Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Aron Demian
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 10:32, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
>

 In August 2019 this question was brought up in the first round (iteration)
of the Recommendations. It was unfortunately intertwined with another
heavy, but tangential topic: the ToU. Accordingly half of the discussions
are unrelated to this question on the page. There was quite a bit of drama
caused by the superficial proposal, I'm surprised it's already forgotten
:-D
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_1/Diversity/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation?

The most acceptable solution proposed at that time was a separate wiki that
would run the same software as Commons:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
That's a pretty good proposal (actually the second one in years) that has
run out of energy, just like the previous one.


IMHO Commons and the mediawiki software gives no benefits over popular and
easy-to-use image sharing services for non-wikipedians. Additionally, on
wiki newcomers can get dragged into wikidramas despite their best intent
and there is no protection for them. Learning the non-straightforward
communication patterns on-wiki and establishing a "standing" is a
multi-year effort, which simply is not necessary on the popular platforms.
There content creators can focus on building their follower-base instead.
The features and services they benefit from don't coincide with the
features the wiki software and communities are creating or looking for.
Uploading to Wikimedia is more like an ideological statement that might
require significant investment without benefits or with unexpected negative
benefits.
Tl;dr: why would anyone take a hard and uncomfortable path, when there is
an easy and beneficial path.

Regardless, a not-strictly-free media-hosting wiki would be great imho. For
wikipedians. To develop a product and culture that's suitable for regular
photographers would require talented and strongly motivated IT and HR
personnel, which is not present in the WMF, nor is it attainable: we've
seen people, who have put their hearts into their work, just to leave
prematurely, under unclear circumstances. Presumably the work environment
is not supportive of people who could envision and manifest such a product.


> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons.


That's true for me. As a newcomer / non-wikipedian the first issue I had
with "Commons" was: "What does it mean?" I think outside Wikimedia this
name might be meaningless for many people.
"The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all
members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a
habitable earth."
Though there is logic in that, it's very abstract. I don't associate that
naturally with "Let's share my photos!" Rather, it makes me think of
sharing the water I bring from a fountain.

I remember when I've learned it's about sharing media - images primarily -
I was thrilled. After uploading dozens of images, requesting and learning
AWB - to effectively manage images in batches - my impression is it's good
to have, but takes serious, hard work to use it properly, involving some
advanced level form-filling skills, that's fun to learn (at least for me,
just for the challenge), but not fun to do regularly and I assume it's not
even fun to learn for many people.


> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
>

4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>

IMHO the primary motivation to use those platforms is the social aspect:
creating a follower-base, that brings the benefits: patreon, social
influencing, gigs.
Wikis don't have these incentives, the rules of the game (in terms of game
theory) are fundamentally different, social status is not the result 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread geni
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 05:12, Gnangarra  wrote:
> Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors
> from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates
> offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses
>


The size of those contests means the average content has little chance
of winning. On top of that phones are in most cases good enough.
Attempts to throw money at the problem haven't been that effective.
Wikimedia UK has equipment for loan but use levels vary. Providing
tickets to things has some success but again rather mixed. Ultimately
you tend to run into the problem that wikipedia editing tends to be a
solo activity and most people don't want to deal with formal links to
organisations.

Geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread geni
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 08:33, Fæ  wrote:
> A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> actually attract a few high quality photographers.


Pretty sure the most common license terms would breach the upload
conditions of one or both of those sites. The problem is that most
websites ask for a non exclusive license to whatever they want want
with an image without giving credit which pretty much limits you to PD
or MIT

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread geni
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:05, Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people 
> don't contribute more broadly?

Perhaps although similar research with regards to wikipedia has never
produced particularly useful results.



-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I have no doubt that on the long-term solutions will be found. Even if 
structural data were IMHO presented and used poorly, the catalyzing effect of 
them and Wikidata will be there. I am also in full support for the creation of 
a parallel Commons for NC files as well, which will also speed up many 
processes. I am not interested in some ideological stance about the matter, if 
we can keep NC files locally, we can also on a general platforms, or we don't 
keep them at all.

The point is that such solutions will never really originate from a big part of 
the community of Commons (including part of OTRS), they simply cannot stem from 
a community structured the way some users actively shaped it over the years, 
encouraging a self-referential "righteous" vision. Think about what occurred 
with Wikidata, I saw users being trolled for discussing about its future role 
the beginning, but they were mostly right, I don't see the Commons users who 
invented paranoid scenarios to justify their behavior even thinking about that 
now.

I don't have time to protect the social roles of users who behave in such a 
poor way. If I can solve things just going around them, I do so. It is a 
failure, but it's not the fault of many among us. After I have to fix problems 
from actions that could have simply being avoided with just a tiny amount of 
good sense, I don't have time to discuss that there might be  a better way of 
doing thing to users who will just ignore that and go to the first occasion to 
reproduce the same behavior again, because they are even rewarded for that. It 
takes me hours and I don't have any energy left, certainly not even to rename a 
file, create a category or verify a license. I don't have even energy to 
present it nicely to a third part who is witnessing that. I don't care how 
certain users look, because they are the first ones who don't care about the 
consequence of their actions.
Over the years, I am more convinced that the best solution is to let them go. 
It does not matter if the backlog obviously increases. When we will be free to 
set up more functional solutions, the backlog can be reduced quite easily. I 
have therefore stopped many years ago to perform any actions outside my 
projects and I am happy that way. I am sure I am not the only one. I am slways 
happy to create tool outside of such bubble, of course, but not a lot inside it.

   Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 20:14:49 CEST, Gerard Meijssen 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia 
that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are 
pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not compatible 
with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because the basic 
building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We are all invited 
to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to Wikidata, to 
multilinguality, and make images findable. 
It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with  wikidata 
and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that English 
Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably in the same 
database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed material is part of 
Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the exemptions, the material 
that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is part of English Wikipedia and 
its policies. When you then look for material to use in whatever project, the 
license limits what you can use, what you find. For material that we want to 
include that has an incompatible license, we find that we cannot use it in our 
projects and we may choose if and how we expose it to the world.
Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects, the 
other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original that is 
reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is not 
available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material. 
The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and bring 
options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise stuff 
that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content 
linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world 
beyond the two U-s.Thanks,      GerardM
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

 "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary 
of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is 
counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.

We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of 
no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other 
ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need 
people copying and pasting quickly motivations without 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia
that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are
pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not
compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because
the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We
are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to
Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable.

It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with
wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that
English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably
in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed
material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the
exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is
part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material
to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you
find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible
license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if
and how we expose it to the world.

Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects,
the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original
that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is
not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material.

The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and
bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise
stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content
linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world
beyond the two U-s.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way
> that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if
> you want it.
>
> We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the
> other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost
> never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people
> that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't
> need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on
> line instead of simply asking the uploader.
>
> However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority
> of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only
> fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> be the one to clean the mess.
> A.
>
>
>
>
>Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> earlier this year:
>
>
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
>
> However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
> way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> blocked on other projects, does not help either
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> > contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> > covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> > 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary 
of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is 
counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.

We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of 
no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other 
ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need 
people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them 
confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, 
of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion 
procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user 
stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting 
low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public 
domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless 
images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be 
proved "not to be recent" against good faith.  We don't need people starting 
deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the 
uploader.  

However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the 
years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and 
probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these 
circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal 
with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete 
everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of 
backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that 
whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean 
the mess.
A.




   Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > Commons.
> > >
> > > -
> > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > had to
> > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> for
> > the movement.
> > >
> > > see:
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > -
> > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > the question why to
> > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> Pinterest?
> > >
> > > -
> > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> Some
> > Wikipedians are
> > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > sisters.
> > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> user
> > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> > >
> > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > problems are known already now.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Tito Dutta
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
alternative version of Commons).
2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
star) is good for motivation as well.

Thanks
User:Titodutta



On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ  wrote:

> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
>  wrote:
> >
> > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> Commons.
> >
> > -
> >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> had to
> > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for
> the movement.
> >
> > see:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > -
> >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> the question why to
> > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
> >
> > -
> >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some
> Wikipedians are
> > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > sisters.
> > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user
> interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> >
> > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> problems are known already now.
> >
> > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> >
> > Roland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
>
> A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> actually attract a few high quality photographers.
>
> A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> as part of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
 wrote:
>
> There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.
>
> -
>  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to
> increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons 
> is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can 
> improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
>
> see: 
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> -
>  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the 
> question why to
> publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
>
> -
>  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some 
> Wikipedians are
> living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> sisters.
> - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. 
> They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface 
> (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user 
> account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
>
> I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems 
> are known already now.
>
> I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all 
> Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer 
> at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because 
> of commercial-usage restrictions?
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
> >>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons 
> because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than 
> that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people 
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin

A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
actually attract a few high quality photographers.

A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
as part of increasing their own internet footprint.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Gnangarra
I think you've hit the nail on the head Pine with

> However, I'm not sure that
> the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
> another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
> have.


We really need to address the lack of cross project support and community
by further integration of projects rather than create more stand alone
projects.

>
>

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 14:42, Pine W  wrote:

> If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been
> pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons,
> but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site
> that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses.
> I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new
> sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument
> against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that
> with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that
> the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
> another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
> have.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Pine W
If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been
pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons,
but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site
that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses.
I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new
sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument
against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that
with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that
the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
have.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Roland Unger
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.

-
 Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to 
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation 
itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an 
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons is 
broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve 
its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.

see: 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
-
 Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the 
question why to 
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?

-
 There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some 
Wikipedians are 
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their 
sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. 
They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for 
instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, 
adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).

I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems 
are known already now.

I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all Wikimedia 
products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel 
agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of 
commercial-usage restrictions?

Roland




>>> Benjamin Ikuta  05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>


Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons 
because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that 
of Wikipedia. 

Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't 
contribute more broadly? 

~Benjamin 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-17 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki via Wikimedia-l
This was discussed a number of times[sic.] onwiki and there was no consensus at 
all to allow NC on commons.

Citing from Commons:Village pump/Copyright: "One of Wikimedia Commons' basic 
principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree 
material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would 
be a good thing.ump/Copyright"

I agree with Gnangarra .

Best,
Steinsplitter


Von: Wikimedia-l  im Auftrag von 
Gnangarra 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2020 06:49
An: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

the NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to
include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like
Google and answers.com  because it was a more restrictive license.

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 12:44, Pine W  wrote:

> Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that
> restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media
> files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
>
> I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't
> remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for
> lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed
> solution was to set up another website for media files that would
> allow media with NC restrictions.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



--
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,