activate.) The bias that you are doing something sneaky if you link externally to this walled garden is just insane. If you really care about readers, you should send them to other places (books, webpages, videos) where they benefit from the content. Check out the external video in "Fluorine". I know that the content is correct in facts and emphasis since it independantly matches the article. (Was made before the article, but then I wrote the article before seeing it). And it is SO MUCH more fun and quick to get content from than our article (even though I have tried to make our article accessible). Plus the dramatic burning is something that is VERY hard for me to get created ad hoc (not like walking out and snapping a picture of a bird). Plus it is just fun with the fellow's freaky hair.TCO (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

excellent. yes, the cognitive dissonance is that the more references and links you put in, the more you send people off wiki; and you get the childish argument that pictures don't add to understanding, especially the "fair use" ones. i expect the "free-natics" will become increasingly preturbed as wiki dosn't convert people to using ogg, and will start an anti-external link drive, since it is "linking to potential copyright vios"; dosn't add to my understanding"; "see wp:el". hope i'm wrong. (inter alia, prefer free-natic to freetard since it's a matter of fanaticism and ideology rather than intelligence, i.e. insulting to retarded people).

hey edit the template, i see it changed once recently. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Well you are a kind and constructive person. I'm a permabannee. Fanatic IS more accurate. But I like calling them tards since it mixes in all sort of political incorrectness at the same time (like a spicy gumbo of offensiveness). And since their fanaticism is sort of stupid in a way. Plus I just like kicking them in the teeth and hearing them squeel. Like when the the chipmunks got all huffy about you having a section on people you won't interact with on your page. Sheesh...they don't even know how limp it makes them look. They spend 90% of their existence running around on acting like little school patrolspeople banning users and shitting on them behind their backs (Arbcom list, crat chats) or without the users having ability to respond (ANI)...and then they can't even take a quiet notice on a quiet user's user page. Weak, fucking weak.

(BTW, we LACK a good commons image of the iconic orange American school patrol belt...amazing...here is a good view: [2]. I wanted to illustrate my comment.)

2. Yeah...that F video is so rockingly amazing. I remember when I saw it. I really just was looking for the displays of violent reactions. But then it independently validated so many basic things in the article (color of gas, passivating nickle, even electronegativity and place in the periodic table). Really made me feel proud how well we gibed with a very smart science popularizer. That we had nailed things!

2.5. Yeah, I should look at the template again. I remember requestion some work on it (or just an alternate version...since alternates are always easier than changing anything on this stuck in the mud argumentative site). Don't like the multiple clappers and buttons and then how the blue and stuff looks like you should be able to click on it, but they are not active. Plus would like at least the option for a pic (in case a still is free). I asked for some help getting a new template and just got a knee-jerk (we hate EL) reaction from the nannybois. So I got discouraged and went away.

3. The other issue is that the "prose-nicks" don't appreciate the benefit of how graphics, video, etc. actually help the learning process. They've sort of disappeared up their own assholes with all the prose attention (and I actually am extremely in favor of clean prose). But they don't realize that for over 100 years, sound pedagogy has shown that humans learn difficult concepts more easily visually...and that muliple ways of expressing a concept (pictures, prose, video, diagrams, etc.) actually enable comprehension. For instance look at the gallery of images here.quite difficult concepts to understand the reduction of uranium halide. But showing a set of images in process order gives the reader a general comprehension of the idea (throw some metal in with the uranium halide, get some crap left behind, get some pure uranium metal) so that either they understand the idea or at least feel they understand it. A detailed description of the chemistry would both be inappropriate in this sort of article and be too hard to follow in prose only. But the prose-nicks think of the article as just a wall of text with little pics stuck in like small cherries (often unviewable at the magnification they give). Any kind of usage study (eye pattern tracking, all that) will show how wrong they are.

TCO (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1. well i do have a bias for getting things done. you know the name calling tends to lower to their level. better to describe in as neutral as possible: inner directed, reductive, counter-productive. i think the self interaction ban is best, because you choose where to spend energy with productive people. i'm getting lots done on source, DNB done. etc.

2. the just right media is like the lightening to the lightening bug. it's a qualitative difference unamenable to rules.

2.5. i see the template resisted deletion twice. maybe green for go, rather than blue.

3. yeah. it's amazing to me how the rich multimedia content which should be a big strength and better than previous work, is because of rules, kept worse than encarta. blinders indeed. the non-free reduction is a rule based self inflicted wound. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 19:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)