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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year
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
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 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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: [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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
*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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
201 - 267 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
