<div dir="ltr">ping bassel. <div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:06 PM, chovynz <<a href="mailto:chovynz@gmail.com">chovynz@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Hi Bassel I'm aware that you think we don't need a delete function for Librarians - due to "dangerous" permission levels for a Librarian to abuse those abilities. While that might be valid reasoning that if someone loses their Librarian password or their account gets hacked or whatever (there are a few more reasons that Bassel and I have talked about, I'm just moving quickly to my points...), I think we do need the delete function for the betterment of OCAL. I've been just watching quietly how Librarians work, and how users upload things, and I really can't see any reason why copyright or trademark infringing clipart needs to remain in the Library. Here are the issues that come up at the moment with no Delete function, and will be fixed, once clipart is actually deleted. <ol> <li>As a Librarian, it can be confusing to see a "hidden" clipart, if given the direct link, when you are not logged in. Confusion isn't good for librarians or admins, OR users since it complicates the process of downloading. Jon knows about this confusion, since he had it when I sent him a "hidden" clipart link. I've had it first hand after Tom sent the mailing list a few hidden links. I'm sure others have had the confusion from my emails too.</li> <li>As an anonymous user, you would not know if the clipart was hidden or not, unless someone explained it to you. There is currently no visual indicator to say if a clipart is hidden. </li> <li>"Hidden" clipart might not come up in the search or gallery, but knowing human nature, if we have a direct link available, (and anyone is able to read the mailing list archives) then anyone (including anonymous users) can still download that infringing clipart. </li> </ol> Actual removal of the clipart (or a higher level of Hiding) will stop further infringement via OCAL, and it will remove confusion for all users. Those are two good things in my books. At the very least, only the uploader and Librarians should be able to access any "hidden" clipart, even via direct link. As for thoughts on how to address these, If you really don't want to give Librarians the delete function, then perhaps I can suggest that one person be given that ability? that person will need to be contactable, and do their job of deletion within a reasonable timeframe and with good researching skills to see if that clipart really does need deleting. Or an automatic Database Job that once every two months, clipart with a certain system tag, gets deleted from the Library? Perhaps "Deletion" or something, applied and removable by Librarians only. These are just ideas on how to address the problems identified above. (If you are on the mailing list and reading this, and have ideas on this, please let us know.) On the other hand, I also think that Librarians need to be trusted to do their job (custodianship of the Library) and needs the tools to able to do their jobs. Clipart deletion, or permenant record removal from the Library, is one of those jobs. It's a high trust job, but a necessary one. Is there a way to facilitate the needs of the Librarian, with the security of logins/powerful tools? I don't really like the idea of one particular job resting with one person. I prefer transferably-skilled workers. Cheers Chovynz </div> </blockquote></div> -- Jon Phillips <a href="http://rejon.org/">http://rejon.org/</a> <a href="http://fabricatorz.com/">http://fabricatorz.com/</a> <a href="http://status.net/">http://status.net/</a> <a href="http://rejon.status.net">http://rejon.status.net</a> + skype: kidproto +1.415.830.3884 (sf/global) +86.187.1003.9974 (china) </div>