moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
Hi Friends,
        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since it
bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not assuming
the answer, and finding out for sure.

        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the gallery,
which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not to bother
with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)

        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far, I've
been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a discussion,
rather than assume.

        Here are a couple of recent examples:

-- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --  
https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music

-- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
(I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites (many
on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with the same
basic image (and this exact image here:
https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
 -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n

        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?  I
think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the member,
explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape, ask if they
would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of course with
graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?

        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random images
(apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never come back.
(I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2 frivolous, sometimes
meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But it seems worth the effort
not to waste our limited resource on hosting these things.

        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)

All best,
brynn


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
C R
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

C R
Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.

I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
stunning and not really hurting anyone.

Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.

Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.

Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
without having to make any guesses. :)

Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
more usable and clutter free for everyone.


-C







On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Friends,
>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>
>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not
> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>
>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far,
> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
> discussion, rather than assume.
>
>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>
> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>
> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>
>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?
> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?
>
>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But
> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these
> things.
>
>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>
> All best,
> brynn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
Thanks for your comments, C R.

> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.

Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing.  For the image I did search,
there was no scouring.  It was the first result of the first search I made.  It
was clear enough for me just to look at the image.  But I searched it out just
to prove my suspicion.  (It's the only time I've done that.)

For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first.  If it
could have been....why not.  But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is
because

(a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space.

(b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually how
I catch them.  If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my experience, the
artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.)

(c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities.  I'm afraid it gives
the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images.

(d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images.  It kind
of dilutes the pool of awesome.

I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an
Inkscape-only gallery.  To me, THAT would be amazing!  And to me, that's what
the website should provide.

I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By option,
like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that?  Because I certainly
have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which Inkscape was used
only for part of it.  But maybe it would be nice to have the "all Inkscape"
images easier to find?

Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern for
the community.  But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why maybe it
should be.

Thanks again  :-)
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: C R
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM
To: brynn
Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.

I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
stunning and not really hurting anyone.

Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.

Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.

Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
without having to make any guesses. :)

Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
more usable and clutter free for everyone.


-C







On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Friends,
>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>
>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not
> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>
>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far,
> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
> discussion, rather than assume.
>
>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>
> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>
> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>
>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?
> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?
>
>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But
> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these
> things.
>
>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>
> All best,
> brynn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
C R
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

C R
Hey Brynn.
I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe
do it in bulk. :)
Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your
help with it. Please do whatever you think is best.

I agree with all your points. :)

Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in
Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt
very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who
knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is
being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If
someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their
non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete
them.

Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your
thoughts and help with all of it.

-C

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thanks for your comments, C R.
>
>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
>
> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>
> Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing.  For the image I did search,
> there was no scouring.  It was the first result of the first search I made.
> It was clear enough for me just to look at the image.  But I searched it out
> just to prove my suspicion.  (It's the only time I've done that.)
>
> For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first.  If it
> could have been....why not.  But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is
> because
>
> (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space.
>
> (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually
> how I catch them.  If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my
> experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.)
>
> (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities.  I'm afraid it
> gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images.
>
> (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images.  It
> kind of dilutes the pool of awesome.
>
> I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an
> Inkscape-only gallery.  To me, THAT would be amazing!  And to me, that's
> what the website should provide.
>
> I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By
> option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that?  Because
> I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which
> Inkscape was used only for part of it.  But maybe it would be nice to have
> the "all Inkscape" images easier to find?
>
> Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern
> for the community.  But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why
> maybe it should be.
>
> Thanks again  :-)
> brynn
>
> -----Original Message----- From: C R
> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM
> To: brynn
> Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
>
>
> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>
> I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
> similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
> stunning and not really hurting anyone.
>
> Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
> it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
> inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.
>
> Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
> have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
> can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.
>
> Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
> saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
> without having to make any guesses. :)
>
> Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
> against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
> more usable and clutter free for everyone.
>
>
> -C
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Friends,
>>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
>> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
>> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>>
>>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
>> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided
>> not
>> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
>> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>>
>>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are
>> images
>> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So
>> far,
>> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
>> discussion, rather than assume.
>>
>>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>>
>> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
>> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>>
>> --
>> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
>> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
>> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
>> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
>>
>> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
>> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>>
>>
>> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>>
>>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I
>> have
>> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be
>> handled?
>> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
>> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
>> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
>> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our
>> doubt?
>>
>>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
>> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
>> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
>> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)
>> But
>> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting
>> these
>> things.
>>
>>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>>
>> All best,
>> brynn
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
C R
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

C R
Maybe Martin could add a flagging system ti the galleries. Something
that automatically sends a notification to the poster about a
suspicious post. They then have x days to respond. If they don't the
post is auto-deleted.

This may save you some time, and will let the poster plead their case
as it were without you having to follow up on it.

Just a thought.
-C

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, C R <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Brynn.
> I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe
> do it in bulk. :)
> Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your
> help with it. Please do whatever you think is best.
>
> I agree with all your points. :)
>
> Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in
> Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt
> very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who
> knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is
> being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If
> someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their
> non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete
> them.
>
> Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your
> thoughts and help with all of it.
>
> -C
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments, C R.
>>
>>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
>>
>> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>>
>> Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing.  For the image I did search,
>> there was no scouring.  It was the first result of the first search I made.
>> It was clear enough for me just to look at the image.  But I searched it out
>> just to prove my suspicion.  (It's the only time I've done that.)
>>
>> For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first.  If it
>> could have been....why not.  But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is
>> because
>>
>> (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space.
>>
>> (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually
>> how I catch them.  If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my
>> experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.)
>>
>> (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities.  I'm afraid it
>> gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images.
>>
>> (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images.  It
>> kind of dilutes the pool of awesome.
>>
>> I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an
>> Inkscape-only gallery.  To me, THAT would be amazing!  And to me, that's
>> what the website should provide.
>>
>> I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By
>> option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that?  Because
>> I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which
>> Inkscape was used only for part of it.  But maybe it would be nice to have
>> the "all Inkscape" images easier to find?
>>
>> Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern
>> for the community.  But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why
>> maybe it should be.
>>
>> Thanks again  :-)
>> brynn
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: C R
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM
>> To: brynn
>> Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
>> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
>>
>>
>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
>> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>>
>> I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
>> similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
>> stunning and not really hurting anyone.
>>
>> Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
>> it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
>> inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.
>>
>> Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
>> have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
>> can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.
>>
>> Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
>> saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
>> without having to make any guesses. :)
>>
>> Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
>> against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
>> more usable and clutter free for everyone.
>>
>>
>> -C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Friends,
>>>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
>>> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
>>> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>>>
>>>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
>>> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided
>>> not
>>> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
>>> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>>>
>>>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are
>>> images
>>> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So
>>> far,
>>> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
>>> discussion, rather than assume.
>>>
>>>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>>>
>>> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
>>> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
>>> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
>>> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
>>> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
>>>
>>> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
>>> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>>>
>>>
>>> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>>>
>>>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I
>>> have
>>> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be
>>> handled?
>>> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
>>> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
>>> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
>>> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our
>>> doubt?
>>>
>>>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
>>> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
>>> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
>>> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)
>>> But
>>> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting
>>> these
>>> things.
>>>
>>>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>>>
>>> All best,
>>> brynn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>>
>>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Inkscape-docs] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
In reply to this post by Brynn
Hi Reidar,
        Thank you for your comments.  Anyone is welcome to share their comments.
It's not an interruption - it's what I was asking for  :-)

        I agree about integrity.  I really would like the gallery to have only
Inkscape images.

        But considering this post was answered by only 2 people, I guess the
community isn't very concerned.  So I probably won't change much, if anything,
about the way I handle these images.

        If we start to run short of space for the gallery, maybe we would want
to revisit this.  But for now, it doesn't sound like the community is concerned
about this.

        Thanks again for your comments!

All best,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Reidar Vik
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 1:52 PM
To: brynn
Cc: C R ; Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-docs] [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made
w/Inkscape'


@brynn,  I agree about what you said about images. It is fairest and most honest
to only use images made with inkscape. Integrity is very important in this game.
(I hope I didn´t interrupt the discussion)


Vennleg helsing


Reidar Vik
Trostereiret Vik
org.nr. 912 333 485
trostereiretvik.blogspot.com
https://twitter.com/Trostereiret




2017-10-22 20:09 GMT+02:00 brynn <[hidden email]>:
Thanks for your comments, C R.

Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.

Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing.  For the image I did search,
there was no scouring.  It was the first result of the first search I made.  It
was clear enough for me just to look at the image.  But I searched it out just
to prove my suspicion.  (It's the only time I've done that.)

For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first.  If it
could have been....why not.  But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is
because

(a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space.

(b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually how
I catch them.  If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my experience, the
artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.)

(c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities.  I'm afraid it gives
the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images.

(d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images.  It kind
of dilutes the pool of awesome.

I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an
Inkscape-only gallery.  To me, THAT would be amazing!  And to me, that's what
the website should provide.

I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By option,
like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that?  Because I certainly
have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which Inkscape was used
only for part of it.  But maybe it would be nice to have the "all Inkscape"
images easier to find?

Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern for
the community.  But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why maybe it
should be.

Thanks again  :-)
brynn

-----Original Message----- From: C R
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM
To: brynn
Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.

I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
stunning and not really hurting anyone.

Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.

Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.

Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
without having to make any guesses. :)

Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
more usable and clutter free for everyone.


-C








On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Friends,
       I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.

       A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not
to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)

       Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far,
I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
discussion, rather than assume.

       Here are a couple of recent examples:

-- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music

-- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
(I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
(many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
the same basic image (and this exact image here:
https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
-- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)

--https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n

       To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?
I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?

       I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But
it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these
things.

       Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)

All best,
brynn


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-docs



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
In reply to this post by C R
Thanks for your comments, C R.

I probably won't change much, if anything, about the way I handle these images.
Not without a larger outcry from the community.  But when you see one of these
images, imagine that I'm shaking my fist and muttering under my breath (like
Snoopy !#@&%!$*!!)

If we started removing the "could have been" it would start approaching the
point where some automated process would be helpful.  But for now, there's no
burden.

Thanks again,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: C R
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:58 PM
To: brynn
Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Maybe Martin could add a flagging system ti the galleries. Something
that automatically sends a notification to the poster about a
suspicious post. They then have x days to respond. If they don't the
post is auto-deleted.

This may save you some time, and will let the poster plead their case
as it were without you having to follow up on it.

Just a thought.
-C

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, C R <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Brynn.
> I'd say if it gets to the point where it's diluting the awesome, maybe
> do it in bulk. :)
> Until then, I think we all trust your judgement, and appreciate your
> help with it. Please do whatever you think is best.
>
> I agree with all your points. :)
>
> Re: 100% inkscape... I'm not sure what that means :) I use Inkscape in
> Tandem with GIMP all the time, back and forth for example. I doubt
> very much if people use Inkscape and illustrator together, but who
> knows. Again, I trust your judgement on it. As long as Inkscape is
> being used as a graphics tool, I think we should allow posting. If
> someone is blatantly abusing our galleries to advertise their
> non-Inkscape art, then it's probably a good enough reason to delete
> them.
>
> Not sure if the above is all that helpful, but thanks for your
> thoughts and help with all of it.
>
> -C
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 7:09 PM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments, C R.
>>
>>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
>>
>> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>>
>> Well of course, that's not what I'm proposing.  For the image I did search,
>> there was no scouring.  It was the first result of the first search I made.
>> It was clear enough for me just to look at the image.  But I searched it out
>> just to prove my suspicion.  (It's the only time I've done that.)
>>
>> For the rest of your comments, I had the very same thoughts at first.  If it
>> could have been....why not.  But the reason I wanted to try to discuss, is
>> because
>>
>> (a) These images are numerous, considering our limited space.
>>
>> (b) Most of them could really only be done by advanced users (That's usually
>> how I catch them.  If they really had been made with Inkscape, in my
>> experience, the artist wants to shout it out - not make a drive-by upload.)
>>
>> (c) I'm afraid it's misrepresenting Inkscape's abilities.  I'm afraid it
>> gives the impression that it must be easy to create amazing images.
>>
>> (d) It makes it harder to find the really awesome Inkscape-made images.  It
>> kind of dilutes the pool of awesome.
>>
>> I really have always (well, since I found Inkscape 10 years ago) wanted an
>> Inkscape-only gallery.  To me, THAT would be amazing!  And to me, that's
>> what the website should provide.
>>
>> I wonder if it would work to have another category, or another Order By
>> option, like All Inkscape or 100% Inkscape, or something like that?  Because
>> I certainly have no objection to having images in the gallery, for which
>> Inkscape was used only for part of it.  But maybe it would be nice to have
>> the "all Inkscape" images easier to find?
>>
>> Well anyway, as I said, I already had an idea that this isn't a big concern
>> for the community.  But I just wanted to voice a few thoughts as to why
>> maybe it should be.
>>
>> Thanks again  :-)
>> brynn
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: C R
>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 4:33 AM
>> To: brynn
>> Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
>> Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'
>>
>>
>> Re: Time as a resource: I think it's not worth anyone's time to scour
>> the internet trying to prove that something wasn't made in Inkscape.
>>
>> I can think of several ways to do the graphic in question (or at least
>> similar) in Inkscape, so I'd let it stay as it's actually quite
>> stunning and not really hurting anyone.
>>
>> Even if it's not done in Inkscape, it gets people thinking about how
>> it could be done in Inkscape, which is not a bad thing. Maybe it will
>> inspire someone to post a vector resource of it in the future.
>>
>> Going forward, this is my recommendation: If it looks like it could
>> have been done in Inkscape, and it was posted on our website, then we
>> can assume (for the sake of aesthetics) that it was.
>>
>> Obviously if the uploader came back and replied to your comment,
>> saying "Oh, I've not done this in Inkscape." Then you can remove it
>> without having to make any guesses. :)
>>
>> Thanks for bringing it to attention, Brynn. Your hard work to fight
>> against random non-Inkscape posts is definitely making the site much
>> more usable and clutter free for everyone.
>>
>>
>> -C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Friends,
>>>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
>>> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
>>> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>>>
>>>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
>>> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided
>>> not
>>> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
>>> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>>>
>>>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are
>>> images
>>> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So
>>> far,
>>> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
>>> discussion, rather than assume.
>>>
>>>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>>>
>>> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
>>> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
>>> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
>>> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
>>> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
>>>
>>> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
>>> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>>>
>>>
>>> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>>>
>>>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I
>>> have
>>> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be
>>> handled?
>>> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
>>> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
>>> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
>>> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our
>>> doubt?
>>>
>>>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
>>> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
>>> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
>>> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)
>>> But
>>> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting
>>> these
>>> things.
>>>
>>>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>>>
>>> All best,
>>> brynn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Inkscape-devel mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
>>
>>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
C R
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

C R
In reply to this post by Brynn
On second thought, I'd take this down:

https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music

Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's
clearly taken from another website.

I'd take this one down too:
https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n

Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name,
and they have not responded to your question.

And I'd take this one down as well:
https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2

Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of the
original you pointed to.

Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof
that poster has the right to license it that way.

No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.

Just a few more thoughts.
-C







On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Friends,
>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>
>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not
> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>
>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far,
> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
> discussion, rather than assume.
>
>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>
> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>
> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>
>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?
> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?
>
>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But
> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these
> things.
>
>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>
> All best,
> brynn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

doctormo
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote:
> On second thought, I'd take this down:
>
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's
> clearly taken from another website.

Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via
TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images)
shows the images was uploaded[1] in 2013 by BlackJack3D.

> I'd take this one down too:
> https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581
> -8475381764676214363-n
>
> Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name,
> and they have not responded to your question.

This is a ceramic tile from San Juan[2] so very likely not made in
Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as
the user on inkscape.org is an aol address.

> And I'd take this one down as well:
> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-wor
> ld2

> Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of
> the original you pointed to.

The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create
these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down
on request from the original copyright holders only.

BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by
Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator[3]. So it
should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and
wasn't made by the user

> Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof
> that poster has the right to license it that way.
>
> No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.

Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I
copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to
drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of
free speech until asked to take it down.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

1. http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/music-in-the-heart-gm171271203-2008
0753
2. http://www.mipequenosanjuan.com/puertorican-decorative-tiles.html
3. https://nl.dreamstime.com/redactionele-stock-afbeelding-held-en-jesu
s-image66927814s-image66927814


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!!

Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

I think when we were discussing it before, we might have been lumping "fan art"
together with blatant posting of someone else's image.  I think "fan art" is
fine.  For example, if that Jesus image had actually been drawn in Inkscape,
would have been fine.

But maybe posting someone else's image needs to be addressed.  And especially
having such a tool as TinEye.  I knew that it was possible to search an image,
but I didn't know it was publicly available.  (Thought probably cost a lot of
money to buy or subscribe.)

I would be so happy to use it, to take out this type of image.  And I would even
go retro to the date we put the CoC into effect.  (in extra spare time)

This might not be explainable (since I've asked it a few times over the years,
and it always gets ignored).  But I'm just so curious why people go around
posting things, like images that aren't theirs, or meaningless messages in
forums.  Is it a certain class of spammer which tries to fill unmoderated forums
or galleries, to overwhelm it, or test to find out if they are moderated?  There
can't be that many people who are sad wannabees, can there?

Thanks for the great info and guidance :-)

All best,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Owens
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:24 AM
To: C R ; brynn
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote:
> On second thought, I'd take this down:
>
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's
> clearly taken from another website.

Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via
TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images)
shows the images was uploaded[1] in 2013 by BlackJack3D.

> I'd take this one down too:
> https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581
> -8475381764676214363-n
>
> Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name,
> and they have not responded to your question.

This is a ceramic tile from San Juan[2] so very likely not made in
Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as
the user on inkscape.org is an aol address.

> And I'd take this one down as well:
> https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-wor
> ld2

> Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of
> the original you pointed to.

The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create
these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down
on request from the original copyright holders only.

BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by
Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator[3]. So it
should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and
wasn't made by the user

> Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof
> that poster has the right to license it that way.
>
> No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.

Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I
copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to
drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of
free speech until asked to take it down.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

1. http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/music-in-the-heart-gm171271203-2008
0753
2. http://www.mipequenosanjuan.com/puertorican-decorative-tiles.html
3. https://nl.dreamstime.com/redactionele-stock-afbeelding-held-en-jesu
s-image66927814s-image66927814


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
In reply to this post by C R
Hhm....Yes, believe me, I do a lot of 2nd thinking about this stuff!

And fortunately, thanks to Martin, we have the kind of moderation system where
one person doesn't carry the entire responsibility.  Images are voted up or down
(sort of like reality tv haha), and it's possible to even discuss within the
system.

Thanks Martin!


-----Original Message-----
From: C R
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:49 AM
To: brynn
Cc: Inkscape-Docs ; Inkscape-Devel
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On second thought, I'd take this down:

https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music

Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's
clearly taken from another website.

I'd take this one down too:
https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n

Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name,
and they have not responded to your question.

And I'd take this one down as well:
https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2

Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of the
original you pointed to.

Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof
that poster has the right to license it that way.

No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.

Just a few more thoughts.
-C







On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 5:29 AM, brynn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Friends,
>        I think I probably know how the community leans on this.  But since
> it bothers me so much, and happens so often, I thought it was worth not
> assuming the answer, and finding out for sure.
>
>        A few months ago, we decided not to allow random photos in the
> gallery, which are unrelated to the project in any way.  We also decided not
> to bother with copyright issues.  (long discussion -
> https://sourceforge.net/p/inkscape/mailman/message/35798617/)
>
>        Probably equally as often as random photos being uploaded, are images
> which *could have been made with Inkscape* but which I doubt were.  So far,
> I've been letting these go through.  But as I said, I wanted to have a
> discussion, rather than assume.
>
>        Here are a couple of recent examples:
>
> -- 2 images, 1 resource and 1 thumbnail --
> https://inkscape.org/en/~noahgabe@_99/%E2%98%85music
>
> -- https://inkscape.org/en/~KristiBryant113/%E2%98%85jesus-saves-the-world2
> (I did a little research on this one, and found it at many different sites
> (many on different sites selling tshirts, as well as just web images) with
> the same basic image (and this exact image here:
> https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--rVeDm8Gt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1503977524/production/designs/1857631_1.jpg)
> -- so I'm pretty sure it wasn't made with Inkscape)
>
> --https://inkscape.org/en/~chiquitita/%E2%98%8515230751-703016283207581-8475381764676214363-n
>
>        To me, all of those /could have been/ made with Inkscape.  But I have
> reasons to doubt all of them.  How do you all think they should be handled?
> I think they should be handled similarly to random photos (contact the
> member, explain and link to CoC, ask to explain the relation to Inkscape,
> ask if they would like to remove, inform after 2 weeks we will do it, of
> course with graciousness.  Or do we let them have the benefit of our doubt?
>
>        I honestly don't understand why people go around posting random
> images (apparently, afaict) in random galleries, once or twice, and never
> come back. (I have the same curiosity about people who post 1 or 2
> frivolous, sometimes meaningless messages in forums and never return.)  But
> it seems worth the effort not to waste our limited resource on hosting these
> things.
>
>        Anyway, thanks for any thoughts or comments :-)
>
> All best,
> brynn
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

doctormo
In reply to this post by Brynn
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 14:43 -0600, brynn wrote:
> TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!!
>
> Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

Well it's not our job to delve into the legality, so these images
shouldn't be removed because we've made a decision about copyright. But
because we can see a moral issue with the posting of works like this
and that they create noise and reduce the quality of our galleries.

Moderation is firstly a measure to improve the quality of our community
content. Secondary is the removal of legal issues when identified by
actual lawyers and we can take action for them.

I know this seems like a cop-out, but I'm always concerned vesting
discerning and subjective powers into volunteers.

> But maybe posting someone else's image needs to be addressed.  And
> especially 
> having such a tool as TinEye.  I knew that it was possible to search
> an image, 
> but I didn't know it was publicly available.  (Thought probably cost
> a lot of 
> money to buy or subscribe.)
>
> I would be so happy to use it, to take out this type of image.  And I
> would even 
> go retro to the date we put the CoC into effect.  (in extra spare
> time)

It's actually a lot of work to do proper tracking. Every one of the
previous entries was not just a search on tiny-eye, but also google
image searches, searching for authors by email or username, looking for
patterns.

I tend to trust user content first, but there are signs that content is
poor quality such as users with only one entry, who have only logged in
once and that have posted jpeg images etc etc.

> This might not be explainable (since I've asked it a few times over
> the years, 
> and it always gets ignored).  But I'm just so curious why people go
> around 
> posting things, like images that aren't theirs, or meaningless
> messages in 
> forums.  Is it a certain class of spammer which tries to fill
> unmoderated forums 
> or galleries, to overwhelm it, or test to find out if they are
> moderated?  There 
> can't be that many people who are sad wannabees, can there?

I think it's not ignored, but just a really hard question to answer. It
could be a bot posting random images in the belief that posting content
will make their accounts look more real. It could be real people
attempting to create a bit of fake pride in themselves by pretending
they made a work. There's not a good way to know for sure why.

One reason to post an image would be to get us to host their avatar
image. So they can link from forums or other places their favourite
artwork.

We have space limits to stop spammers.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
(sorry, got long with quotes)

>> Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

> Well it's not our job to delve into the legality, ....

When I say "copyright issues" I'm not referring to legality.  I'm not even
thinking about licensing. It's just the only way I know how to describe it when
people use images when they don't own them.  I'll try to remember to say
"ownership issues".

>> Moderation is firstly a measure to improve the quality of our community
content. Secondary is the removal of legal issues when identified by
actual lawyers and we can take action for them.

When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was common to
see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining that the
website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from another
site, without giving credits, whether text or image).  Sometimes it was
threatened to remove any members who did so.

So that's where I'm coming from.  But now, it seems seems the climate has
changed.  There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently some new
regulations too).

>> It's actually a lot of work to do proper tracking. Every one of the
previous entries was not just a search on tiny-eye, but also google
image searches, searching for authors by email or username, looking for
patterns.

Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for when we
suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)?  If TinEye reports,
let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user names, why
isn't that enough?

I don't think I can see logins, or emails either.  Certainly not IPs.  Unless I
just haven't found them yet.  I've never found a member list or anything like
that.  If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their name (type
it into the url).

>> I tend to trust user content first, but there are signs that content is
poor quality such as users with only one entry, who have only logged in
once and that have posted jpeg images etc etc.

Do you mean that you trust user content first, over other kind of content?  If
so, what other kind of content is there?  Or do you mean that you start out
trusting the user, and then you need to see clues before you start to lose the
trust?

These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which apparently
all are turned out to be fishy).
-- They could be made with Inkscape, but probably only by an advanced user.
-- It's a JPG. (*maybe* PNG)
-- There is just enough blurriness that I wonder why they used blurring at all
(and I start to wonder if the blurriness is from being a raster format and saved
a few times).
-- There are no signs of pride in the work or connection or ownership as a
community member.  (no description or external link)
-- Or conversely, the description is extended, and has nothing to do with
Inkscape, open source, vector graphics, nothing remotely related.  Or the
external link is completely unrelated.
-- The user either uploaded only one image, or they have a few sketchy ones.

After this discussion, I think I will start looking at the licenses more.

How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random, unrelated photos
(which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point where the
member should be removed?

Here's a current example:  https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001  The hidden one is
an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think music
download site).  The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but I can't
investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape) because it's a
JPG.  Originally it had an external link to a music download site.  The green
one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and music
download site.

I've curated out the external links.  But couldn't this be considered a "repeat
offender"?  I honestly can't think of any argument, for keep or remove, which
outweighs the other.  I guess in this case, we curate what we can curate, and
moderate what we can, and after that, rely on the space limits? (Unless they
start reg-ing new accounts, which I have no way of tracking.)

Thanks again,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Owens
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:37 PM
To: brynn ; C R
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 14:43 -0600, brynn wrote:
> TinEye - Omg, a whole new world, haha!!
>
> Are we now saying that we will address certain copyright issues?

Well it's not our job to delve into the legality, so these images
shouldn't be removed because we've made a decision about copyright. But
because we can see a moral issue with the posting of works like this
and that they create noise and reduce the quality of our galleries.

Moderation is firstly a measure to improve the quality of our community
content. Secondary is the removal of legal issues when identified by
actual lawyers and we can take action for them.

I know this seems like a cop-out, but I'm always concerned vesting
discerning and subjective powers into volunteers.

> But maybe posting someone else's image needs to be addressed.  And
> especially
> having such a tool as TinEye.  I knew that it was possible to search
> an image,
> but I didn't know it was publicly available.  (Thought probably cost
> a lot of
> money to buy or subscribe.)
>
> I would be so happy to use it, to take out this type of image.  And I
> would even
> go retro to the date we put the CoC into effect.  (in extra spare
> time)

It's actually a lot of work to do proper tracking. Every one of the
previous entries was not just a search on tiny-eye, but also google
image searches, searching for authors by email or username, looking for
patterns.

I tend to trust user content first, but there are signs that content is
poor quality such as users with only one entry, who have only logged in
once and that have posted jpeg images etc etc.

> This might not be explainable (since I've asked it a few times over
> the years,
> and it always gets ignored).  But I'm just so curious why people go
> around
> posting things, like images that aren't theirs, or meaningless
> messages in
> forums.  Is it a certain class of spammer which tries to fill
> unmoderated forums
> or galleries, to overwhelm it, or test to find out if they are
> moderated?  There
> can't be that many people who are sad wannabees, can there?

I think it's not ignored, but just a really hard question to answer. It
could be a bot posting random images in the belief that posting content
will make their accounts look more real. It could be real people
attempting to create a bit of fake pride in themselves by pretending
they made a work. There's not a good way to know for sure why.

One reason to post an image would be to get us to host their avatar
image. So they can link from forums or other places their favourite
artwork.

We have space limits to stop spammers.

Best Regards, Martin Owens


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

doctormo
On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 21:03 -0600, brynn wrote:

> When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was
> common to 
> see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining
> that the 
> website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from
> another 
> site, without giving credits, whether text or image).  Sometimes it
> was 
> threatened to remove any members who did so.
>
> So that's where I'm coming from.  But now, it seems seems the climate
> has 
> changed.  There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently
> some new 
> regulations too).

This is called the Safe Harbour provisions in US law. As long as we're
taking reasonable actions to remove content we have been informed is
infringing, we're not culpable (IANAL, this isn't 100% true)

> Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for
> when we 
> suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)?  If
> TinEye reports, 
> let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user
> names, why 
> isn't that enough?

It's a fairly high account, but it's slightly possible that the user
has uploaded their inkscape image to a stock image site. So it's worth
checking for an Author in the stock image sites and see if it matches.

> I don't think I can see logins, or emails either.  Certainly not
> IPs.  Unless I 
> just haven't found them yet.  I've never found a member list or
> anything like 
> that.  If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their
> name (type 
> it into the url).

You can use the username and any other information posted.

> These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which
> apparently 
> all are turned out to be fishy).

I think you've got a good list of things to check. Keep this list for
future possible documentation for new moderators please.

> How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random,
> unrelated photos 
> (which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point
> where the 
> member should be removed?

The member can be removed if you like.

> Here's a current example:  https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001  The
> hidden one is 
> an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think
> music 
> download site).  The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but
> I can't 
> investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape)
> because it's a 
> JPG.  Originally it had an external link to a music download
> site.  The green 
> one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and
> music 
> download site.

That's a suspicious user, but it's very hard to tell for sure. But you
can probably be a bit more critical of this user since as you say in
your list, they don't seem to post any actual content other than links.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
Thanks for the input and guidance, Martin and C R!

All best,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Owens
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 10:06 PM
To: brynn ; C R
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 21:03 -0600, brynn wrote:

> When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was
> common to
> see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining
> that the
> website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from
> another
> site, without giving credits, whether text or image).  Sometimes it
> was
> threatened to remove any members who did so.
>
> So that's where I'm coming from.  But now, it seems seems the climate
> has
> changed.  There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently
> some new
> regulations too).

This is called the Safe Harbour provisions in US law. As long as we're
taking reasonable actions to remove content we have been informed is
infringing, we're not culpable (IANAL, this isn't 100% true)

> Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for
> when we
> suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)?  If
> TinEye reports,
> let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user
> names, why
> isn't that enough?

It's a fairly high account, but it's slightly possible that the user
has uploaded their inkscape image to a stock image site. So it's worth
checking for an Author in the stock image sites and see if it matches.

> I don't think I can see logins, or emails either.  Certainly not
> IPs.  Unless I
> just haven't found them yet.  I've never found a member list or
> anything like
> that.  If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their
> name (type
> it into the url).

You can use the username and any other information posted.

> These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which
> apparently
> all are turned out to be fishy).

I think you've got a good list of things to check. Keep this list for
future possible documentation for new moderators please.

> How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random,
> unrelated photos
> (which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point
> where the
> member should be removed?

The member can be removed if you like.

> Here's a current example:  https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001  The
> hidden one is
> an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think
> music
> download site).  The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but
> I can't
> investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape)
> because it's a
> JPG.  Originally it had an external link to a music download
> site.  The green
> one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and
> music
> download site.

That's a suspicious user, but it's very hard to tell for sure. But you
can probably be a bit more critical of this user since as you say in
your list, they don't seem to post any actual content other than links.

Best Regards, Martin Owens

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
In reply to this post by doctormo
Another 2nd thought  :-)

>> How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random,
>> unrelated photos
>> (which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point
>> where the
>> member should be removed?

>The member can be removed if you like.

So going to the next step, these images, when well proven not to be related to
Inkscape, can be handled just like spam.  Both image and member removed without
warning.

Correct?

Thanks again,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Owens
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 10:06 PM
To: brynn ; C R
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 21:03 -0600, brynn wrote:

> When I first was learning about the internet (just before y2k) it was
> common to
> see websites prominently posting warnings, and further explaining
> that the
> website owner can be held responsible (if users posts anything from
> another
> site, without giving credits, whether text or image).  Sometimes it
> was
> threatened to remove any members who did so.
>
> So that's where I'm coming from.  But now, it seems seems the climate
> has
> changed.  There seems to be a different perspective (and apparently
> some new
> regulations too).

This is called the Safe Harbour provisions in US law. As long as we're
taking reasonable actions to remove content we have been informed is
infringing, we're not culpable (IANAL, this isn't 100% true)

> Are you suggesting we could work up some kind of search routine, for
> when we
> suspect an image has ownership issues (see my clues below)?  If
> TinEye reports,
> let's say 6 identical stock images, and there's no connection in user
> names, why
> isn't that enough?

It's a fairly high account, but it's slightly possible that the user
has uploaded their inkscape image to a stock image site. So it's worth
checking for an Author in the stock image sites and see if it matches.

> I don't think I can see logins, or emails either.  Certainly not
> IPs.  Unless I
> just haven't found them yet.  I've never found a member list or
> anything like
> that.  If I need to find a member, I can only do it if I know their
> name (type
> it into the url).

You can use the username and any other information posted.

> These are the clues I had for the images I used for examples (which
> apparently
> all are turned out to be fishy).

I think you've got a good list of things to check. Keep this list for
future possible documentation for new moderators please.

> How should we handle these members?  Just like with the random,
> unrelated photos
> (which is delete the image, member stays)?  Or is there some point
> where the
> member should be removed?

The member can be removed if you like.

> Here's a current example:  https://inkscape.org/en/~techie001  The
> hidden one is
> an uploaded link (no image) to an entirely unrelated site (I think
> music
> download site).  The Lamborghini one echoes several stock images, but
> I can't
> investigate (whether it might be "fan art" made with Inkscape)
> because it's a
> JPG.  Originally it had an external link to a music download
> site.  The green
> one got no results in TinEye, but had an external link to a game and
> music
> download site.

That's a suspicious user, but it's very hard to tell for sure. But you
can probably be a bit more critical of this user since as you say in
your list, they don't seem to post any actual content other than links.

Best Regards, Martin Owens


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

doctormo
On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 22:27 -0600, brynn wrote:
> So going to the next step, these images, when well proven not to be
> related to 
> Inkscape, can be handled just like spam.  Both image and member
> removed without 
> warning.
>
> Correct?

Yes, if there's no redeeming feature, it's hard to imagine why we
wouldn't spam the account.

> Thanks again,
> brynn

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
Thanks Martin.

I'm going explore how to identify these images, over the next few weeks, and try
to work out a sort of routine for handling this type of upload (which I think
will amount to a significant percentage of uploads).  Then I'll write the new
info into the Charter, and notify the other moderators.

Thanks again,
brynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Owens
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:54 PM
To: brynn ; C R
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 22:27 -0600, brynn wrote:
> So going to the next step, these images, when well proven not to be
> related to
> Inkscape, can be handled just like spam.  Both image and member
> removed without
> warning.
>
> Correct?

Yes, if there's no redeeming feature, it's hard to imagine why we
wouldn't spam the account.

> Thanks again,
> brynn


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Maximilian Gaukler
How about requiring that people also upload the corresponding inkscape
file? I think a gallery with ten high-quality images and the source
files is way more helpful than thousand images without any idea of how
they can be made with inkscape.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

Brynn
Thanks for your comments :-)

I suspect that opinions on this will be wide-ranging.

I'd be afraid it would limit how many images are shared.  Personally, I only
share the SVG file once in a while.  Offering the SVG file (in my view) makes it
too easy for someone to use it (for example, send to tshirt printer, or poster
printer, or change one little thing and claim as own, etc.).  But I still might
like to show what I've made with Inkscape - just not make it so easy to steal
it.

However, I do think there are those in the community who would be very happy
with that kind of requirement.  I think it has been considered, although perhaps
not discussed publicly.

I think having identified this new sort of class of spam (it's spam for us, the
Inkscape community), will result in a gallery which much better represents
Inkscape.  I expect when I start to go retro with moderating this type of image
(back to when the CoC was published) it will remove a lot of unrelated images.

Thanks again,
brynn



-----Original Message-----
From: Maximilian Gaukler
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:42 AM
To: brynn ; Martin Owens ; C R
Cc: Inkscape-Devel ; Inkscape-Docs
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] moderation - 'could have been made w/Inkscape'

How about requiring that people also upload the corresponding inkscape
file? I think a gallery with ten high-quality images and the source
files is way more helpful than thousand images without any idea of how
they can be made with inkscape.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel