Wikibooks talk:Uploaders

The uploader right should only be granted if someone actually needs to upload fair-use content. It is not needed to upload PDFs, as these can be generated on-the-fly with the collections extension or uploaded to Commons (their policy permits PDFs for Wikibooks use.) Whether it's policy or not, I have been and plan to move files to Commons with compatible licenses as nothing prohibits this and we don't need to be selfish with our files. Going through the files also helps detect duplicates within the project and with files at Commons. I also look for problems such as someone trying to put a screenshot of free software into the public domain and correcting the licensing. Unused fair-use files are deleted, but many fair-use files in use lack complete rationale and there are many GFDL-presumed files as well; those are the ones that are not clear-cut. A lot of public domain files are using a deprecated tag that doesn't make it clear whether they are PD by self, age, via gov't creation, etc and those have to be corrected before they can be transferred. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree we should move whatever we can. I think we'll be left with a lot of the "not clear cut" problem at the end, but the end is probably a long way off. For granting the right, I'd suggest it's given as a "temporary" flag while someone is working on a book that needs fair use content, and then taken away. I can't see why anyone would permanently need it. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support only a temporary granting of the flag. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The uploader flag should be granted to anyone who knows the licensing issues related to file uploading. How badly they need to upload files is of marginal importance.
 * Furthermore, there is no need for a temporary uploader flag any more than there is a need for a temporary admin flag. --Swift (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has an issue on granting permanent upload rights if the Wikibookian understands why he needs the flag, has some idea on the copyright of images. If the user on the request doesn't demonstrate a need for having the flag permanently, I don't see a problem in granting it temporarily. It all depends on the formulation of the request and the needs expressed on it. This makes it generally different from other flags attributions. --Panic (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Swift. No one should be given this flag unless they understand the licensing issues, but if they have that understanding, I see no reason to revoke the flag. IMO, it should only be revoked if it is found to be abused, and then only if the person refuses to reform his ways (or persists in abusing the flag). --Jomegat (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will reconsider and say that I would support a longer-term assignment of the flag without a predefined time period of assignment. As to "there is no need for a temporary uploader flag any more than there is a need for a temporary admin flag", I'd point out that the admin flag can and has been removed if not used, so it's not permanent either.  They may be long-term, but like any tool, if they're not being used, then what's the use in having them? -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a newbie Wikibookian, I believe that it is quite unnecesary to have a 'temporary' uploader right (per above), as there's no harm in letting somebody have the uploader right even if he uses it very little.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  04:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)