- You must change.
- Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
we can fix it.
- No, you must change first.
Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and
throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a
Hoi,
When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the
impact factor, it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my
blogpost.
I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the
rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements.
And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider
it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong
with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would
be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions
to enrage those
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
all drama?
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
As you said, the first issue of Commons is
Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
C'est facile de se moquer dans sa langue maternelle, de jouer sur les mots
et d'entourer ses insultes d'un joli emballage. Ça n'est pas vraiment ma
manière d'être, alors dans une langue étrangère...
C'est facile de venir taper sur Commons sur cette
Absolutely not the only one!
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
Date: 12/12/2014 11:44 (GMT+02:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism
Gerard,
Thanks for adding all of those statements to Wikidata! Thanks to you, I
have been able to match up thousands of artists in Mix-n-Match!
Like you, I am not afraid of a 1%-3% error margin, especially when tools
like Mix-n-Match mean we can uncover such mistakes quickly and efficiently.
2014-12-11 20:14 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing to do when anyone is
free to express their point of view in the deletion request so that a
closing admin can consider all
On 12 December 2014 at 11:29, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I commented in two chocolate 'packaging' related deletion requests
today, before this thread started, my opinion being to keep. Why don't
you join me in keeping these images in time for Christmas by making
positive comments
On 12 December 2014 at 09:59, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
Si pour une fois, au lieu de pleurer parce que machin a été méchant en
proposant votre image à la suppression, vous proposiez des choses
constructives, des améliorations possibles du logiciel par exemple, ou une
façon de
2014-12-12 12:37 GMT+00:00 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
...
sensible repository to work with. The inanity with Israeli
parliamentary works was the key point in a talk on the subject at
Wikimania.
I was in the front front row at that Wikimania presentation, and
happen to be good friends with
On 12 December 2014 at 12:47, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I'm genuinely afraid to say it was more of an emotive response.
The extensive criticism of Commons administrators made was not well
founded. That images had to be removed and that there were
consequences was an issue that should
On 12 December 2014 at 13:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Commons was raising quasi-legal objections that literally nobody else
considered a plausible threat model. It's your fault as long as you
continue to defend it.
In fairness a simple statement from the Israeli government is
On 12 December 2014 at 10:59, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre.
Just because you're writing in your native language of French doesn't mean
that civility is optional - just as it should not be for native speakers of
English. As *The Matrix
Ha! Thanks Liam, let me be the first to admit that I'm guilty as charged! I
would have used the clip of Paul Newman from Cool Hand Luke on
communication, but maybe that just shows my age. I have one comment on your
comment about Wikidata metadata handling. Yes this is currently done
locally on
Hi luis, I could understand liams mail, and the links russavia sent. Could
you match the this somehow from a legal standpoint?
Rupert
On Dec 11, 2014 5:55 PM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
On 12 December 2014 at 17:34, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the
best images available,
Why would we settle for that? The reality is that many of the available
images are only so-so. WP:FPC shows we can better
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
Compare and contrast to the goal of illustrating an encyclopedia with the
best images available, making use of American fair use law to which such
illustrations are legally entitled.
Tim Davenport
Carrite on WP
2014-12-12 16:40 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com:
From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the
Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of
all drama?
Not just that, but also...
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against
photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing
This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
That comment is unhelpful
My takeaway from this mail was that someone finally noticed that Commons
does, in fact, thank you for your uploads now. That was a positive
byproduct of Wiki Loves Monuments in 2011-2012!
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
Luis,
I know all about that applause Jimmy received.
http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif
Steven, is that you in the middle? :
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Maybe Russavia is having a bad day and needs a time out.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about
a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.
If people can't understand
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and
I'm not having a bad day Nathan. It shits me to tears when we
continually hear of Commons being broken; when in fact it works very
well.
I will say that the person who is doing the packaging DR's is going
thru them, with our Commons policies in mind. You are attacking that
person on a public
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to
any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies)
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is
fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't
Marco there's hope!
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/102821/ip-minefield-monkey-makes-copyright-history/
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
reason for deletion. The logo is
I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs
closed as kept.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_Duff.jpg
Regards,
Jee
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies)
On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
but fop trumps all else when you are outside
Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that
liberal.
--
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
Shut up, Russavia.
I wouldn't normally be so curt with someone I just put on moderation,
but apparently you think that's an appropriate tone to use on this
list.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is
On 11 December 2014 at 18:04, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
issue was referring
Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he
appears to be speaking in his staff role.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
not terribly productive, nor a very nice
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
too soon passes into
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them -
these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
(Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get
on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
gemaakt om
Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There
must be tens of 1000's out there by now
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:
Als inbreuk op het
Steven Walling, 11/12/2014 17:40:
I just noticed
Really? The day after tomorrow is the 12th birthday of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avoid_copyright_paranoiaoldid=649
!
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
It is good that Steven Walling is observing the way he is treated by the
officious fanatics at Commons and now is thinking twice about ever
uploading anything to Commons. It's a completely dysfunctional project
that has little to do with the task of creating and illustrating an
encyclopedia. It's
I don't think those pictures are going to be deleted - there are
plenty of pictures of cars on commons, and I haven't seen a movement
to get them all deleted (I don't spend much time on commons, though,
so I might have missed it). I do think it would be a good thing to
keep them, but fop should
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an anal retentive
Just on the same page as Pipo, thank you Steven for this nice troll.
2014-12-11 21:39 GMT+01:00 Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have
On 11 December 2014 at 16:40, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
On 12/11/14, 8:14 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car.
The
On 12/12/14 03:40, Steven Walling wrote:
Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
I don't know what that would technically look like.
As you said, the first issue of Commons is demotivating contributors. And
this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors anal
retentive or fussy neckbeards.
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another nazi, as Americans
do.
Hoi,
This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When
As ever thanks Magnus.
On 4 July 2014 05:48, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice work.
Pine
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
wrote:
David, thanks for posting that link here.
Magnus, it looks like you've made (yet another) excellent tool, and
It's nice technically, but the fact that it's necessary is tragic.
The Evacuation title is very apt. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Brazil and
other countries are talking about creating their own internets. It's a
shame that the Wikimedia community does essentially the same thing -
dividing humanity
Quick status update: So far, not a single file has been evacuated to
English Wikipedia [1].
Either Commons admins don't know about it, or don't care.
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:From_Commons
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
Thank you, Magnus!
(add wikimedia-l to cc)
- d.
On 3 July 2014 21:47, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
An attempt to alleviate the tensions caused by file deletions on Commons:
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=218
___
David, thanks for posting that link here.
Magnus, it looks like you've made (yet another) excellent tool, and
described the problem it aims to alleviate in an eloquent and accessible
way.
Great to see a step forward in this area!
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David
Nice work.
Pine
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
David, thanks for posting that link here.
Magnus, it looks like you've made (yet another) excellent tool, and
described the problem it aims to alleviate in an eloquent and accessible
way.
Great to
Hi,
2014-06-11 17:55 GMT+05:30 Charles Gregory wmau.li...@chuq.net:
Michael, I assume it is Ray Saintonge of Wikimedia Canada
(User:Eclecticology)
Yes, that's him.
Yann
Regards,
Charles (User:Chuq)
Wikimedia Australia
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name
Michael, I assume it is Ray Saintonge of Wikimedia Canada
(User:Eclecticology)
Regards,
Charles (User:Chuq)
Wikimedia Australia
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
Hi Yann
This is a really useful resource. Who is looking after it now, and how is
it
Hi Yann
This is a really useful resource. Who is looking after it now, and how is it
being funded? I don’t know who ‘Ray’ is.
Michael
On 8 Jun 2014, at 17:43, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-06-08 21:56 GMT+05:30 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com:
Would it make
Hello,
Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source
country and in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: free
in source country only, and to cope with US laws where the servers are
hosted found a DMCA take down notice Team in OTRS, that will handle
requests
] On Behalf Of matanya
Sent: 08 June 2014 12:21
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons and OCILLA
Hello,
Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source country and
in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: free in source country
only
On 8 June 2014 12:21, matanya mata...@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello,
Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source
country and in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: free
in source country only, and to cope with US laws where the servers are
hosted found a DMCA
On 8 June 2014 12:21, matanya mata...@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello,
Commons licensing policy determines media should be free in source
country and in US. I want to propose We change the policy to be: free
in source country only, and to cope with US laws where the servers are
hosted found a
BTW, why we have separate policies for Commons and Wikipedia? I just
noticed that photographs deleted from Common per not free in source
country are restored by our own (Commons) admins in English Wikipedia.
Jee
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 5:18 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2014
Would it make sense to deploy a server in another country under a domain
not owned by the foundation? E.g. Switzerland?
Rupert
Am 08.06.2014 14:10 schrieb Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com:
BTW, why we have separate policies for Commons and Wikipedia? I just
noticed that photographs deleted
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons and OCILLA
Would it make sense to deploy a server in another country under a domain not
owned by the foundation? E.g. Switzerland?
Rupert
Am 08.06.2014 14:10 schrieb Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com:
BTW, why we have separate policies
Hi,
2014-06-08 21:56 GMT+05:30 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com:
Would it make sense to deploy a server in another country under a domain
not owned by the foundation? E.g. Switzerland?
I already started that in 2005. It is called Wikilivres: http://wikilivres.ca/
In 2010, I could not
Ah, my apologies! Should have given a closer reading
S
-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of rupert THURNER
Sent: 08 June 2014 18:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
Hello,
Here is another perspective on this same issue and an actionable remedy for
a lot of the problems we are discussing here.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-May/004287.html
That email describes a game in which people use a game on Wikidata to tag
biographies with a
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Lane Rasberry l...@bluerasberry.comwrote:
The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to
search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th
century French painters, it would be ideal to just have tags for people
2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.org:
The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection. So
actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
Our definitiions of very easy are not intersecting :)
It is possible yes, but to qualify for
On 20 May 2014 02:16, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
ridiculously specific subcategories.
Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
distinction you're making? :-)
We've
On 20 May 2014 02:44, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm
aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended
feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be
hierarchal (i.e., you
Hoi,
OmegaWiki did a proof of concept for tagging images with multilingual tags
years ago..
Categories are broken by design. It is not only that they are unilingual,
it is also that they are always in the plural. Why look for horses when you
look for a picture of a horse?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se wrote:
2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.org:
The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection.
So
actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
Our
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should
be a clustering feature.[3] Wouldn't such a feature pretty much solve
the problem that we currently have with search, and which won't be
solved
On 19 May 2014 18:59, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should
be a clustering feature.[3] Wouldn't such a feature pretty much solve
the
On 20 May 2014 00:05, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia's post directed to me earlier in this thread managed in one stroke
to confirm just about everything that I said: that comments from those who
aren't regular participants on Commons are to be belittled and ignored,
that even a
On 19 May 2014 19:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2014 00:05, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia's post directed to me earlier in this thread managed in one
stroke
to confirm just about everything that I said: that comments from those
who
aren't regular
On 20 May 2014 00:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I did give serious consideration to going and properly categorizing the
image, but given the underlying threat from Russavia, and my disinclination
to be blocked, I'll leave it to someone who finds the Commons experience
less
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2014 00:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I did give serious consideration to going and properly categorizing the
image, but given the underlying threat from Russavia, and my
disinclination
to be
David Gerard wrote:
I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
ridiculously specific subcategories.
Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
distinction you're making? :-)
Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side,
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 May 2014 18:59, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should
be a
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:16 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
ridiculously specific subcategories.
Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
distinction you're making?
Nathan wrote:
Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical
nature of categories.
For ease of use (adding and removing), I think most wikis have HotCat
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/HotCat). Is that insufficient?
Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical
Hoi,
Easy and obvious when you look at it with eyes that do not expect English.
A tag will be linked to Wikidata. Consequently it will show differently
depending on the language you have selected for yourself.
It is just these other people who will be serviced. Another reason is that
there are
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:44 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical
nature of categories.
For ease of use (adding and removing), I think most wikis have HotCat
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/HotCat).
MZMcBride - Categories are hierarchical and people worry about them
overlapping. Tags have no hierarchy.
The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to
search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th
century French painters, it would be ideal
Lane Rasberry wrote:
MZMcBride - Categories are hierarchical and people worry about them
overlapping. Tags have no hierarchy.
Categories _can be_ hierarchical, but categories can simultaneously be
flat. People worry about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean there are
substantive issues to be
I think intersection is the most significant cause of the current
categorisation system.
My understanding of the current reasoning behind categorisation as seen on
Commons and elsewhere is that:
1) the lack of category intersection causes the very specific categories,
which are essentially saved
101 - 200 of 284 matches
Mail list logo
