Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with your more sophisticated concerns about what is going on. However, I think it's really important to put them in context. If Wikimedia Commons had existed in 1985, this would be a very compelling line of criticism. But in 2014, the same kind of issues -- occasionally encountering shockingly inappropriate images on occasion -- happens whether you are using Wikimedia Commons, Google search, Flickr, Instagram, or any number of other sites -- not to mention spam that arrives unbidden in your email box. If there are studies that quantify how often this happens in different contexts, I'm not aware of them (and would be very happy to learn about them). Until we can look at that kind of study, I refuse to accept as a premise that Commons is categorically worse than other broad collections of media on the Internet. Commons is fundamentally different from Google, Flickr and other image repositories in that it doesn't have safe search, neither as default nor as an option. If you enter human male, forefinger, Asian, Caucasian, or Black as search terms in – 1. Google Images http://images.google.com/ 2. Flickr https://www.flickr.com/ 3. Wikipedia Multimedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=fulltext=Searchprofile=images – the results are strikingly different, with the Wikimedia image repository the only one returning NSFW results (this applies even if you switch Google Safe Search off). You can philosophically debate, applaud or excoriate that fact, as many have done, but it remains a fact. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Commons is fundamentally different from Google, Flickr and other image repositories in that it doesn't have safe search, neither as default nor as an option. Have you never had Safe Search features fail? It seems to happen regularly for me. Overall though -- I don't disagree with you, this is stuff that should be fixed. But as Erik pointed out, the fix is not obvious. The thing that bothers me is when people (especially movement leaders) falsely accuse entire communities of standing in the way of progress. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons vs. local media search
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is much more likely that a Wikipedia reader would expect to find those images *used in Wikipedia articles* than a massive collection of stuff that is somehow tangentially related to Wikipedia in a way that they don't fully understand. So why on earth does the main multimedia search link on Wikipedia automatically return unused results from Commons to begin with? Is that really the right way to go? I'm breaking out this question since it's a concrete technical proposal; it should probably also be raised on the multimedia list. But we should answer it from the perspective What's best for the user, rather than have it be driven solely by the NSFW corner case (which may also appear when searching images used on a project like en.wp alone). As a user, I might want to find images to add to an article. Having results from the central repository presented locally makes it easier to do so without visiting a separate site. (Consider this from the perspective of smaller projects especially, where the local search would be pretty much useless.) This is why VisualEditor presents Commons search results, as well. As a user, I might be interested in multimedia about a certain topic I just read about in Wikipedia. Showing only the results already in the Wikipedia article(s) about the topic would make it harder to find such media. Simple example: Let's say I read an article about a city, and I want to find other historic maps of that city. In many cases, these maps do exist on Commons but not locally. Should we therefore force people to visit Commons to find them? I would argue that from the ordinary user's perspective, the distinction between Wikipedia/Commons is less important than what they have in common, i.e. being large repositories of useful educational content (and hyperbole aside, 99% of Commons is pretty boring stuff). We could default to displaying locally used media and offer to search Commons with an extra click. From a usability perspective, you want to minimize the steps a user has to take, so good UX design would likely disclose results from Commons either a) always, clearly labeled or b) when no local results are available. There's no question that search UX, both on Commons and on Wikipedia, can be improved. I'm just skeptical that an unbiased evaluation of the user experience using standard UX heuristics would lead to a design that hides explicit content from initial search results. Distinguish different types of content more clearly and make it easier to find the stuff you want - sure, that's doable. With Cirrus (the New Seach beta feature) both marking stuff from commons as from commons and adding a tick box to remove stuff from commons would also be possible. Marking would be easier but both wouldn't be too hard. We could even artificially push results that are on the local wiki higher then those on commons. I know its a horrible excuse, but we're spinning up a project to rework the search page's user interface. It hasn't something like that since tables in table in tables was normal. We've been talking about this. The project is still in the those a pretty mock ups stage and it has been moving slowly. Nik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons vs. local media search
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I think it is much more likely that a Wikipedia reader would expect to find those images *used in Wikipedia articles* than a massive collection of stuff that is somehow tangentially related to Wikipedia in a way that they don't fully understand. So why on earth does the main multimedia search link on Wikipedia automatically return unused results from Commons to begin with? Is that really the right way to go? I'm breaking out this question since it's a concrete technical proposal; it should probably also be raised on the multimedia list. But we should answer it from the perspective What's best for the user, rather than have it be driven solely by the NSFW corner case (which may also appear when searching images used on a project like en.wp alone). As a user, I might want to find images to add to an article. Having results from the central repository presented locally makes it easier to do so without visiting a separate site. (Consider this from the perspective of smaller projects especially, where the local search would be pretty much useless.) This is why VisualEditor presents Commons search results, as well. As a user, I might be interested in multimedia about a certain topic I just read about in Wikipedia. Showing only the results already in the Wikipedia article(s) about the topic would make it harder to find such media. Simple example: Let's say I read an article about a city, and I want to find other historic maps of that city. In many cases, these maps do exist on Commons but not locally. Should we therefore force people to visit Commons to find them? I would argue that from the ordinary user's perspective, the distinction between Wikipedia/Commons is less important than what they have in common, i.e. being large repositories of useful educational content (and hyperbole aside, 99% of Commons is pretty boring stuff). We could default to displaying locally used media and offer to search Commons with an extra click. From a usability perspective, you want to minimize the steps a user has to take, so good UX design would likely disclose results from Commons either a) always, clearly labeled or b) when no local results are available. There's no question that search UX, both on Commons and on Wikipedia, can be improved. I'm just skeptical that an unbiased evaluation of the user experience using standard UX heuristics would lead to a design that hides explicit content from initial search results. Distinguish different types of content more clearly and make it easier to find the stuff you want - sure, that's doable. Erik Thanks Erik, this all sounds like a very reasonable and welcome approach. I certainly don't think my proposal is complete, and as I indicated I don't have the capability to do the required user research, but would hope this idea could be a useful prompt for charting of a path forward. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin, Feel free to have one of the people who don't have a nasty head injury ask me the question. That would be fine, and I would actually prefer it. Given your head injury, I'm actually a little surprised that your friends did think of asking me themselves under the circumstances. Cheers Russavia Cutting to the chase, bearing in mind the location and other visual cues, I personally would also assume that the description was indeed apt. In other words, if I saw those women standing there, I'd assume they were prostitutes too. However, assumptions can be wrong. It would be wise for Commons to err on the side of caution, and not label potentially identifiable women as prostitutes on the basis of an unknown individual's upload to Commons. This is a good example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Street_prostitute_EP_Blvd_02_Memphis_TN.jpg She might well be a prostitute. She might also (for example) just have had a tiff with her ex-boyfriend, who snapped this picture. To be wrong in one out of a hundred cases like that is one time too many. In topic areas like that, I'd be far more comfortable relying on an image from a verifiable source like the one you mentioned in the deletion discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9.000919_Pattaya_streetscene5.jpg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Capabilities that exist today with the new search include
template-based boosting of results, a feature that's already enabled
on Commons and which will boost quality content in search results:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templatesaction=edit
For the record, negative boosting is possible as well. So if folks
wanted to add {{NSFW}} to media files that should appear lower in
search results and then apply a 100% boost to that template, that
would put those results further down. Of course that would likely have
unintended consequences, and also take us down the familiar road of
having to figure out what to label / not label.
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Kevin, Andreas, et al: It took me a couple days, but I've assembled my list of files, exceeding the 10 I had committed to: http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/ I hope this annotated list of interesting deletion discussions on Commons is helpful to those who don't regularly participate; there is so much activity there that can be difficult to track. Of course, it's not close to exhaustive; I'd welcome suggestions of additional examples to highlight, and if anybody wants to copy this to a wiki page for further expansion that's fine by me. Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job supporting my position (Commons is healthy and productive) than they do yours (Commons is broken). I understand you disagree, and that's fine. A final detail, directed mainly to Wil (and anybody interested in the Board resolution that's been discussed): I don't think it's been mentioned that the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year later: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_feature Anyway -- I hope we can have a bit more discussion about the decision-making practices at Commons, informed by a wider variety of specific examples than we have had so far in this discussion thread. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 15 May 2014 23:20, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: A final detail, directed mainly to Wil (and anybody interested in the Board resolution that's been discussed): I don't think it's been mentioned that the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year later: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_feature The most important thing to remember about tihe image filter - and its enabling resolution, the principle of least surprise - is that this was such a *stupendously* bad idea that it very nearly led to the second hostile fork of a Wikimedia project. Thus, anyone citing the POLS without noting this is being disingenous at absolute best. (Look back through this thread. I see one aspirant to steward.) - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Pete, you know the toothbrush image you talk about on your blog still shows up on a Commons search for electric toothbrush, right? It's in Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrusheshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_people_with_electric_toothbrusheswhich is in turn a subcategory of Category:People with electric toothbrusheshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_electric_toothbrushesso it shows up on any search of electric toothbrush. Seems the whole category thing really isn't as solved as well as people think. It still comes up as image #4 on a multimedia search of enwiki for electric toothbrush and about #45 for a multimedia search of toothbrush. Even though the title was changed, it remains in the category that gives high-ranking searches. Risker/Anne On 15 May 2014 18:20, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin, Andreas, et al: It took me a couple days, but I've assembled my list of files, exceeding the 10 I had committed to: http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/ I hope this annotated list of interesting deletion discussions on Commons is helpful to those who don't regularly participate; there is so much activity there that can be difficult to track. Of course, it's not close to exhaustive; I'd welcome suggestions of additional examples to highlight, and if anybody wants to copy this to a wiki page for further expansion that's fine by me. Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job supporting my position (Commons is healthy and productive) than they do yours (Commons is broken). I understand you disagree, and that's fine. A final detail, directed mainly to Wil (and anybody interested in the Board resolution that's been discussed): I don't think it's been mentioned that the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year later: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_feature Anyway -- I hope we can have a bit more discussion about the decision-making practices at Commons, informed by a wider variety of specific examples than we have had so far in this discussion thread. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Pete, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of the Commons community when I say that it is disheartening to continually hear the mantra commons is broken, when that could not be further from the truth. Your blog post, helps to present some of that reality, so I thank you, both on my behalf and on behalf of the Commons community. I will have some comments later on a couple of issues. Risker, Of course the image still shows up on search for electric toothbrush. If you read the closure on that DR, which I wrote in conjunction with 3 other admins, the issue is very clear. It's not a Commons problem, but a WMF problem. Cheers Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 15 May 2014 22:22, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of the Commons community when I say that it is disheartening to continually hear the mantra commons is broken, when that could not be further from the truth. Your blog post, helps to present some of that reality, so I thank you, both on my behalf and on behalf of the Commons community. I will have some comments later on a couple of issues. Risker, Of course the image still shows up on search for electric toothbrush. If you read the closure on that DR, which I wrote in conjunction with 3 other admins, the issue is very clear. It's not a Commons problem, but a WMF problem. Cheers The solution to the problem is entirely within the control of Commons - recategorize the image to improvised vibrators instead of electric toothbrush and you're done. I wouldn't dare do it myself, it would be the kind of provocative activity from someone who doesn't really understand Commons that could result in my being blocked. I do understand that much about Commons and its culture. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Nathan wrote: A lot of the issues Kevin is probably referring to revolve around the 2011 debate, and many of the most blatant problems have since been cleaned up. Perhaps some of the most blatant problems have been addressed, but I'm skeptical. I admit I haven't been following this discussion terribly closely, but I just looked at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems again and the first link I clicked... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/asian The first result is File:Asian vulva.jpg while the third result is File:Asian penis.jpg. Perhaps our search capability is simply really bad. Personally, I would expect a search for the term asian to show pictures of Asians. I think there's room for at least consideration of lessons from other fields, such as the principle of least astonishment. Another way of framing this particular issue (search) might be: are the results users receiving what they were looking for or expected? I think in many cases, image search is failing our users. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job supporting my position (Commons is healthy and productive) I'd have been more impressed if Commons had got there by itself, without massive mailing list discussions carrying on for weeks. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-March/006409.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-April/date.html than they do yours (Commons is broken). I understand you disagree, and that's fine. Don't put words in my mouth, Pete. Commons is broken is a Jimmy Wales quote. I do think Commons has some ways to go, though, on adult material. File names that make no pretence at using educational wording are one such area. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, you know the toothbrush image you talk about on your blog still shows up on a Commons search for electric toothbrush, right? It's in Category:Nude or partially nude people with electric toothbrushes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_or_partially_nude_people_with_electric_toothbrushes which is in turn a subcategory of Category:People with electric toothbrushes https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_with_electric_toothbrushes so it shows up on any search of electric toothbrush. Seems the whole category thing really isn't as solved as well as people think. It still comes up as image #4 on a multimedia search of enwiki for electric toothbrush and about #45 for a multimedia search of toothbrush. Even though the title was changed, it remains in the category that gives high-ranking searches. Quite. Same goes for beads, flashlight, or the French word for cucumber (concombre). The tolling bells toll as loudly as ever. This Wikipedia search form is SFW (safe for work): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchsearch=fulltext=Searchprofile=images The search results for the above terms (and many others) are not SFW. The NSFW search results issue never was solved. It's just one of those things there was no political will to fix. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Nathan wrote: A lot of the issues Kevin is probably referring to revolve around the 2011 debate, and many of the most blatant problems have since been cleaned up. Perhaps some of the most blatant problems have been addressed, but I'm skeptical. I admit I haven't been following this discussion terribly closely, but I just looked at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems again and the first link I clicked... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/asian The first result is File:Asian vulva.jpg while the third result is File:Asian penis.jpg. Perhaps our search capability is simply really bad. Personally, I would expect a search for the term asian to show pictures of Asians. I think there's room for at least consideration of lessons from other fields, such as the principle of least astonishment. Another way of framing this particular issue (search) might be: are the results users receiving what they were looking for or expected? I think in many cases, image search is failing our users. We're getting a long way off topic of the still frame on MOTD, but I agree, and wish that the WMF would make this a priority for their multimedia and search team. Many improvements have been suggested by the community, and both sides of the fence have even agreed on some of them, such as clustered search results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35701 -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Risker,
The solution to the problem is entirely within the control of Commons -
recategorize the image to improvised vibrators instead of electric
toothbrush and you're done. I wouldn't dare do it myself, it would be the
kinunderstandd of provocative activity from someone who doesn't really
Commons that could result in my being blocked. I do understand that much
about Commons and its culture.
I will respond to your last point first. I, as well as many other
Commonists/Commoners/whatever, make ourselves available on IRC in
#wikimedia-commons, and we often have people visiting the channel with
queries on images. I recall only ever having seen you on two occasions
in that channel, and I remember both occasions vividly, because I said
g'day on both occasions, and assisted you.
The first occasion you brought to our attention a logo which was on
Commons, and which was an obvious copyright violation. I proceeded to
immediately delete the file, and explained to you that in future you
can simply apply {{copyvio}} to the file in question and it would be
dealt with. It's not because we don't mind people using IRC to bring
files to our attention, because we don't mind at all, it's just that
workflows on Commons in that area are dealt with pretty quickly, as
this attests to,[1] and it would you to streamline your time as well.
The second occasion you brought to our attention a sexual image, and
upon looking at it I immediately deleted it as being out of scope. I
didn't bother taking it to DR, and have deleted literally hundreds of
sexual images from Commons this way by using the discretion that the
community places in admins. You were thanked for bringing it to our
attention, and I told you not to hesitate to contact me directly if
you should come across other such images in future, and I would review
them, and deal with them as appropriate.
This just doesn't align with the Commons and its culture that you
understand, does it? But ok, let's use an example which could result
in an editor being blocked.
There was a thread on Gendergap which discussed some images on
Commons.[2] As a result of this thread, an English Wikipedia
Bureaucrat, and an only occasional admin on Commons, proceeded to mass
delete the entire lot of images, many of which had been through a
deletion request in the past, and some of which were in use.[3] As
Pete Forsyth mentioned,[4] EVula showed utter contempt for Commons
process and really should have gone through the de-admin process. How
did that pan out?[5]
But of course, you, with a grand total of 303 edits on Commons going
back to 2007 (most of which comprises of voting on Picture of the
Year) are speaking from a position of experience when you say you
understand Commons and its culture. So you'll excuse me, but it is a
bit rich you saying that, and see your comments as insanely out of
touch with the reality.[6] And, quite frankly, you should ensure your
own house is in order, before making ill-informed judgments on
project culture as you have made. Would you like me to provide a prime
example of what I mean? And it is a most disgusting episode I can tell
you, and list members would cringe with horror if they were to see
this example. Tell me if you would like to hear the example, and I'll
start a new thread on it. It could also generate discussion on an
issue which afflicts our projects.
Now, Risker, the solution to the problem that you have described lies
not in censoring Commons, which is essentially what you have
suggested, but in what is written in the closure of the DR.
Unfortunately, that would require some money to be spent on fixing the
problem, and would stop anti-Commons tirades as we are seeing here and
elsewhere.
It would appear that the WMF is more interested in spending money on
having Indian students inserting copyright violations en masse on
English Wikipedia[7] and other such nonsense. I do totally sympathise
with the Indian students, however,[8] because I have contacted
relevant people at the WMF on numerous occasions, but unlike the
Indian students I have never received a response (usual for the WMF
unfortunately).
I have been told that it might cost $10-20,000 to get someone to
write code to implement the solution that sees varied support amongst
different camps,[9] (including support by a WMF Trustee) yet here we
are, the WMF has $60+ million budgets, spends $1.5 million to fly the
entire WMF staff for a junket to Hong Kong, and a host of other
wasteful spending, and yet one of the most prominent issues on our
projects is actively ignored.
You're close with the WMF Risker, why don't you lobby them for a
solution as was pointed out in that DR closure? It would certainly go
a huge way to fixing the problem if they would spend some real money
on search and implement solutions that the community so direly
requires.
Perhaps, finally, we can drop the the anti-Commons combative attitude
as has been so prevalent in this thread, and other projects can work
with
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:03 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: We're getting a long way off topic of the still frame on MOTD, but I agree, and wish that the WMF would make this a priority for their multimedia and search team. Many improvements have been suggested by the community, and both sides of the fence have even agreed on some of them, such as clustered search results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming#Clustering_for_search_results_on_Commons https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35701 First, as general background, WMF recently started migrating its search infrastructure over to ElasticSearch. See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:CirrusSearch The new search is available on Commons as a BetaFeature. It's worth looking at search results that are viewed as problematic through the new search and compare. For example, the results for Asian are markedly different in the new search. I would caution against a simplistic characterization of technology as a solution for what's inherently a complex socio-technical problem. That was a core issue with the image filter proposal and it's a similar issue here. If people insist on uploading pictures of masturbation with toothbrushes, those pictures will come up in searches. If we insist on not having a distinction between explicit and non-explicit materials in file metadata, search results won't have it either. We can point the finger at technology because that's easy, but it's not magical pixie dust. To get a feel for ElasticSearch's capabilities, please see the help page above, as well as the tech talk that Nik gave earlier today on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FubXExbAvOA Capabilities that exist today with the new search include template-based boosting of results, a feature that's already enabled on Commons and which will boost quality content in search results: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Cirrussearch-boost-templatesaction=edit ElasticSearch has support for faceting (see http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-facets.html ), which might come in handy for creating a breakdown of search results. However, keep in mind that unless you collapse each facet by default, you're still going to show explicit thumbs -- and collapsing results by default could compromise usability to an unacceptable degree for the common use case. The more complex suggestions that include taking the full category tree into account also seem fairly complex/expensive (ElasticSearch has no awareness of the actual category tree structure, which is a complex structure to traverse) and a faceted search that only operates on the specific categories associated with a given file might not be very useful due to the high degree of granularity that exists in the category structure. I'd encourage Nik and Chad (search engineers) to weigh in here on the bug as they see fit, as well as correct me if I'm misrepresenting anything in the above. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; is this one of those cases? Yes -- although I don't think it's been linked in this discussion, I'm pretty sure the resolution Kevin is referring to is this one: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content Two comments on that: - It does not have specific requirements of the community that must be complied with; rather, it makes suggestions of stuff to keep in mind, which have certainly been much discussed since the passage of the resolution in 2011; - Beyond the issues related to applying a principle of software design to the world of editorial judgment, this resolution has itself been the topic of some controversy in the Wikimedia movement. But not, as far as I'm aware, from the Commons community specifically; as I understand it, it was more a matter of the German Wikipedia community rebelling at the notion of a software feature designed to suppress (for instance) images depicting nudity from the default view (or even as an opt-in feature, since that would require tagging certain images in a way that might support entities outside Wikimedia to apply censorship.) FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like fuck, but in my experience it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. Agreed. Especially in a discussion of meeting cultural expectations, this seems like a very strange and provocative choice of words. Pete ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 13 May 2014 21:08, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote: I've never heard Principle of Least Astonishment used this way. I've only heard it used in the context of software design- specifically user experience- and never to describe content. WP seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment Certain terms seem to have special significance in the WP community; is this one of those cases? FWIW, I'm not taken aback by words like fuck, but in my experience it always undermines serious arguments that it is used in. This is grand historic debate :-) POLA got thrown around a lot in the c. 2011 debates about whether WP should support/enable/allow/contemplate some kind of image filtering - it was used in the Board resolution which more or less kicked the whole thing off. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The sense here seems to be that you might expect nudity on a medical or sexuality-related page, but you wouldn't expect random nudity in an article about a bridge.* But then, what level of nudity? Click-to-view? How graphic? etc. It's a good principle but relies on individual editorial common sense, which of course is very difficult to scale and very vulnerable to deliberate disruption. We had a few months of yelling, lots of grumbling and accusations of bad faith, and the whole thing eventually ground to a halt in late 2011 with very little actually done. The resolution is still out there, though... Andrew. * today's surprising fact: a particularly odd contributor tried to argue for this, at great length, in ~2005. I forget which article on enwiki it was. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Pierre, if you could point out to where exactly I've insulted a volunteer I don't know, it would be appreciated. As someone who has been significantly active in meta-discussions about Commons, and at times significantly active on Commons, and who has monitored all traffic on all Wikimedia mailing lists (or at least 95% of it) for the last three years as well as a significant portion of traffic on individual projects, I'm also going to have to disagree with the idea that I know nothing about Commons :) Having looked back over my posts here, the closest I see is implicitly suggesting that Russavia might be snarky, and suggesting that people with advanced privileges on Commons, as a whole, have frequently exercised less than ideal judgement, as well as an incidental use of a profanity on my part (when interacting in multiple contexts at once, I don't always context switch appropriately.) The first two things which could be conceived as insults (I suppose) are first and foremost true, and secondarily I'm sure that Russavia can deal having it suggested that he might, sometimes, be kind of snarky. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.infowrote: How about you shut your mouth and stop insulting volunteer from other projects that you just don't know. Really that would spare a lot of time to everyone here on this mailing list. 2014-05-13 21:39 GMT+02:00 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and are not censured by their peers is a project with problems. David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board supports the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and won't become so through repetition. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
I don't think it's a secret that I've also been active on the Wikipediocracy forums. I've seen some rough stuff over there, and I've even started a thread lecturing them on the nature of their discourse: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13t=4527 That said, I haven't seen anyone on Wikipediocracy treat another person in their forums like this yet. My point is that no matter what our views on Wikipedia, parts of the WP community, and individuals within that community, everyone benefits from each participant in the discussion holding themselves to high standards of personal respect and everyone loses when disagreement turns to insult. Forums with these kinds of comments are not taken as seriously as more civil forums, and anyone who chooses to express themselves this way should think about how it impacts everyone else in the group. There. I'm done lecturing now. :) ,Wil On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-se...@huard.info wrote: How about you shut your mouth and stop insulting volunteer from other projects that you just don't know. Really that would spare a lot of time to everyone here on this mailing list. 2014-05-13 21:39 GMT+02:00 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Pete: there's not really any point in making this thread a laundry list of times that admins and crats on commons fucked up vs times they didn't fuck up. There are plenty of historical decisions on Commons that I agree wholeheartedly with. There have even been cases where I advanced arguments in deletion nominations that I honestly didn't expect to be accepted that were, including one instance where someone who initially voted keep took the time to go ahead and read the laws of the country the photograph was taken in w/r/t identifiable people and changed his vote. Instances like that are absolutely commendable, but they're also far from universal. Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. Commons doesn't speak with a unified voice, but people with advanced userrights on Commons do speak with a louder voice than the rest of the community, in that they have the ostensible authority to actually carry out their actions. A project where people with advanced userrights fairly regularly make decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions and are not censured by their peers is a project with problems. David: I haven't seen anyone assert that the image in question isn't a violation of the principle of least astonishment. I've seen several people suggest the image was acceptable for other reasons. If you can articulate a reasonable (i.e., not full of snark and one that indicates you've read at least most of the ongoing discussion) argument that putting the image in question on Commons frontpage (and the frontpage of numerous other projects in the process,) is not a violation of the principle of least astonishment, I'd love to hear it. Especially if you craft your argument to recognize the fact that the image was both displayed on projects that didn't speak any of the languages it was captioned in, and given that most Wikimedia viewers can't actually play our video formats. I guess you could argue that the resolution only says that the board supports the POLA rather than requires it, but that's a rather weak argument for putting a grainy black and white stack of dead corpses linking to a video many can't play that's only captioned in a handful of langauges on the frontpage of a project that serves projects in 287 different languages. Kevin Gorman On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 May 2014 05:04, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. See, there you're asserting that this is a slam-dunk violation, and it's really clear just from this thread that it really isn't. Your personal feelings are not the determinant of Wikimedia comment, and won't become so through repetition. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi, As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided. 1/ Which projects? A GlobalUsage on the current MOTD (as well as the one from yesterday and the one from tomorrow) seems to indicate that no Wikimedia projects transclude the MOTD. 2/ Assuming they exist, do these projects *also* use the actual thumbtime hardcoded for its display as MOTD on Wikimedia Commons? -- Jean-Frédéric ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: a sizable majority of people who use Wikimedia projects are literally incapable of actually playing the video in question. Kevin -- it's neither a majority, much less a sizable majority, of readers who are incapable of viewing videos. There are of course some platforms that don't permit the viewing of free video formats, and that is of course a cause for legitimate concern. But there's nothing to be (legitimately) gained by overstating it. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. So you've provided two examples where you agree that the correct decision was ultimately made, and where that decision has stood (in one case) for a year, and (in the other) for two years without being challenged or reversed. Your examples don't match what I was asking for (and there are plenty of examples like that out there, so I'm surprised you've brought these ones forward). Your point is like saying that the entire US court system is broken, on the basis that some decisions in trial courts have historically been overturned by the more careful analysis of the Supreme Court. You're underscoring the *healthy* (if maybe inefficient) functioning of Commons, not the opposite. But, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some good decisions, so I'll give your strange nominations the benefit of the doubt and come up with 10 examples of clearly good decisions. Unfortunately I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I should be able to get to it in the next 12-24 hours. I'll post to a page on Commons, and publish a link here. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often repeatedly. David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this assertion more true merely by repeating it. Examples, please -- or else please drop it. Example 1: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_(6th_nomination) Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations. Example 2: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual_penetrative_use_of_cucumbers Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address. So you've provided two examples where you agree that the correct decision was ultimately made, and where that decision has stood (in one case) for a year, and (in the other) for two years without being challenged or reversed. Your examples don't match what I was asking for (and there are plenty of examples like that out there, so I'm surprised you've brought these ones forward). What more do you want, mate? You asked for examples of historical decisions that flew in the face of the board resolution. Yes, after these cases received a lot of attention on the mailing lists, people (including some of the same people who had previously decided Keep) did indeed, with remarkable unanimity, come to the conclusion that these files should be deleted. This was after the closing admin in one of these cases had threatened, after the thirteenth Keep closure (well after the board resolution was published), that if he were to see another nomination, I will probably just revert it and protect the page. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Go for it Kevin, That’s putting your money where your mouth is. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 11 May 2014 01:04 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses. On 10 May 2014 23:54, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: I was using oversight rather loosely to mean there's a body of people looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before they get out of the gate, rather than any stricter sense of the term. I view the scrutiny of a reasonable number of other Wikimedians as a form of oversight, even without a hierarchical structure in place. I would say that ITN or DYK on ENWP have reasonable oversight (although it certainly sometimes fails,) but don't view a process that needs 1-2 people to promote something to a highly viewed mainpage as having reasonable oversight. So you're signing up? Excellent! How long do you think you'll keep it up? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7470 - Release Date: 05/10/14 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Geni, On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:42 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 May 2014 07:29, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: individual to promote hooks, and that it should be taken up with them. I remember getting a response that it would be inappropriate to have foul language (or a photo thereof) visible like that on the front page, even though it certainly wasn't foul language at allit's simply the name of the town. No it isn't and you know that. Of course it is, because it was clearly given context. If it was just a photo of that sign and nothing more, then one could rightly say it is what one would likely think. But when given context: that the Austrian town of Fucking installed theft-resistant road signs in 2005 because the signs were frequently stolen by tourists? it is indeed just a sign for the town, and nothing more than that. Like the Fucking police chief said on the issue of theft of the signs: [w]hat they are, I am not at liberty to disclose, but we will not stand for the Fucking signs being removed. It may be very amusing for you British, but Fucking is simply Fucking to us. What is this big Fucking joke? It is puerile. That others read more into than this shows that the issue clearly lays with themjust like the non-issue on Commons. Cheers, Russavia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi, I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this, and that you are even not active on Commons. If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and participate! Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help... Yann 2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Hi all - This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor. Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link. I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the shock site aspect than the documenting history one. This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack of corpses from a broader video. If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
No, Russavia: I'm not suggesting that Commons' policies should mirror those of ENWP. I'm suggesting that Commons should have a process in place that ensures that it follows the clearly established resolutions of the WMF board, which I would remind you *do* trump local policy. This particular incident failed to do so, and it's not the first time that such a thing has occurred on Commons. I would suggest further that if a process that brings Commons in to compliance with WMF board resolutions is not designed and implemented by the next time this occurs, Commons will likely either be forced to rapidly adopt a process to address the problem, or, if reluctant to do so, is likely to have stewards step in to ensure that WMF board resolutions are not flagrantly disregarded. Neither of those are ideal outcomes for anyone involved. Commons as a community is generally pretty hardline anti-anything-that-could-be-perceived as censorship, which is absolutely fine. However, ignoring WMF board resolutions - repeatedly - especially with no justification other than OMG THIS IS CENSORSHIP is not absolutely fine. If you view my initial post here as an incoherent rant as you've described it elsewhere, I'd suggest you read it again. I'm absolutely happy to help with setting up a process that ensures that ridiculous stuff like this doesn't happen in the future, and intend to participate in on-wiki discussions trying to set up such a process. I will admit that I'm doubtful Commons is willing to comply with resolutions of the WMF board - at least not without putting up a hell of a fight - since the last time I came to Commons and started some deletion nominations based on the fact that the media in question violated multiple WMF board resolutions, although my deletion nominations were pretty consistently upheld, at least one commons admin suggested in seriousness that a more appropriate resolution to the situation would simply be indeffing me from the project rather than conforming to the WMF Board's resolutions about media which involves identifiable people. Kevin Gorman On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin, On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pete - I was using oversight rather loosely to mean there's a body of people looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before they get out of the gate, rather than any stricter sense of the term. I view the scrutiny of a reasonable number of other Wikimedians as a form of oversight, even without a hierarchical structure in place. I would say that ITN or DYK on ENWP have reasonable oversight (although it certainly sometimes fails,) but don't view a process that needs 1-2 people to promote something to a highly viewed mainpage as having reasonable oversight. You seem to be suggesting that: 1) Commons should follow the lead of English Wikipedia and, 2) Commons should become as self-censored as what English Wikipedia has become. Several years ago, I 5x expanded the article for Fucking[1] and I nominated it for DYK.[2] The article had the potential to be the most viewed DYK of all time, but instead of being placed as the lead hook, it was buried at the bottom. When I asked about it possibly being the lead hook, I was told that it was up to any individual to promote hooks, and that it should be taken up with them. I remember getting a response that it would be inappropriate to have foul language (or a photo thereof) visible like that on the front page, even though it certainly wasn't foul language at allit's simply the name of the town. So needless to say, a DYK which could have gotten 100,000 views was left to get only around 15,000 views for that day. Is this the type of oversight you mean Kevin? If so, keep that sort of oversight on English Wikipedia thank you very much. Cheers Russavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_knowoldid=325560941 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Yann - Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. As have been brought up by Risker earlier in this conversation, Common's MOTD on that day was transcluded to the mainpages of projects that do not use one of the five languages in which context for the video was provided. Combining that fact with the fact Commons' has a history of not wanting to comply with WMF board resolutions and the fact that the last time I was heavily active on Commons we stumbled across a page where a couple sysops were chatting about whether or not they could indef me for being disruptive (when I was, pretty literally, only trying to enforce WMF board resolutions,) I view bringing it up at a wider venue as absolutely appropriate, especially given that without this discussion, I'd bet that Fuzheado's and Eddie's ignored comments would still be, well, ignored, rather than there now being a rather active discussion on that page. Best, Kevin Gorman On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am puzzled than you launch such a Wikimedia-wide protest about this, and that you are even not active on Commons. If there is something which you don't like, come to Commons and participate! Sending you opinion accross without doing anything won't help... Yann 2014-05-09 7:40 GMT+05:30 Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com: Hi all - This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor. Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link. I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the shock site aspect than the documenting history one. This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yann - Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. Well, no, it isnt. Wikidata also has a direct effect on the other projects. A very large part of the reason those outside collaborations with Commons exist is that Commons is a project and community which can be compared to Flickr Commons. The other large part is that Commons is attached to Wikipedia, but dont discount the value that the Commons community provides to these collaborations. The inclusion policies and practises of the other wikis all influence and reflect on each other. e.g. English Wikipedia used to contain lots of articles consisting of public domain poems with very little prose, and sometimes translations; now the full text is on Wikisource if the full text is not encyclopedic, and sometimes the articles are deleted from en.wp for not being notable. Perhaps you recall the German Wikipedia put a vulva on their front page. This offended many, caused a large debate here on wikimedia-l, and there was international news about it also IIRC. http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html All projects are occasionally going to press the boundaries. This is a good thing, despite this meaning sometimes they will make a decision that other project communities feel reflects badly on them. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Pete - I was using oversight rather loosely to mean there's a body of people looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before they get out of the gate, rather than any stricter sense of the term. I view the scrutiny of a reasonable number of other Wikimedians as a form of oversight, even without a hierarchical structure in place. I would say that ITN or DYK on ENWP have reasonable oversight (although it certainly sometimes fails,) but don't view a process that needs 1-2 people to promote something to a highly viewed mainpage as having reasonable oversight. Best, Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: Kevin, I didn't think you were using oversight in the MediaWiki jargon sense. But I do think the concept of oversight -- as distinct from consideration, discussion, deliberation, or consensus-building -- is very disconnected from the present reality. What authority would be claimed in conducting this oversight, and what set of rules would be enforced? Pete On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.) - Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean: oversight. ??? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 10 May 2014 23:54, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: I was using oversight rather loosely to mean there's a body of people looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before they get out of the gate, rather than any stricter sense of the term. I view the scrutiny of a reasonable number of other Wikimedians as a form of oversight, even without a hierarchical structure in place. I would say that ITN or DYK on ENWP have reasonable oversight (although it certainly sometimes fails,) but don't view a process that needs 1-2 people to promote something to a highly viewed mainpage as having reasonable oversight. So you're signing up? Excellent! How long do you think you'll keep it up? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the Principle of Least Drama, it is best not to make the same point in multiple places, as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write a brief, neutral statement of the issue. In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
I apologize for that formatting mess. Emails that look beautiful in my Hotmail editing window get mangled when I send them to lists, and this seems to happen on a regular basis. I'll try sending this again. -- Hi Kevin, My comment here expresses my personal opinion only. I understand how bringing this issue to Wikimedia-l could seem appropriate because Commons is a project that has an unusual degree of cross-wiki influence and activity. While it's ok to notify Wikimedia-l that this issue is being discussed, the main body of the discussion should stay on-wiki on Commons [1]. Per the essay about wikidrama on English Wikipedia [2] and the Principle of Least Drama, it is best not to make the same point in multiple places, as split discussions are often more difficult to follow and spread the drama to more places. Also, when placing notices of discussions from other wikis to this list, I think it is best to follow the detailed guidelines for Requests for Comment from English Wikipedia [3] which ask users to write a brief, neutral statement of the issue. In general, cross-wiki and cross-list *advocacy* (not mere notification) from anywhere else to this mailing list could be considered canvassing [4]. I think you were well-intentioned in posting a notice to this list but I would ask you to do it a bit differently in the future. Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:04 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. I think you have good points, and you should make them on Commons, where it appears that other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently [1]. Pine [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Dead_bodies.3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drama [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing Hey Pine, I'd disagree with you here. Canvassing, the Request for comment link, drama...those are all English Wikipedia links. As noted in replies to this post there seems to be a general lack of manpower on Commons to sort out the process. The link you provide to the Commons discussion is, as you framed it, other Commons contributors agree with you that this situation could have been handled differently. There are exactly two participants in that discussion at this time. If there is an internal need on Commons we should all know about it. I'm certain there are those on this list who might have never participated on Commons in this regard (if at all) to be inspired to help out with editorial judgement based on Kevin's email. I get to be the jerk that says Not it! after bringing it up, but really it's because I'd be terrible at it :) -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Hi Keegan, I looked for equivalent Meta policies before posting the links to English Wikipedia. Canvassing is referenced on Meta and Commons although there is no page on Meta or Commons specifically describing a canvassing policy that I see. Perhaps there should be, since both wikis seem to have an unwritten rule against canvassing. I believe I was clear that the RfC guidelines and the Drama essay are from English Wikipedia but I think they are the best practice to follow here, and that this is my opinion only. I agree that posting a notification to this list was appropriate, but not with forking or moving the discussion to here. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The person who selected the image does not care that most of the people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context. The process on Commons for selecting what goes on the front page is very lightweight, and this was a decision made by one person, in the normal way. That’s going to mean that sometimes others might disagree. It would be perfectly possible to set up some sort of more labour-intensive system if people really want that. It would be easy to do: please, everyone, just come over to Commons and volunteer your time. Michael ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
*contradictory meanings, not ideas - I just woke up from a nap and am typing like a sleepy person. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.) - Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean: oversight. ??? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Heh, I probably shouldn't have chosen a word with two more or less contradictory ideas that also refers to a mediawiki userright. I meant oversight as in scrutiny by other Wikimedians to ensure the process doesn't go off the rails, not oversight as in negligence or oversight as in what we do to especially nasty content instead of revdel. (I would consider any process that gets large graphics on to prominent pages on the projects with so few checks on it as lacking sufficient oversight.) - Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence UC Berkeley On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: there's something seriously weird about the fact that a project that all other projects depend on has the media it displays on it's front page selected by pretty much one person with no I was with you up until the last word. Did you really mean: oversight. ??? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them? On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all - This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor. Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link. I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the shock site aspect than the documenting history one. This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to (and given another option will not) recommend using Wikimedia Commons to professional edu or GLAM colleagues knowing that when they show up at it's front page they may happen upon bad anime porn or a completely uncontextualised stack of corpses. I can think of absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone thought it was a good idea to highlight a video of Buchenwald on Common's main page by using a freezeframe of a stack of corpses from a broader video. If we want to gain truly mainstream acceptance in the education and GLAM world (and thus greatly improve our acceptance among the general public as a side effect,) Commons cannot keep doing stuff like this. I know that project content decisions are normally left up to the individual project, but as Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
There are multiple comments on Common's mainpage talk about this, as well as one at their administrator's noticeboard. As I mentioned in my first post, since Commons is a project that by its nature effects all other projects, I don't think discussion of this issue should be limited to those who frequent talk pages on commons. Additionally, I'm not sure that meaningful change can come from the current Commons administration without outside pressure, so I've started a discussion here. As said in my OP, I've explicitly mentioned this thread on Common's mainpage talk so that interested commonites who desire to comment can do so here or there. -- Kevin Gorman Wikipedian-in-Residence American Cultures Program UC Berkeley On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:15 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: Have you discussed this on commons, or just trying to bypass them? On Friday, May 9, 2014, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all - This is a slightly unusual email for me, in that I'm wearing more hats than I usually do. I'm writing as a community member, but also as someone currently employed by one of the best public universities in the world in a department that is, at least in decent part, aimed at ensuring that injustices of the past do not go forgotten. This email represents my own opinions alone, mostly because I don't want to go through the process of getting approval for any sort of formal statement, and also don't view doing so as necessary, but it does highlight my views as someone actively employed by a major university, and not just as an editor. Today, Common's front page highlighted a video taken shortly after the liberation of Buchenwald, one of the largest concentration camps to operate on German soil during the second world war, where more than 50,000 people lost their lives. (Since Commons apparently uses UTC, it's already changed to a different piece of media.) For reasons that baffle me a bit, the video screenshot displayed on Commons' frontpage is that of a stack of corpses, taken from a five minute long video (that is primarily not stacks of corpses.) To make things worse: because Commons only supports open video formats, an overwhelming majority of people who look at the Commons frontpage in any one day are not using a browser that can view the actual video - so they would've only been able to see a photo of stacked up corpses, with no accompanying video (and no accompanying explanation if they didn't speak english or one of four other languages.) The caption of the video does hyperlink to the English Wikipedia's article about Buchenwald, but displays only after the graphic image and video link. I want to be clear: I'm not objecting in any way whatsoever to the fact that the Wikimedia Commons contains a video of Buchenwald. I would be disturbed if we /didn't/ have a video like this on Commons. It is of great historical significance, and it's a video that absolutely needs to be on Commons. In fact, it's a video that I think should probably have appeared on Commons frontpage sooner or later... just not like this. The same video is played in multiple classes at UC Berkeley, after the context behind the video is given and people are warned about the nature of what they're about to see. Even in that setting, I've pretty regularly seen people burst into tears upon watching the video that Commons links today. Such video evidence of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime plays an incredibly important role in understanding the past, but what differentiates an effort to understand the past and a shock site can pretty much be summed up as contextualisation. A video with explanation of its context and some degree of warning before a pile of corpses is displayed is a large part of the difference between a shock site and documenting history. Common's front page today leans a lot more towards the shock site aspect than the documenting history one. This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment - [1] - no one expects to click on Commons homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald. This is not the first time that Commons administrators and bureaucrats have drastically abrogated the principle of least astonishment, and the continued tendency of those in charge of Commons to ignore such a principle makes me hesitate to recommend the Wikimedia Commons to my students or my colleagues. In fact - if there was an easy way to completely bypass Commons - at this point I would suggest to my students and colleagues that they do so. I don't want to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video? Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that was the best frame to use.[1] You should ask him what his reasoning was. It looks like a single person is handling Commons' MOTD rotation,[2][3] so I would guess that very few people actually saw what the thumb would be beforehand. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2014-05-08_thumbtimeaction=history [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Media_of_the_day/Archive_1#Nomination:_File:SFP_186_-_Buchenwald.webm [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pristurusoldid=113169491#Regarding_featured_videos ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
Maybe a simple solution to this is just having more process for which still frame to use for any MOTD video. Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone articulate a valid reason why the freezeframe from the video posted on the frontpage was just about the most graphic still possible from the video? Presumably the person who set up the templates thought that was the best frame to use.[1] You should ask him what his reasoning was. It looks like a single person is handling Commons' MOTD rotation,[2][3] so I would guess that very few people actually saw what the thumb would be beforehand. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Motd/2014-05-08_thumbtimeaction=history [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Media_of_the_day/Archive_1#Nomination:_File:SFP_186_-_Buchenwald.webm [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pristurusoldid=113169491#Regarding_featured_videos ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] A decision in Commons regarding URAA affected files
Hi, Sorry, sent too fast. ;o) I think I need to explain the whole history of the issue. 1. On 22 February 2014, Alan started the Request for comment (RfC) on whether we should host URAA-affected files, and restored previously deleted ones (around 4,300 of them). [1] 2. On 28 February 2014, TeleComNasSprVen proposed a moratorium on deletion of images under URAA. 3. On 18 March 2014, the initial proposal has received a huge support, with some people opposing it, including some active admins. On that date, I made a proposal for a compromise: only allowing a subset of affected files. This has received only a few comments, and no opposition. The discussion seems to be stalled around that date. 4. On 24 March 2014, I made a proposal for closuring the RfC as Yes. This received 21 supports, and one opposition. None of the admins who initially opposed the RfC cared to add any input. I mentioned that closure will be done after one week. 5. On 2 April 2014, I close the RfC according to my proposal. 6. On 3 April 2014, Russavia unilaterally reverted my closure, and the changes I made to the relevant policy pages, without any discussion. Regards, Yann [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA 2014-04-04 2:02 GMT+05:30 Robinson Tryon bishop.robin...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Well, it doesn't go so easily. Some Commons admins refuse to accept the community decision, and want to maintain the status quo inspite of the huge majority of opinions for supporting this. They are usually the most vocal and bold admins. Some admins are supporting it, some are afraid to go against the bolder ones. Some admins who support it do not take part because of language issue. Some admins specifically said that they would go against the community, no matter what. One admin even says that the The suspense is killing me: What does the admin say? --R ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Data mining for media archives
On 6 Feb 2014 22:40, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: ... Are we doing any commons analysis like this at the moment? Is any similarity-analysis done on upload to help uploaders identify copies of the same image that already exist online? Or to flag potential copyvios for reviewers Yes O:-) Checkout Faebot's work with Tineye here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/SandboxM ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Data mining for media archives
That's just beautiful. Thank you, Fae Faebot. I see that job filtered for mobile uploads without EXIF data. What obstacles do you envision for running such a service for all images? On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 Feb 2014 22:40, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: ... Are we doing any commons analysis like this at the moment? Is any similarity-analysis done on upload to help uploaders identify copies of the same image that already exist online? Or to flag potential copyvios for reviewers Yes O:-) Checkout Faebot's work with Tineye here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/SandboxM ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Data mining for media archives
On 7 February 2014 04:04, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: That's just beautiful. Thank you, Fae Faebot. I see that job filtered for mobile uploads without EXIF data. What obstacles do you envision for running such a service for all images? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faebot/SandboxM Technically, it could probably run for a subset of recently uploaded images in real-time. For a focus on finding copyright problems, results would be made more meaningful if a white-list/pre-filter were in place to ignore uploads from reliable sources, well established user accounts or where the EXIF data or templates applied made it highly unlikely to be a problem file (for example using templates showing it was an upload as part of a recognized wiki-project like WLM which has its own review process). From my experience with the mobile upload categories, I would expect a file duplicate/possible copyvio to check tag or report to be able to hit more than 90% successful at identifying a file that will get deleted as a policy violation, or unnecessary inferior duplicate/crop. With a little more wizardry, it should be possible to red-flag some of the files as TV screen shots, similar to previously deleted images, or even close matches to black-listed files (such as accepted DMCA take-downs or known spam files). Other obstacles are less technical: 1. Faebot works without using the Tineye API, the API being quite restrictive in the number of queries. Many thousands of queries a day would require special permission from Tineye as even their commercial access appears too limited for the volume we might expect. 2. In reality, very few volunteers use Ogre's uploads from new accounts report and I have had almost no spontaneous feedback on my mobile uploads report. To make the output appealing, it may be better to either make a special dashboard, or use bot-placed-tags for likely copyright issue at the time of upload so that the flag gets used by new page patrol-ers in their reports and tools. 3. Volunteer time and making this a priority -- I have an interesting backlog of content creation, geo-location and potential GLAM projects, which are more glamorous and fun than fiddling with image-matching and copyright checking. To make a Tineye based 'similarityBot' work well, would probably take non-trivial research, testing, development time/code review, community consultation, report-writing, maintenance and bug-fixing... so this might be a candidate for a grant proposal with an element of paid dev time. I previously thought I might get a proposal together over the summer, along with more reading up on the Tineye API and possibly a bit more testing, but my thoughts on this are tentative right now. 4. Many of the highest number matches (100+) in Tineye are for images that are obviously public domain, such as photographs of well known 19th century paintings and at the same time, probably 50%+ of obvious copyright violations are those with just 3 or fewer matches on Tineye. Pulling the Tineye results in a more intelligent way is possible, for example Tineye can tell you if another version of the image in on a Wikimedia project (with a licence that probably applies to the uploaded image) or if it is hosted by a source that we recognize and can check the licence on, such as being on Flickr at a higher resolution and All Rights Reserved. Building a more intelligent bot is possible, but comes with an increasing maintenance headache as external websites continually change, including any APIs we might connect to and Tineye itself. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
On 12/16/2013 03:36 AM, Andrew Gray wrote: Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases. (Legally defensible is not always correct, of course...) As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely should not be discouraged. I would actually prefer it be more explicit. The EXIF data says public domain, but Flickr says No known copyright restrictions (why not public domain or CC0?). However, we can do our own standard PD-Art analysis to confirm this. Matt Flaschen ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
Remember that while US caselaw is clear on this point, it is less clear-cut elsewhere. We at WM tend to take a clear line that 2D reproductions are ineligible, but it's not a guaranteed absolute truth, particularly in the UK! We can predict how a court might rule... but they haven't yet, and claiming copyright is a legally defensible position in many cases. (Legally defensible is not always correct, of course...) As a result, an explicit declaration is a positive thing and definitely should not be discouraged. A. On 16 Dec 2013 04:57, Robinson Tryon bishop.robin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote: its more legal/copyright descriptive, that necessitates the wording than just release them to the public which can still indicate they have restrictions I guess I was just concerned that it was sending the wrong message re: the images, suggesting that the British Library had to put the images into the Public Domain because they (or some other entity) could still hold copyright to them. If it is unclear to the public that slavish reproductions of out-of-copyright 2D works are not themselves eligible for copyright, then perhaps we should work to improve that understanding. It's difficult for a member of the public to exercise his rights unless he knows to what he is entitled! --R ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] The British Library releases 1 million images
I was just about to respond with this :-) I discussed this with the BL team a few weeks before the release, and while we could sort out the technical issues of a million items fairly easily, it looked like the lack of metadata would make them very unsuited for Commons. There's nothing stopping us harvesting them individually, of course, but I think adding a million unidentified images and saying the community will sort them out would be a very quick road to my getting beaten up ;-) Andrew. On 15 December 2013 17:37, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote: Just discovered a short note of Andrew Gray, why Flickr was preferred instead of Commons. http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2013/mechanical-curator-on-commons/ 2013/12/15 Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de Thanks for the news. A question comes to my mind when I read this article: Why did the British Library use Flickr instead of Wikimedia Commons? Maybe it has to do something with a better usability of Flickr? - The usability of Wikimedia Commons most be increased to make it more attractive to individual and institutional users. Don't you think so? The next steps mentioned in the article indicates good opportunities for us to get involved and show the potential of an experienced platform for crowdsourcing information and knowledge: We are looking for new, inventive ways to navigate, find and display these 'unseen illustrations'. and furtheron in the blogpost, We plan to launch a crowdsourcing application at the beginning of next year, to help describe what the images portray. Our intention is to use this data to train automated classifiers that will run against the whole of the content. http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html Best regards, Jens 2013/12/15 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com Quote from full announcement http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digital-scholarship/2013/12/a-million-first-steps.html We have released over a million imageshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibraryonto Flickr Commons for anyone to use, remix and repurpose. These images were taken from the pages of 17th, 18th and 19th century books digitised by Microsofthttp://pressandpolicy.bl.uk/Press-Releases/The-British-Library-19th-Century-Book-Digitisation-Project-343.aspxwho then generously gifted the scanned images to us, allowing us to release them back into the Public Domain. The images themselves cover a startling mix of subjects: There are maps, geological diagrams, beautiful illustrations, comical satire, illuminated and decorative letters, colourful illustrations, landscapes, wall-paintings and so much more that even we are not aware of. Flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary Example of image http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11307195524/ Example of all images from a book http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/tags/sysnum002660292 Stuff for coders https://github.com/BL-Labs/imagedirectory So... :-) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- -- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. -- -- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.b...@wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Fwd: It's time to reclaim the community logo
Good luck guys. It's a shame that it has come this far, I hope this is the wake up call for the WMF that this wasn't the smartest thing to do. Maarten Op 21-9-2013 12:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) schreef: FYI Nemo P.s.: P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your project by seeing if it's listed as registered trademark on https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks. Messaggio originale Oggetto: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo Data: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:16:16 +0200 Mittente: Tomasz W. Kozlowski Hello community, this is to inform you that in response to the trademarking of the Wikimedia community logo[1], created in 2006 by Artur “WarX” Fijałkowski, which was discussed on this mailing list[2] as well as on Meta[3] back in March, a small group of community members—Artur, myself, Federico Leva (Nemo) and John Vandenberg—have initiated a formal process of opposition against the registration of the trademark by the Foundation in order to *reclaim the logo* for unrestricted use by the community. We appreciate the Foundation’s protection of the other trademarks they have registered so far, including the logos of Wikipedia, Wikisource and some other sister projects. In the case of the community logo, however, it is our belief that the Foundation’s actions are exactly opposite to what the community logo stands for and contradict the purpose behind its very existence. We would like to make it clear that it is not our intention to damage anyone; our actions are a challenge against what we perceive as unilateral declaration of ownership of an asset that has always belonged to the wider community, and not to one or another organisation that is part of the movement. By formally opposing the registration of the trademark we hope to ensure the history of this logo is not disregarded, and we wish to protect the community against unnecessary bureaucracy and, to use another quote, let “groups who do not purport to represent the WMF”[4] to continue to be able to freely associate with a logo that has been part of their identity for so long. We also want to note that this is in no way a legal action against the Foundation, but a simple notice of opposition against the registration of the logo in the European Union. If we assume good faith, we can only be confident that the WMF, having now a formal occasion, will withdraw its registration of the logo rather than continue using movement resources to force the community into lengthy, expensive proceedings. We invite all community members interested in this issue to express their opinions at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Reclaim_the_Logo If any of you would like to help us in any way (covering the costs of the opposition, promoting the discussion, etc.), please feel free to contact us off–list. Artur Fijalkowski (WarX) Tomasz Kozlowski (odder) Federico Leva (Nemo) John Vandenberg (jayvdb) == References == * [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg * [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124715.html * [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo * [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124730.html ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
Hi Jane, I am sorry to hear this has been a concern. My intuition is that this would be far less of a tangible risk to a team project than the fuss about this stuff might lead you to believe, so long as we can demonstrate sensible advice, review and precautions being taken. In the UK, FOP tends to be very liberal, however memorials have special issues to consider if the intention is for a free release on Commons. I would have encouraged some guidelines for photographers/uploaders to be written up, and then continued with the event with these in place, possibly with a means of contributors asking further questions and having their uploads reviewed for compliance via an on-wiki project page. A few nuts and bolts of it based on my experiences on Commons (from a UK perspective, so this will vary somewhat in other parts of Europe) are: 1. Any memorial must be a permanent feature. Any work of art that appears temporary is unlikely to be covered by FOP. 2. Text on a memorial may be under its own copyright even though it is on permanent public display, so the text itself must be demonstrably out of copyright. This is a separate issue from the general FOP provisions. If the text is incidental to the photograph, i.e. not a close up and the text is effectively de minimus, then FOP is likely to be valid. 3. Text which is embossed and made 3D, such as being part of an inscribed plaque, may be considered a 3D work and covered by FOP. 4. Any memorial photographed whilst standing on private land may not be covered by FOP. The US has free speech, but is a long way from a country that accepts FOP, however so long as the photo is taken in the EU and is of a fixed and identified memorial, EU copyright law is the principle one to consider and FOP applies. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] FOP in Europe: does this include WWII monuments with art?
Thanks for sharing! If I browse the categories here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Monuments_and_memorials_of_World_War_II_by_country It seems there are plenty of photos with what appears to be sculptures. I guess the risk of being slapped with a copyright violation in these cases is pretty low. After all, if you created the artwork or were an heir of someone who did, it would be pretty tasteless to object, I guess. I think the problem we are facing is that we cannot now sponsor such uploads, as WMNL. So, it's fine if people do this on their own with no encouragement from us, but until this whole issue is resolved we cannot actively solicit such photographs from the volunteer community, knowing there's a chance they can be deleted. I think in the case of a photo contest, any copyvio deletion is one too many. Jane 2013/3/2, Fae faewik+comm...@gmail.com: On 2 March 2013 19:28, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 2 March 2013 12:04, Fae faewik+comm...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Text on a memorial may be under its own copyright even though it is on permanent public display, so the text itself must be demonstrably out of copyright. This is a separate issue from the general FOP provisions. If the text is incidental to the photograph, i.e. not a close up and the text is effectively de minimus, then FOP is likely to be valid. One other thing to remember: most of this text is fairly uncreative - in many cases, standard phrases or dates, and lists of names. We could make a reasonably good case that they are unlikely to be copyrightable texts regardless of age. That's true, and I have uploaded plenty of my own photos of war memorials with close up details of names, rank and so forth. However I have run into problems with memorial statements that contain poetry, simple drawings and original dedications and some of these have been deleted despite me being reasonably cautious. I still think this is solvable with some simple guidelines/principles for those taking part in an event to take care to avoid any later problems with uploads. Cheers, Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons and EN Wiki are slow today
On 5 November 2012 16:38, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: This afternoon has been another terribly slow one for response from WM sites, I've tried patience, and wandering off to other faster sites for a while, but I suspect we have another IT glitch. Or at least we do here in London. Fast for me (central London, some fast DSL not sure who through). - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
Yes, this is definitely an issue. My recollection was that the unwanted content issue was seen as secondary to the debates about placement, but it's many years ago ;-) Agree entirely on testing and having a sense of the cost-benefit ratio. One feature of the old system was that it predominantly went on BLPs - which are a magnet for easy looks free content like publicity photos. I wonder if the proportion of acceptable material would be higher if, eg, we trialled placeholders on towns and villages with no photos, or buildings? - Andrew. On Tuesday, 18 September 2012, Risker wrote: On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.ukjavascript:; wrote: On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru javascript:;javascript:; wrote: Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that this is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or about your town. Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images got a placeholder - No picture available! Can you donate one? - but it was taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and partly due to technical problems. I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale... My recollection is that that one of the key reasons the English Wikipedia community stopped using the image placeholders was the fact that we were receiving a very significant number of non-free images, including obviously commercial ones that people were claiming they owned, and we wound up deleting a lot of images that were 'donated'. I like the idea of inviting people to contribute images for *select* articles, but not *every* article without an image. But we should really make sure that we're getting some statistical information if we trial this again, to ensure that what we are getting is helpful and not a copyright timesink. It would be a shame to return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
Andrew Gray, 19/09/2012 10:35: Yes, this is definitely an issue. My recollection was that the unwanted content issue was seen as secondary to the debates about placement, but it's many years ago ;-) Agree entirely on testing and having a sense of the cost-benefit ratio. One feature of the old system was that it predominantly went on BLPs - which are a magnet for easy looks free content like publicity photos. I wonder if the proportion of acceptable material would be higher if, eg, we trialled placeholders on towns and villages with no photos, or buildings? It's already somehow happening for Wiki Loves Monuments USA, if I remember correctly (although technically they're _absolutely not_ image placeholders). The UploadWizard is designed to educate users about copyright issues: I don't know if someone measured the percentage of copyvios and related errors compared to normal uplod, but it might be a solution. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.rujavascript:; wrote: Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that this is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or about your town. Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images got a placeholder - No picture available! Can you donate one? - but it was taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and partly due to technical problems. I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale... My recollection is that that one of the key reasons the English Wikipedia community stopped using the image placeholders was the fact that we were receiving a very significant number of non-free images, including obviously commercial ones that people were claiming they owned, and we wound up deleting a lot of images that were 'donated'. I like the idea of inviting people to contribute images for *select* articles, but not *every* article without an image. But we should really make sure that we're getting some statistical information if we trial this again, to ensure that what we are getting is helpful and not a copyright timesink. It would be a shame to return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
- Original Message - From: Risker risker...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion ...old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case. O the irony! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
Hey I told no one I was a board member ;) Funny thing was they organised Wiki takes Gouda and then they asked me to join ;) But there were a lot of stroopwafels involved so it probably was way beyond conflict of interest but just corrupt ;) I would claim that you should have this on business card size, so that you can always have them with you, because you find photographers everywhere. Agreed that we might want to focus on wikipedia as a destination for the pictures (please donate your pictures for use on wikipedia) Jan-Bart On 13 Sep 2012, at 10:23, Thierry Coudray thierry.coud...@wikimedia.fr wrote: Hum... a Dutch WMF board of Trustees member promoting Gouda - Conflict of interest. ;-) More seriously, WMFr have a folder which explains what is Commons, how that works, that everyone can contribute, free licence, what you can or cannot upload, etc. ( http://www.wikimedia.fr/sites/default/files/Brochure_Wikimedia_Commons.pdf). For example, some of WMFr volonteers use it during their city photos huntings. But we probably need something more Wikipedia oriented so people we met could easely understand that most of the photos they see on Wikipedia come from people like them who shoot when they visit a monument or a museum orsimply when they walk in the street. And they can easely become a WP photographer. Some of our volonteers have already this idea in mind. So we just have to be bold. :) Thierry 2012/9/13 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org Hey So I had a great time handing out flyers for the Wiki takes Gouda promotion last weekend. We quickly learned to look for people with camera's or camera bags and target them with flyers. Since then I have been walking around and have noticed how many people walk around with a semi professional camera taking pictures of whatever. How about having a business card size promotion leaflet which we can hand out to photographers, tourists or whatever in our countries. It would briefly explain that Wikimedia needs useable (and what usable means for us) pictures and that they can contribute with photographs. It would explain the free license and contain a link to a special URL helping them upload. Not only could this result in a lot of new material (although we might want to add that we do not need the umpteenth picture of the white house or eiffel tower) but it would also create awareness amongst a group we have not typically targeted before… (or has this already been done?) Jan-Bart de Vreede (obviously representing just his own point of view here) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:48:28 +0200, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: Hey Agreed that we might want to focus on wikipedia as a destination for the pictures (please donate your pictures for use on wikipedia) Jan-Bart Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that this is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or about your town. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons down
Wikipedia is down for me. I suggest we swarm on to IRC in large numbers - that always helps! On 2 July 2012 22:50, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: After ten minute and three unsuccessful attempts to categorise an image via Hotcat I've now got the following error message: Request: GET http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project_needing_categories_in_grid_SU1026, from 91.198.174.56 via amssq33.esams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to () Error: ERR_CANNOT_FORWARD, errno (11) Resource temporarily unavailable at Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:45:48 GMT Normally Commons only goes down for a minute or so at a time, any one know what the problem is this evening? WSC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons down
For more information on the root cause of this outage see Leslie Carr's description sent to wikitech-l: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-July/061599.html. The way the routers were bouncing is the reason it was intermittent and continued to work for some people while breaking for others. -ben On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: After ten minute and three unsuccessful attempts to categorise an image via Hotcat I've now got the following error message: Request: GET http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project_needing_categories_in_grid_SU1026 , from 91.198.174.56 via amssq33.esams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to () Error: ERR_CANNOT_FORWARD, errno (11) Resource temporarily unavailable at Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:45:48 GMT Normally Commons only goes down for a minute or so at a time, any one know what the problem is this evening? WSC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
So we will have a full-scale military parade celebrating commons in Brazil?
Nice!
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Mateus Nobre mateusfno...@gmail.com wrote:
Hahaha, right in the Brazilian independence day ;P
I am thinking in something really big.
Something like ''Wikimedia Commons, showing the world with free media''.
And, the best Common's images of all times, in a global scope (like, each
one of every nice place of our planet).
Good luck. {{support}}
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting could be carried out with the global event. Vote eligibility
could be participating in the events for example.
Of course not every country will have an event so not sure if this
approach
is a good one.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2012/4/18 Tadija Mileti? atnimn...@hotmail.com
Hmm, and maybe something where we can invite more people to
Wikipedia?
Billboards with :
Join decade of knowledge. Participate! Write new article!
Or something similar. I am also against POT-DEC, poor thing for big
global
event such as this.
--WhiteWriter
*From:* Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:45 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org
*Cc:* smole...@eunet.rs ; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
Why not a world wide Wikitakes or a Photowalk day that way everyone
everywhere can participate in it, no need for big off Commons
organisation
2012/4/18 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD which
is
something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large
number
to
choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same
winner
again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be
disqualified
for
this reason.
I am not too sure about the procedure would be best to be honest. I
hope
this discussion would determine that very aspect. :)
US GLAM is appealing but we do want something global. Certainly US
GLAM
partnerships should be part of it but they should not be all of it.
WikiLoves Monuments was a good precursor to this kind of activity.
Perhaps
a kind of lessons learned assessment may be useful while working on
this.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:31, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
wrote:
2012/4/17 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com:
We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a decade
event could
be something interesting to consider.
The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
--
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
_
*M*ateus*N*obre
Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data.
*Freedom, acessibility, autonomy, openess, independence, transparency.
That's our way.*
*And yours?*
+55 (84) 8896 - 1628
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
With all the rifles and stuff! :P
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com wrote:
So we will have a full-scale military parade celebrating commons in Brazil?
Nice!
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Mateus Nobre mateusfno...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hahaha, right in the Brazilian independence day ;P
I am thinking in something really big.
Something like ''Wikimedia Commons, showing the world with free media''.
And, the best Common's images of all times, in a global scope (like, each
one of every nice place of our planet).
Good luck. {{support}}
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting could be carried out with the global event. Vote eligibility
could be participating in the events for example.
Of course not every country will have an event so not sure if this
approach
is a good one.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2012/4/18 Tadija Mileti? atnimn...@hotmail.com
Hmm, and maybe something where we can invite more people to
Wikipedia?
Billboards with :
Join decade of knowledge. Participate! Write new article!
Or something similar. I am also against POT-DEC, poor thing for big
global
event such as this.
--WhiteWriter
*From:* Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:45 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
*Cc:* smole...@eunet.rs ; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
Why not a world wide Wikitakes or a Photowalk day that way everyone
everywhere can participate in it, no need for big off Commons
organisation
2012/4/18 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD
which
is
something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large
number
to
choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same
winner
again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be
disqualified
for
this reason.
I am not too sure about the procedure would be best to be honest. I
hope
this discussion would determine that very aspect. :)
US GLAM is appealing but we do want something global. Certainly US
GLAM
partnerships should be part of it but they should not be all of it.
WikiLoves Monuments was a good precursor to this kind of activity.
Perhaps
a kind of lessons learned assessment may be useful while working
on
this.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:31, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
wrote:
2012/4/17 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com:
We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a decade
event could
be something interesting to consider.
The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
--
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
_
*M*ateus*N*obre
Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data.
*Freedom, acessibility, autonomy, openess, independence, transparency.
That's our way.*
*And yours?*
+55 (84) 8896 - 1628
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
_
*M*ateus*N*obre
Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data.
*Freedom, acessibility,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
Hahaha, right in the Brazilian independence day ;P
I am thinking in something really big.
Something like ''Wikimedia Commons, showing the world with free media''.
And, the best Common's images of all times, in a global scope (like, each
one of every nice place of our planet).
Good luck. {{support}}
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.comwrote:
The voting could be carried out with the global event. Vote eligibility
could be participating in the events for example.
Of course not every country will have an event so not sure if this approach
is a good one.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
2012/4/18 Tadija Mileti? atnimn...@hotmail.com
Hmm, and maybe something where we can invite more people to Wikipedia?
Billboards with :
Join decade of knowledge. Participate! Write new article!
Or something similar. I am also against POT-DEC, poor thing for big
global
event such as this.
--WhiteWriter
*From:* Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:45 AM
*To:* Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org
*Cc:* smole...@eunet.rs ; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject:* Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th
anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
Why not a world wide Wikitakes or a Photowalk day that way everyone
everywhere can participate in it, no need for big off Commons
organisation
2012/4/18 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com
I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD which is
something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large number
to
choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same
winner
again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be disqualified
for
this reason.
I am not too sure about the procedure would be best to be honest. I hope
this discussion would determine that very aspect. :)
US GLAM is appealing but we do want something global. Certainly US GLAM
partnerships should be part of it but they should not be all of it.
WikiLoves Monuments was a good precursor to this kind of activity.
Perhaps
a kind of lessons learned assessment may be useful while working on
this.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:31, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
wrote:
2012/4/17 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.n...@gmail.com:
We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a decade
event could
be something interesting to consider.
The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
--
GN.
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
--
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Commons-l mailing list
common...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
_
*M*ateus*N*obre
Free knowledge, free software, free culture, open data.
*Freedom, acessibility, autonomy, openess, independence, transparency.
That's our way.*
*And yours?*
+55 (84) 8896 - 1628
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
