Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-22 Thread Gnangarra
Agree Masti

Its hard to for people to understand that Commons has a foot in two places,

   - US Laws - because thats were its hosted
   - State of Origin - because that were its from.

using just cc-by with or without sa option is an very clear pathway to
someone off with their own images.then you move to PD(public
domain) for US that pre 1920's locally that again varies for each country.
If its PD in your country then there will be a license for it on Commons
it'll specify what before what date, under what conditions.

Never ever consult a local lawyer they will always hedge their decision.

After that things get a lot more intuitive and require a lot deeper
understanding and an acceptance you could be wrong especially when you need
to rely on auto translators,  even with UK/US/Canadian/Australian/South
African/Classical english we all use words that look the same, even sound
the same but can mean slightly different things.

Gnangaraa

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:53, masti  wrote:

> commons problem is a hostile admin environment.
> people without understnd for non UK/US ways of handling copyright law
> technical issues are important, as  new users do not know how to do it.
> but once they overcome that heir pictures got deleted
>
> masti
>
> On 17.05.2020 05:04, Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-22 Thread masti

commons problem is a hostile admin environment.
people without understnd for non UK/US ways of handling copyright law
technical issues are important, as  new users do not know how to do it. 
but once they overcome that heir pictures got deleted


masti

On 17.05.2020 05:04, Benjamin Ikuta wrote:


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

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

~Benjamin


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




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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-21 Thread Samuel Klein
Yes, agreed.  I also actively avoid using Commons sometimes, because the
average life expectancy of a freely-licensed image is... shorter than one
would hope.

If only for efficiency's sake, we absolutely need somewhere for newbies to
upload images which "
1a) won't be deleted out of hand
1b) won't be deleted simply for lack of demonstration of notability or
bulletproof (c) clearance, when it's reasonable to guess that the uploader
may have such rights
1c) won't be deleted after being used on other projects, without an
explicit takedown request (but may be hidden, as per d)
1d) conversely, won't be made easily accessible for transclusion on other
projects until issues are resolved, or can easily be 'hidden' from
transclusion by a templated concern, while not deleting the upload so that
there is no longer a place to discuss + resolve

And we should also have
2a) a cross-wiki space for images used on any project, under whatever
license, that don't fit current Commons policy
2b) ...that may require a more explicit method of calling the files to
include them, so they can't be accidentally used in an inappropriate
context.

1 and 2 don't have to be Commons itself.  That would be a conceptually
simple solution, but they could also be a separate project, with bots that
migrate things to Commons once current C-policies are fully satisfied.



On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Strainu  wrote:

> My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from
> uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even
> automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki
> uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion
> is discouraging uploaders.
>
> That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established
> users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should
> probably take them  seriously.
>
> Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta  a
> scris:
>
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> > don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-20 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 To be honest, I actively discourage newbies to edit but also to upload on 
Commons when they start. I prefer it when they focus on something else. If 
needed, I can find enough files because of my expertise and that's a decent 
starting point. Of course, I am active and soon or later uploading is a 
necessary step during many partnerships or classes, but I always assume and 
show the worst-case scenarios. You might think that such "cautious" attitude is 
not the wiki spirit, and I agree, but I know also that these users are not 
going to be helped, so it's mostly up to me to provide such support and I (like 
many other ones) have limited time. I also would like to offer to those 
potential long-term users a social ecosystem where they can grow and I am quite 
sure that at the moment Commons is not the best platform to do so.

it's a little bit more subtle than being "toxic"... it's dysfunctional, 
superficial, sloppy and unwarm. We have/had similar problems with other 
platforms... it's just human nature. There are groups of "active" users 
creating "bubbles" of realty where critical inputs from outside are dismissed 
as annoying or unworth. What is unique with Commons is that on other platforms 
this situation reduces/reduced contributions and, because of this reason, it 
does/did not create a huge backlog. Less involved people, less work induced by 
them. You get stagnation or hibernation if the situation is critical... but 
that's it. However, Commons just cannot end that way. On Commons the missing 
metadata, the generic categorizations, the partial descriptions, the necessary 
updates of copyright guidelines are just there, and similarly is the ongoing 
upload flow from other databases or initiatives because it is a nodal space. If 
people are more active on Wikivoyage, Wikisource or organizing Wiki Loves 
Monuments... this soon or later shows an effect and a backlog on this archive. 

The community of Commons really needs a network of constantly involved users, 
but such users can always end up being motivated somewhere else where they feel 
that their needs are better understood. 
A.M.


Il mercoledì 20 maggio 2020, 18:49:06 CEST, Strainu  
ha scritto:  
 
 My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from
uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even
automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki
uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion
is discouraging uploaders.

That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established
users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should
probably take them  seriously.

Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta  a scris:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-20 Thread Strainu
My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from
uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even
automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki
uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion
is discouraging uploaders.

That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established
users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should
probably take them  seriously.

Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta  a scris:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-19 Thread Pine W
For what it's worth, I think that devoting WMF staff time and/or consultant
time to developing a strategy for Commons and possibly another sister media
project would be well worth considering.

I would likely support redirecting resources from the branding project to
such a strategy project.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
2
>> million images?
>> And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that
>> structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate
>> to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's
>> actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts"
>> suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they
>> suggest an obvious statement.
>> 
>> We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we
>> run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b)
>> sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: Gnangarra 
>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
>> on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that
>> could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game(
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats
>> in
>> a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including
>> licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data
>> 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run
>> competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons
>> structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about
>> licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a
>> 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than
>> 100,200,500px on the long edge.
>> 
>> Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option
>> with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data.
>> The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest
>> images first.
>> 
>>> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what
>> reuses
>>> / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
>>> delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these
>>> uses.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
>>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
>>> were
>>>> obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
>>>> nowadays.
>>>> You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
>>>> find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
>>> workflow.
>>>> There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck
>>>> categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
>>> like
>>>> "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality
>>>> upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of
>> an
>>>> important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an
>>>> instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an
>>>> image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent
>>>> photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
>>> dimension
>>>> where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
>>> have
>>>> people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care
>> about
>>>> the long-term effect of their actions.
>>>> 
>>>> This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues
>>>> requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
>>> there
>>>> is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to
>>>> clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
>>> more
>>>> unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as
>> they
>>>> can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread George Herbert

We have two or three competing reasons to have commons like repositories:

1. Truly fully open content repository for Wikimedia projects and the world as 
a whole. (Commons now)

2. Truly fully open content repository in general of things which are worthy 
but not used in projects/articles now. (Some of Commons)

3. Commonly available repository for sufficiently free (fair use, other 
existing allowed cases like irreplaceable or so forth) use in at least one 
project so that other projects could also share the media efficiently if local 
content rules allow it. (Nowhere now, I’ve described as “uncommons” somewhat 
for its humor value as a name)

I have previously pointed out that ideally we’d have a way to unify those for 
easy other projects reference, but there were wailing and gnashing of teeth 
from developers and I list energy.

I also have pointed out that the “helpful” process of copying a non-fully-free 
image to Commons, local deletion due to overlap, then commons deletion removing 
*all* copies is pathological inter-project process behavior and we really 
needed to end that somehow.  Also ran into much wailing and gnashing of teeth 
from commons people not entirely wanting to be blamed and others out of 
patience trying to deal with commons people, and everyone loses interest.


Perhaps we would do better off to create an uncommons and change all the 
for-wider-use upload tools to deposit it there, point the internal image auto 
linking there, and have commons out on the side as not the direct Wiki project 
source but a specific curated open content source.  Everything in commons would 
be in uncommons and linked for articles etc, new fair use or irreplaceable 
content goes to uncommons only, and curators with open license intellectual 
property expertise could curate upselection of the approved bits to commons.

That should make everyone happy and be practical and implementable without 
horrible massive architecture changes.


-george


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> it all comes back to "Who is our audience" and "How do we need/want to
> engage with them"
> 
> If you start on the mainpage, follow the about link, then follow to scope
> there is no clear just a vague anyone...
> 
> I think we need to be honest in the assessment of our true audience, thats
> basically the WMF projects therefore our purpose is "to make freely
> licensed media accessible across all movement projects"
> 
> Like the movement strategy process we need to dissect what we are trying to
> achieve and how we can get there, and then come up with a solution to
> address what we already have so its all consistent. At the moment we are
> developing differing concepts, tools, policies in isolation .
> 
>> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 23:34, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I
>> know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this
>> slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them
>> top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of
>> engaged users to make it grow.
>> 
>> If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try
>> galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see
>> some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent
>> to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as
>> well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be
>> easier.
>> 
>>Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
>> 
>> The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed,
>> even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32
>> million images?
>> And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that
>> structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate
>> to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's
>> actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts"
>> suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they
>> suggest an obvious statement.
>> 
>> We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we
>> run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b)
>> sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
>> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>> 
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Gnangarra
it all comes back to "Who is our audience" and "How do we need/want to
engage with them"

If you start on the mainpage, follow the about link, then follow to scope
there is no clear just a vague anyone...

I think we need to be honest in the assessment of our true audience, thats
basically the WMF projects therefore our purpose is "to make freely
licensed media accessible across all movement projects"

Like the movement strategy process we need to dissect what we are trying to
achieve and how we can get there, and then come up with a solution to
address what we already have so its all consistent. At the moment we are
developing differing concepts, tools, policies in isolation .

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 23:34, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I
> know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this
> slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them
> top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of
> engaged users to make it grow.
>
> If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try
> galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see
> some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent
> to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as
> well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be
> easier.
>
> Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
>
>  The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed,
> even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32
> million images?
> And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that
> structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate
> to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's
> actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts"
> suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they
> suggest an obvious statement.
>
> We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we
> run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b)
> sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
>
>
> ---
> New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
> https://www.oeclassic.com/
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Gnangarra 
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
>
> 
>
> I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
> on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that
> could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game(
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats
> in
> a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including
> licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data
> 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run
> competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons
> structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about
> licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a
> 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than
> 100,200,500px on the long edge.
>
> Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option
> with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data.
> The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest
> images first.
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what
> reuses
> > / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
> > delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these
> > uses.
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
> > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > >  in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
> > were
> > > obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
> > > nowadays.
> > > You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
> > > find, but you don't need them really. So they mos

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I know 
their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this slows down. 
We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them top-down, they need a 
bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of engaged users to make it 
grow.

If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try 
galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see some 
users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent to finf 
low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as well. Since they 
have limited structural role, working on that should be easier.

Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l 
 ha scritto:  
 
 The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if 
that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million 
images?
And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that 
structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to 
the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very 
much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not 
appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious 
statement.

We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run 
two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible 
and (c) throughly reliable.


---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

- Original Message -
From: Gnangarra 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons


I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that
could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game(
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in
a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including
licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data
62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run
competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons
structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about
licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a
30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than
100,200,500px on the long edge.

Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option
with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data.
The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest
images first.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses
> / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
> delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these
> uses.
>
> 
>
> On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >  in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
> were
> > obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
> > nowadays.
> > You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
> > find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
> workflow.
> > There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck
> > categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
> like
> > "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality
> > upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an
> > important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an
> > instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an
> > image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent
> > photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
> dimension
> > where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
> have
> > people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about
> > the long-term effect of their actions.
> >
> > This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues
> > requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
> there
> > is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to
> > clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If yo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 15:53, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
> on structured data

I think that would be an excellent move; but first we need to stop and
reverse the harmful "keyword stuffing" encouraged by the WMF:

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data/Computer-aided_tagging#Upcoming_improvement_to_computer-aided_tagging

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/02#Misplaced_invitation_to_%22tag%22_images

You'll note my request on the latter page that the WMF provide
evidence of consensus for their model of tagging has been repeatedly
ignored; on 29 February this year I wrote - in response to a claim
from a WMF staff member that "we're not ignoring anything":

"You have been called out for ignoring questions, by a number of
people. You have only just - on 29 February - replied to some of the
points I raised on this page on 11 February - nearly three weeks ago -
even though I and others complained about your lack of response on 14
February. You have yet to respond to requests to show where there is
consensus for the tool to operate, or to use depicts statements in the
manner it is - including in the very post you reply to here. Most
significantly, you have yet to answer requests to explain how the
tool, or the invitation to tag, can be turned off."

My post was eventually archived, with no response to it.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 To be fair, lack of iterative processes can happen on other platforms as well: 
think about the role of portals on some Wikipedias, or some notability 
guidelines that are far from defined and groups of users claim opposite 
concepts. Even Wikidata has these issues (surprisingly mostly ignored by some 
actve users there) but in that case they rarely define the platform as a 
general perception. Plus, soon or later, they have to focus on them somehow. 
The problem with Commons is that it gets easier to just ignore them and try 
somewhere else, instead of centralizing issues and solve them there, it acts 
the opposite way when real problems emerge from real life. 

When I noticed that we could refine categorization of images from books I did 
not open the discussion on Commons, but on Wikisource. When I want to chat 
about how metadata can help I do with mostly Wikidata users, not Commons users, 
and so on. It should be mutlilingual but meta and Wikidata clearly do this 
better.
What also is a problem is that copyright just... change... and again it's 
easier to handle it at level of national chapters than on Commons. So a 
platform that should be designed to handle a clearly iterative issue basically 
underperforms on that. 

As the first truly multilingual content-related active platform, Commons was 
probably not designed efficiently to handle its role and over the years we 
could not fix it. It should be the one to do a lot of things instead it just 
handle badly sometimes what other platforms or affiliates cannot handle in the 
first place. You can't handle metadata? let's start from Wikidata. You can't 
handle copyright issue? national chapters. OTRS? Language-based channels also 
from affiliates and meta. GLAM? Affiliates. Ancient documents and epigraphs? 
Maybe Wkisource, sometimes. Problem with some NC files? Local Wikipedias.

is it just me or it is too big to fails, so we keep it because it has a 
strucutral role, but it basically just cannot catalyze efficiently new things.






   Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 16:28:00 CEST, Samuel Klein  ha 
scritto:  
 
 Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / 
transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep 
decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.


On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, 
 wrote:

 in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were 
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays.
You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, 
but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow. There are 
a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of 
course, you can switch to very specific projects like "documenting all small 
rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is 
potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the 
right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an 
object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by 
a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a 
dimension where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead 
we have people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care 
about the long-term effect of their actions.

This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires 
sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there is quite 
high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the 
first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more unnecessary 
stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary 
balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at 
a certain point you start to see the effect when it is not there. 

It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the 
community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work 
attitudes. It's just like that.


    Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter 
 ha scritto:  

 To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally 
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty 
sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for 
deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they 
are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably 
enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially 
problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring 
"publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people 
take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the 
grey area it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if 
that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million 
images?
And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that 
structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to 
the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very 
much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not 
appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious 
statement.

We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run 
two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible 
and (c) throughly reliable.


---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/

- Original Message -
From: Gnangarra 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons


I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that
could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game(
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in
a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including
licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data
62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run
competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons
structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about
licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a
30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than
100,200,500px on the long edge.

Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option
with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data.
The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest
images first.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses
> / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
> delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these
> uses.
>
> 
>
> On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >  in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
> were
> > obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
> > nowadays.
> > You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
> > find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
> workflow.
> > There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck
> > categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
> like
> > "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality
> > upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an
> > important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an
> > instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an
> > image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent
> > photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
> dimension
> > where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
> have
> > people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about
> > the long-term effect of their actions.
> >
> > This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues
> > requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
> there
> > is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to
> > clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
> more
> > unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they
> > can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the
> > overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
> when
> > it is not there.
> >
> > It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the
> > community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work
> > attitudes. It's just like that.
> >
> >
> > Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally
> > unproblematic as soon as one ha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Gnangarra
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete  and focus
on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that
could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game(
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in
a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including
licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data
62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run
competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons
structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about
licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a
30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than
100,200,500px on the long edge.

Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option
with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data.
The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest
images first.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses
> / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
> delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these
> uses.
>
> 
>
> On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >  in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
> were
> > obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
> > nowadays.
> > You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
> > find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
> workflow.
> > There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck
> > categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
> like
> > "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality
> > upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an
> > important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an
> > instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an
> > image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent
> > photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
> dimension
> > where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
> have
> > people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about
> > the long-term effect of their actions.
> >
> > This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues
> > requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
> there
> > is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to
> > clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
> more
> > unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they
> > can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the
> > overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
> when
> > it is not there.
> >
> > It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the
> > community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work
> > attitudes. It's just like that.
> >
> >
> > Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally
> > unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am
> > pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files
> > mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and
> > once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both
> > cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of
> > course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can
> > imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting,
> > which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if
> > one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally
> > should be ok.
> >
> > (I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum
> > and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Alessandro,
> > Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
> > only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
> Also I
> > would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
> >
> >
> > Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> > schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
> >
> > > In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
> caring
> > > about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Samuel Klein
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses
/ transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude
delete/keep decision.  Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.



On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were
> obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not
> nowadays.
> You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to
> find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow.
> There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck
> categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects like
> "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality
> upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an
> important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an
> instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an
> image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent
> photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a dimension
> where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we have
> people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about
> the long-term effect of their actions.
>
> This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues
> requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there
> is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to
> clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more
> unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they
> can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the
> overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect when
> it is not there.
>
> It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the
> community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work
> attitudes. It's just like that.
>
>
> Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally
> unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am
> pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files
> mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and
> once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both
> cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of
> course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can
> imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting,
> which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if
> one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally
> should be ok.
>
> (I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum
> and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> Hello Alessandro,
> Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
> only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I
> would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
>
>
> Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
>
> > In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring
> > about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people
> > acting the way they do.
>
>
> This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the
> on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want
> to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
> > unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or
> > description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
> >
>
> > About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of
> > course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
> >
> > A.
> > Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers <
> > robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
> contributors
> > and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
> > lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
> >
> > I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
> Admin
> > deletes (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
> >
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were 
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays.
You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, 
but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow. There are 
a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of 
course, you can switch to very specific projects like "documenting all small 
rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is 
potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the 
right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an 
object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by 
a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a 
dimension where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead 
we have people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care 
about the long-term effect of their actions.

This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires 
sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there is quite 
high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the 
first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more unnecessary 
stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary 
balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at 
a certain point you start to see the effect when it is not there. 

It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the 
community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work 
attitudes. It's just like that.


Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter 
 ha scritto:  
 
 To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally 
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty 
sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for 
deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they 
are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably 
enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially 
problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring 
"publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people 
take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the 
grey area it normally should be ok.

(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I 
am not planning to increase the activity level).

Best
Yaroslav



On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

Hello Alessandro,
Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.


Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:

> In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring
> about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people
> acting the way they do.


This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the
on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(

Kind regards
Ziko




They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
> unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or
> description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
>

> About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of
> course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
>
> A.
>     Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers <
> robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
>
>  Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors
> and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
> lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
>
> I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin
> deletes (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg
> ).
> These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
> have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project,
> it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
> that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Yaroslav Blanter
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am
pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files
mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and
once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both
cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of
course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can
imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting,
which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if
one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally
should be ok.

(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum
and I am not planning to increase the activity level).

Best
Yaroslav



On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Alessandro,
> Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
> only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I
> would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
>
>
> Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
>
> > In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring
> > about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people
> > acting the way they do.
>
>
> This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the
> on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want
> to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
> They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
> > unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or
> > description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
> >
>
> > About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of
> > course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
> >
> > A.
> > Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers <
> > robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
> contributors
> > and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
> > lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
> >
> > I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
> Admin
> > deletes (
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg
> > ).
> > These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
> > have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
> project,
> > it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
> > that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
> >
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people
> > > don't contribute more broadly?
> > >
> > > ~Benjamin
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Myers
> > Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
> > M: +61 400 670 288
> > robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au
> > http://www.wikimedia.org.au
> >
> > Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
> > supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
> > your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission
> > alive.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello Alessandro,
Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I
only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.


Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:

> In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring
> about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people
> acting the way they do.


This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the
on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(

Kind regards
Ziko




They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
> unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or
> description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
>

> About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of
> course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
>
> A.
> Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers <
> robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
>
>  Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors
> and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
> lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
>
> I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin
> deletes (
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg
> ).
> These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
> have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project,
> it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
> that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> > don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
>
> Robert Myers
> Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
> M: +61 400 670 288
> robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au
> http://www.wikimedia.org.au
>
> Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
> supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
> your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission
> alive.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I keep using Commons/OTRS with newbies, but I warned them how dysfunctional it 
can be. it's not really about doing things properly but how they look a certain 
way to people with a certain mindset. Addressing issues of copyright has 
limited correlation with what people who know superficially the summary of a 
guideline think copyright is.

Years ago I used to teach newbies how to create Commons categories as well. 
unfortunately I had to teach them also Wikidata until they asked me why better 
categorization using structured data were not possible. it was already 2016 and 
teaching manual categorization was starting to sound ridiculous, so was also 
showing the "controlled" chaos of confusing standard about used languages and 
pattern in the category tree.

I tried to explain these facts to some established Commons users but you know 
how they behave... at that point  I realized that when they were talking about 
"complication for newbies" they were mostly talking about themselves and their 
rigid vision. So, like many people, I gave up.

Nowadays if I can spend part of a class to teach how to create Commons 
categories I mostly ignore that option. I teach how to create rich WIkidata 
items, and when they upload an image I tell them to put a nice description, 
coordinates or a generic category of the administrative entity and use the 
image with P18. You have all you need from Wikidata to quickly set up a solid 
categorization if you really want to do so, it's just overall attitude. Slowly, 
some form of automation has started to appear, so fine with that so far,

Of course we do a lot of work in any case, for example I pushed for better 
categorization from Wikisource upload, and when Wiki Loves Monuments arrives in 
my area we are very accurate, despite 5000-1 new images we provide a lot of 
commons categories through Wikidata. But even in that case, we do it at our own 
risk. We create empty categories where we known they will be filled soon 
because photographers tell us so, but we risk them to be deleted.
 In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring 
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting 
the way they do. They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time 
starting unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or 
description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.

About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course 
search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.

A.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.

I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg).
These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 

Robert Myers
Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
M: +61 400 670 288
robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au
http://www.wikimedia.org.au

Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Dear Ziko, your proposal is business as usual. The biggest question we
should ask is not what do we do but WHY do we do it. When we decide that
Open Content is there to be used, it follows that it is a key performance
indicator to know to what extend we serve a public and what public we
have, could have and how we can expand our public.

The current notion that people where we only consider how many people see
images in Wikipedia makes Commons objectives secondary to Wikipedia. We do
not care if people can find pictures in Commons and to be brutal I have
given up, I do really want Commons to serve my needs as a blogger. We do
not know the number of people who download our content, we do not know what
people think of the usability as a resource of freely licensed material. We
only consider Commons at the front end (ingestion) and not at the backend

We should care because THAT is our mission.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 11:31, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
> I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons
> has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these
> problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual
> search because we don't have all the necessary meta data.
> Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main
> page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and
> links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to
> other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this
> is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki
> function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!
>
> My ideal would be a clean page
> * with a short explanation what the site is or does,
> * and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search
> content", "contribute content", "learn more".
> Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the
> next 5 or 50 years?
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via
> Wikimedia-l :
>
> >  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> > summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a
> way
> > that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow,
> if
> > you want it.
> >
> > We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> > of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep
> the
> > other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> > don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> > reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they
> almost
> > never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need
> people
> > that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> > contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We
> don't
> > need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> > entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> > 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> > ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> > faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is
> on
> > line instead of simply asking the uploader.
> >
> > However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> > over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> > rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> > Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent
> majority
> > of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> > and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> > the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's
> only
> > fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> > be the one to clean the mess.
> > A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> > earlier this year:
> >
> >
> >
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
> >
> > However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> > nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there
> are
> > way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> > nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> > allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> > blocked on other projects, does not help either
> >
> > Best
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Robert Myers
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.

I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg).
These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 

Robert Myers
Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
M: +61 400 670 288
robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au
http://www.wikimedia.org.au

Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-18 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons
has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these
problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual
search because we don't have all the necessary meta data.
Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main
page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and
links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to
other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this
is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki
function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!

My ideal would be a clean page
* with a short explanation what the site is or does,
* and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search
content", "contribute content", "learn more".
Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the
next 5 or 50 years?
Kind regards
Ziko











Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via
Wikimedia-l :

>  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way
> that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if
> you want it.
>
> We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the
> other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost
> never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people
> that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't
> need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on
> line instead of simply asking the uploader.
>
> However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority
> of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only
> fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> be the one to clean the mess.
> A.
>
>
>
>
>Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> earlier this year:
>
>
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
>
> However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
> way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> blocked on other projects, does not help either
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> > contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> > covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> > 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
> Commons
> > when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> > non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
> scope
> > of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> > However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
> there.
> > Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> > alternative version of Commons).
> > 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> > Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> > Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> > gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> > spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> > working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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


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

Geni

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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


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

-- 
geni

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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



-- 
geni

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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




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

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

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

Best
Yaroslav

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

Best
Yaroslav

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Thanks
User:Titodutta



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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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


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

>
>

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

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



-- 
GN.

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roland




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


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

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

~Benjamin 


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


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

I agree with Gnangarra .

Best,
Steinsplitter


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

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

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

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



--
GN.

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-16 Thread Gnangarra
the NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to
include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like
Google and answers.com  because it was a more restrictive license.

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

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



-- 
GN.

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

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-16 Thread Pine W
Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that
restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media
files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.

I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't
remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for
lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed
solution was to set up another website for media files that would
allow media with NC restrictions.

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

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons 
> because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than 
> that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people 
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-16 Thread Gnangarra
The scope of Commons is actually much less, than en.wikipedia   uploading
to Commons is not a great introduction to the movement copyright and more
complex than just fixing a spelling error or adding a statement.

We do need to more to encourage uploading of media files, WLE, WLM do work
towards that more on the ground engagement within communities, and seeking
support from within the photography community where mine, mine, mine, dont
ask for free stuff is big issue because way to many commercial operators
want everything for free, we forget that photography is an expensive hobby
you cant just borrow gear from a library or read online like you can with
sourcing written content.

Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors
from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates
offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 11:05, Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

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

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


[Wikimedia-l] Commons

2020-05-16 Thread Benjamin Ikuta


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

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

~Benjamin 


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Structured data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

2019-01-10 Thread Keegan Peterzell
Captions can now be added to files on Commons. There's a bug with
abusefilter sending errors to new accounts adding captions, the bug is
being investigated and fixed right now. IRC office hours will be in a
little over one hour from now, I look forward to seeing you there if you
can attend.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Structured data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

2019-01-09 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 3:42 PM Pine W via Commons-l <
common...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Thanks for the news, Keegan. I'm cross-posting the info to other lists
> with the date boldly corrected.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> ---
>
> Hi all, following up on last month's announcement... [0]
>
> Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either
> Wednesday, 9 January or Thursday, 10 January 2019. Captions are a feature
> to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you
> might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:
>
> * Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on
> mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel
> free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons. [1]
> * Test out using captions on Beta Commons. [2]
> * Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you
> have anything you'd like to say prior to release. [3]
>
> Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January
> with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as
> anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as
> well as a link to join, are on Meta. [4]
>
> Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to
> the IRC office hour on Thursday. I'll reply to this post once I confirm
> exactly what day file captions will be released to Commons.
>
> 0.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump=331569911#Structured_data_-_Multilingual_captions_beta_testing
> 1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:File_captions
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/
> 3.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data/Beta_captions_testing
> 4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> common...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

Captions are scheduled to go live tomorrow, Thursday 10 January, between
15:00 and 16:00 UTC. The time window may change at the last minute, and the
team my hold the deployment (or roll it back) if last minute problems
occur. Should that happen I will keep you all informed, and I'll see you
all at the IRC office hour tomorrow.
-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Relations Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Structured data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

2019-01-07 Thread Pine W
Thanks for the news, Keegan. I'm cross-posting the info to other lists with
the date boldly corrected.

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

---

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement... [0]

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday,
9 January or Thursday, 10 January 2019. Captions are a feature to add
short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want
to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

* Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on
mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel
free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons. [1]
* Test out using captions on Beta Commons. [2]
* Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have
anything you'd like to say prior to release. [3]

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with
the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything
else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a
link to join, are on Meta. [4]

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the
IRC office hour on Thursday. I'll reply to this post once I confirm exactly
what day file captions will be released to Commons.

0.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump=331569911#Structured_data_-_Multilingual_captions_beta_testing
1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:File_captions
2. https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/
3.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data/Beta_captions_testing
4. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Classification/Categorization games for Commons?

2018-06-06 Thread Alex Stinson
Two thoughts directly to this:

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I'd be more concern that the game throws up very generic and vague
> descriptions like, person, ship, cat, dog, tree, flowers, street. Which in
> itself might seem helpful but may not even highlight the important aspect.
>
Pushing images into narrower, but still generic, topic areas allows folks
who know more about, for example, ships or dog species or whatever, to
narrow the topic into something specific. We already do this in many ways
within the way folks use the category system on Commons -- it could be done
with structured data as well.

We would also want some type of confidence factor, I would think,
especially if we want the tool to appeal to newer folks in the community --
with less depth of experience working in our information structure.
Zooniverse and other similar visual-identification crowdsourcing projects,
usually have 2-3 volunteers confirm something before adding it directly to
the record.



>
>- I would hope many of the GLAMs have embedded keywords in the meta
>data/camera info which could be extracted like co-ords are.
>
> You would be surprised at how bad the metadata is in most collections --
only the most high profile collections will have good metadata (and one
perceived benefit of sharing GLAM content in public venues is the chance to
enrich metadata, by discovering details about the objects, that previously
the staff didn't know how to recognize). Wikimedia projects are really good
places to get mildly obscure collections (such as archival photos, or
under-researched museum objects) into the context of Wikimedia content.
Moreover, it's really hard to assess how to map these metadata concepts to
Wikimedia categories.  We actually saw this come up again and again in the
GLAM stakeholder research for commons:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Supporting_Commons_contribution_by_GLAM_institutions



>
> On 7 June 2018 at 02:07, Alex Stinson via Commons-l <
> common...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey Yaroslav and Asaf,
>>
>> From the SDC team perspective, I think it would definitely be preferable
>> for such a tool to include/anticipate the need for structured data on
>> Commons, or default to filling in Depicts and/or other structure data
>> fields. Building more tools which generate categories by default would
>> definitely be a bit counter-productive (and hard on multilingual
>> contributors). One option, might be designing such a tool to work with
>> Artworks and other unique objects (like photographs) already on Wikidata,
>> and then have it prepared to hook up with the  Wikibase/Structured data
>> features that will go live on Commons in the fall.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Asaf Bartov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely; I wanted to know if such a tool perhaps already exists.  If
>>> one
>>> does not, then definitely, if we develop a tool, it should look to the
>>> future and be based on Structured Data on Commons already!
>>>
>>>A.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:54 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do
>>> > Structured Commons folks want to comment?
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> > Yaroslav
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi, folks.
>>> > >
>>> > > It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images
>>> donated
>>> > > en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X
>>> > collection"
>>> > > or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
>>> > >
>>> > > This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and
>>> > > re-use.  But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories
>>> > > (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would
>>> > let a
>>> > > volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a
>>> pre-fed
>>> > list
>>> > > of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the
>>> > > category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no
>>> categorization
>>> > by
>>> > > content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like
>>> HotCat)
>>> > some
>>> > > appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be
>>> added,
>>> > and
>>> > > the next file shown.
>>> > >
>>> > > (Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where
>>> > > volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous
>>> volunteers'
>>> > > categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only
>>> > take
>>> > > place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories.  I'm not at all
>>> sure
>>> > > this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it
>>> goes.)
>>> > >
>>> > > So, does something like this exist?  If not, who wants to build it?
>>> :)
>>> > >
>>> > >A.
>>> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Classification/Categorization games for Commons?

2018-06-06 Thread Gnangarra
I'd be more concern that the game throws up very generic and vague
descriptions like, person, ship, cat, dog, tree, flowers, street. Which in
itself might seem helpful but may not even highlight the important aspect.

   - Would a bot doing an initial keyword search of the description be more
   effective
   - descriptions should already have a language code embedded.
   - I would hope many of the GLAMs have embedded keywords in the meta
   data/camera info which could be extracted like co-ords are.


On 7 June 2018 at 02:07, Alex Stinson via Commons-l <
common...@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey Yaroslav and Asaf,
>
> From the SDC team perspective, I think it would definitely be preferable
> for such a tool to include/anticipate the need for structured data on
> Commons, or default to filling in Depicts and/or other structure data
> fields. Building more tools which generate categories by default would
> definitely be a bit counter-productive (and hard on multilingual
> contributors). One option, might be designing such a tool to work with
> Artworks and other unique objects (like photographs) already on Wikidata,
> and then have it prepared to hook up with the  Wikibase/Structured data
> features that will go live on Commons in the fall.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>
>> Absolutely; I wanted to know if such a tool perhaps already exists.  If
>> one
>> does not, then definitely, if we develop a tool, it should look to the
>> future and be based on Structured Data on Commons already!
>>
>>A.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:54 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>
>> > I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do
>> > Structured Commons folks want to comment?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Yaroslav
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi, folks.
>> > >
>> > > It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images
>> donated
>> > > en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X
>> > collection"
>> > > or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
>> > >
>> > > This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and
>> > > re-use.  But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories
>> > > (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
>> > >
>> > > I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would
>> > let a
>> > > volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a pre-fed
>> > list
>> > > of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the
>> > > category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no
>> categorization
>> > by
>> > > content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like HotCat)
>> > some
>> > > appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be
>> added,
>> > and
>> > > the next file shown.
>> > >
>> > > (Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where
>> > > volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous
>> volunteers'
>> > > categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only
>> > take
>> > > place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories.  I'm not at all
>> sure
>> > > this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it
>> goes.)
>> > >
>> > > So, does something like this exist?  If not, who wants to build it? :)
>> > >
>> > >A.
>> > > ___
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > 
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Stinson
> GLAM-Wiki Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
>
> Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other
> Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations:
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
>
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2016 round 2 voting

2017-04-10 Thread Pine W
Hello,

Voting is now open in Round 2 of the Commons Picture of the Year 2016
competition:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2016

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Freedom of panorama today approved by Belgian parliament

2016-06-16 Thread Ryan Kaldari
Congratulations! I can't wait to see next year's Wiki Loves Monuments
calendar from Belgium!

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Fantastic news!  Kudos to Dimi and everyone else who worked hard to
> promote this. :)
>
>A.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Romaine Wiki 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Great news!
>>
>> Freedom of panorama has been voted today in the Belgian parliament.
>> A mayority voted in favour of freedom of panorama, including commercial
>> use.
>>
>> Soon images of artworks and modern buildings in Belgium can be restored
>> on Commons.
>>
>> But first the law needs to be published in the Staatsblad, and ten days
>> later it will be official, but that is just a formality. (Will keep you
>> updated on that.)
>>
>>
>> Article in the news in Dutch:
>> http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2685852
>>
>>
>> In the past weeks, as well as since the campaign in Europe last year, we
>> from Wikimedia Belgium have worked hard on this subject and communicated
>> with the members of the parliament informing what this subject means for
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> With the founding of Wikimedia Belgium in 2014, this subject was a
>> priority for us.
>>
>> Thanks all for the support!
>>
>> Let's get this implemented elsewhere too!
>>
>> Greetings from Belgium,
>> Romaine
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> common...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> common...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Freedom of panorama today approved by Belgian parliament

2016-06-16 Thread Asaf Bartov
Fantastic news!  Kudos to Dimi and everyone else who worked hard to promote
this. :)

   A.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Romaine Wiki 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Great news!
>
> Freedom of panorama has been voted today in the Belgian parliament.
> A mayority voted in favour of freedom of panorama, including commercial
> use.
>
> Soon images of artworks and modern buildings in Belgium can be restored on
> Commons.
>
> But first the law needs to be published in the Staatsblad, and ten days
> later it will be official, but that is just a formality. (Will keep you
> updated on that.)
>
>
> Article in the news in Dutch:
> http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/politiek/1.2685852
>
>
> In the past weeks, as well as since the campaign in Europe last year, we
> from Wikimedia Belgium have worked hard on this subject and communicated
> with the members of the parliament informing what this subject means for
> Wikipedia.
>
> With the founding of Wikimedia Belgium in 2014, this subject was a
> priority for us.
>
> Thanks all for the support!
>
> Let's get this implemented elsewhere too!
>
> Greetings from Belgium,
> Romaine
>
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> common...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>


-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-22 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open! Dear Wikimedians,


Pine sent a short notification to both lists (commons-I and wikimedia-I) 
regarding POTY round two at 15 May 2016, now a few details:



We are happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year 
competition
 is now open. This year will be the ninth edition of the annual 
Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional 
contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons.


Wikimedia users are invited
 to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last 
year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.



Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the 
international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered 
in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant 
shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical 
images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive
 human portraits, and so much more.



There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted 
for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate 
images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 
overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. 



In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become 
the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.



Click here to vote » 


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015/R2/Gallery



Thanks,
Steinsplitter on behalf of the POTY 2015 committee


Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:21:18 -0700
From: wiki.p...@gmail.com
To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org; Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Commons-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has
started

Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started: 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015. There are 
many excellent finalists.

Pine


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread Yann Forget
Hi,

The FB page owners are Ricky Setiawan and Jens Liebenau.

 Ricky Setiawan is Member of the Board of Trustees at Wikimedia Indonesia.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/info/?tab=page_owners

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 10:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Forget <yan...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Actually I don't control the FB page.
> I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
>
> 2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>
> :
>
>> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
>> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>>
>> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
>> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>>
>> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>>
>> --Steinsplitter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>>
>> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
>> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
>> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
>> votinghas started
>> >
>> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
>> > volunteers
>> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I
>> don't
>> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
>> I'd
>> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
>> with
>> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
>> the
>> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
>> > some points against them.
>> >
>> > For those interested:
>> >
>> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
>> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
>> > Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB
>> page
>> > <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
>> > Practices
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
>> >
>> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
>> or
>> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
>> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
>> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
>> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
>> >
>> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
>> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many
>> free
>> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
>> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
>> who
>> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
>> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
>> the
>> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
>> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
>> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences
>> well
>> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
>> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact,
>> contrary
>> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
>> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
>> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official
>> Twitter
>> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
>> >
>> > James Alexander
>> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Peter,
>> > >
>> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
>> > >
>> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
>> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread Yann Forget
Hi,

Actually I don't control the FB page.
I was just interested to spread awareness of Wikimedia Commons on Facebook.

Regards,

Yann

2016-05-16 9:07 GMT+02:00 Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@live.com>:

> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i
> talked with Yann - it wasn't him.
>
> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted
> him access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.
>
> --Steinsplitter
>
> [1]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton
>
> > From: jameso...@gmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2
> votinghas started
> >
> > Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> > volunteers
> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I
> don't
> > think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start),
> I'd
> > encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem
> with
> > their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be
> the
> > "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> > some points against them.
> >
> > For those interested:
> >
> > I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> > frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> > Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB
> page
> > <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> > Practices
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts
> >
> > that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned
> or
> > co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> > public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> > images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> > copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> >
> > On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> > sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> > licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> > modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience
> who
> > we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> > copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against
> the
> > SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> > they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> > general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> > think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> > share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> > to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> > they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> > posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> > and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> >
> > James Alexander
> > User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> >
> > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> > >
> > > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences
> fo
> > > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to
> Facebook
> > > (and by implication to similar sites).
> > >
> > > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> > >
> > > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> > >
> > > eg:
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
I agree about the meta discussion, but maybe not just about this account. It is 
an issue for all platform-related web accounts, in the end. If there is nothing 
else that page would be kinda of a "precedent" of the issue at meta level. I 
have been trying to learn more about it actually, but I faced on wiki platforms 
a very fragmented scenario.
The reason I am looking around is because I've tried to discuss some similar 
aspects in the mailing list of WM Italy last week. I was talking about existing 
and potential facebook groups regarding local areas (such as "region X on 
wikipedia"), which are useful to attract new editors, contacts (local 
associations, aldermen...) or contents.
Now, it seems to me that some aspects apply to the general case of social 
accounts "related" to main WMF platforms. Just an example: I pointed out for 
example how the presence amongst the volunteers or managers of users with 
advanced flag (e.g. OTRS permission in my example) would be useful in some 
circumstances.
We should really promote a request for comments on the issue. It would be very 
interesting and help to share valuable expertise. 

Il Lunedì 16 Maggio 2016 9:08, Steinsplitter Wiki 
<steinsplitter-w...@live.com> ha scritto:
 

 As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting    
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts>
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Steinsplitter Wiki
 wrote:
> As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
> with Yann - it wasn't him.

Umm, didnt we have a larger team of volunteers who managed the Commons
page?  IIRC, WMF removed them all, and I assume the WMF now determines
who has access to the account.

> The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
> access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].
>
> [1] 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

Also blocked indefinitely on br.wikimedia.org by Teles with a curious
block message (sincronizando com bloqueio em conta principal).

https://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Rodrigo.Argenton

Hopefully that can be cleared up.

Yann & Rodrigo should be able to say who posted these, as all managers
can see which manager authored each post on the page.

https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0

Obviously the media licensing needs to be followed carefully by
whoever is a Facebook manager.

--
John Vandenberg

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki
As far i can see there are two volunteers listed at 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook  , i talked 
with Yann - it wasn't him.

The second volunteer is Rodrigo.Argenton, and i am wondering who granted him 
access - looking at his block log i don't feel comfortable at all [1].

Opinion: A page on meta schould be created and who operates which account.

--Steinsplitter

[1] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=User%3ARodrigo.Argenton

> From: jameso...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:31:52 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> has started
> 
> Actually those uploading images on the Wikimedia Commons FB page are
> volunteers
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Social_media/Facebook> (I don't
> think they're all listed there but probably the right place to start), I'd
> encourage you to talk to them directly if you think there is a problem with
> their uploads instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming it must be the
> "evil WMF" doing it and using a great thread like this to try and score
> some points against them.
> 
> For those interested:
> 
> I know that the verified channels which the Communication team posts on
> frequently (Especially the Wikimedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> &
> Wikipedia <https://twitter.com/wikipedia> twitter and the Wikipedia FB page
> <https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia>) purposely follow a set of Best
> Practices
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Social_media/Best_practices#On_Wikimedia_Foundation_and_Wikipedia_branded_accounts>
> that include very explictly "Do not post media that is not either owned or
> co-owned by the Wikimedia Foundation (such as photos we take), in the
> public domain or licensed under CC0". They do occasionally post other CC
> images but only after getting explicit approval/permission from the
> copyright holder including how to attribute etc.
> 
> On a personal basis I think the inability to post most CC images on SM
> sites is a massive problem for the licenses as a whole (and for many free
> licenses). This is not only because SM sites are such a large part of
> modern life right now (and so we are cutting off an important audience who
> we WANT using free images rather then repeatedly using more closed
> copyrighted material, though they are still doing that now ALSO against the
> SM Terms of Use) but it's also because it's so befuddling to people that
> they generally ignore it encouraging people to ignore the licenses in
> general. Not only the general public but those who know the licences well
> think of them as designed to ALLOW sharing so the idea that they can't
> share them is shocking to them (so they DO share them). In fact, contrary
> to your accusation, I don't know of ANY other organizations that ensure
> they are following the SM site Terms of Use and the CC licenses when
> posting. I've even seen Creative Commons itself, on it's official Twitter
> and Facebook accounts, posting CC images against the terms.
> 
> James Alexander
> User:Jamesofur [Personal capacity, Staff account: Jalexander-WMF]
> 
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Toby Dollmann <toby.dollm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Peter,
> >
> > You are right.and truly we are spoiled for choice
> >
> > It is very satisfying to observe that some entries from professional
> > photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
> > rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
> > (and by implication to similar sites).
> >
> > eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
> >
> > And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
> > uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
> >
> > eg:
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
> > https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
> >
> > Toby
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Pine W
> > > Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
> > has
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-16 Thread Toby Dollmann
nal
>> photographers are nowadays explicitly stating their CC-BY-SA licences fo
>> rCommons do not enable their copyrighted works to be uploaded to Facebook
>> (and by implication to similar sites).
>>
>> eg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Cccefalon/fb
>>
>> And yet, I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully
>> uploading "Pictures of the day" ignorant of all the legalese
>>
>> eg:
>> https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1127382660617355:0
>> https://www.facebook.com/Wikimedia.Commons/posts/1120943991261222:0
>>
>> Toby
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> > How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
>> > Peter
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Pine W
>> > Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
>> > To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting
>> has
>> > started
>> >
>> > Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015.
>> > There are many excellent finalists.
>> >
>> > Pine
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: 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: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12234 - Release Date:
>> 05/15/16
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: 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
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: 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 Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-15 Thread Peter Southwood
How can one choose amongst those photos? They are all excellent.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:21 PM
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has 
started

Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015. There are 
many excellent finalists.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4568/12234 - Release Date: 05/15/16


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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] Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started

2016-05-15 Thread Pine W
Commons Picture of the Year 2015 round 2 voting has started:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2015. There
are many excellent finalists.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-31 Thread Dan Garry
On 30 March 2016 at 17:10, Gnangarra  wrote:

> Already possible to get a grid of images in commons
>
> Start in Category:Lichens
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lichens
> then use the FastCCI tool https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:FastCCI
>
> It returns
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lichens?fastcci=%7B%22c1%22%3A9839830%2C%22d1%22%3A15%2C%22s%22%3A200%2C%22a%22%3A%22list%22%7D


This is great! Wouldn't it be wonderful if our default search experience
could be a bit like that, too? :-)

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-30 Thread Gnangarra
Already possible to get a grid of images in commons

Start in Category:Lichens
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lichens
then use the FastCCI tool https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:FastCCI

It returns
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lichens?fastcci=%7B%22c1%22%3A9839830%2C%22d1%22%3A15%2C%22s%22%3A200%2C%22a%22%3A%22list%22%7D

On 31 March 2016 at 07:30, Dan Garry  wrote:

> On 30 March 2016 at 13:19, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Hoe does this fit in with the plan to use structured data for Commons?
> As I
> > understand it, the plan is to use tags for pictures, this will make what
> > pictures depict findable in any language with the appropriate labels.
> >
>
> The Search Team doesn't know the details yet. But, the more structured data
> there is about files, the easier time we'll have building compelling
> experiences that return relevant results. That's why we noted the
> structured data for Commons project as a dependency
> <
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FDC_Proposal#Dependencies
> >
> in the narrative document. I doubt we'd be able to do anything other than
> trivial improvements to media search without having structured data about
> the files in place.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-30 Thread Dan Garry
On 30 March 2016 at 13:19, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Hoe does this fit in with the plan to use structured data for Commons? As I
> understand it, the plan is to use tags for pictures, this will make what
> pictures depict findable in any language with the appropriate labels.
>

The Search Team doesn't know the details yet. But, the more structured data
there is about files, the easier time we'll have building compelling
experiences that return relevant results. That's why we noted the
structured data for Commons project as a dependency

in the narrative document. I doubt we'd be able to do anything other than
trivial improvements to media search without having structured data about
the files in place.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-30 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Hoe does this fit in with the plan to use structured data for Commons? As I
understand it, the plan is to use tags for pictures, this will make what
pictures depict findable in any language with the appropriate labels.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 30 March 2016 at 20:02, Dan Garry  wrote:

> Hello Micru!
>
> Responses in-line.
>
> On 30 March 2016 at 10:33, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
>
> > I was looking for some lichen images on Commons and I was wondering how
> can
> > I show a grid of images. I tried several options but nothing, I think
> that
> > there was some hack to make the search results look more like Google
> > images, or maybe I am wrong?
> >
>
> I assume you're looking for something like this
> ? That screenshot was taken the dialogue
> used to instead media in VisualEditor. Unfortunately, the search interface
> in MediaWiki does not offer this functionality right now.
>
> This screenshot also happens to illustrate another common problem with
> media search; you probably weren't looking for the Basilica of Our Lady of
> Licheń 
> in
> the village of Licheń Stary
>  in Poland, but there it
> is anyway!
>
>
> > Is this part of the Discovery team work?
> >
>
> Yes, improving the experience of the search page on-wiki is within the
> scope of the Search Team in the Discovery Department. However, the team is
> not actively working on this right now. Improving media search in
> particular is presently on the roadmap for FY 2016-17
> <
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery/FDC_Proposal#Strategic:_Focus_area_1
> >
> (July 2016 - June 2017) as a strategic focus area.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Lead Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-30 Thread Dan Garry
Hello Micru!

Responses in-line.

On 30 March 2016 at 10:33, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:

> I was looking for some lichen images on Commons and I was wondering how can
> I show a grid of images. I tried several options but nothing, I think that
> there was some hack to make the search results look more like Google
> images, or maybe I am wrong?
>

I assume you're looking for something like this
? That screenshot was taken the dialogue
used to instead media in VisualEditor. Unfortunately, the search interface
in MediaWiki does not offer this functionality right now.

This screenshot also happens to illustrate another common problem with
media search; you probably weren't looking for the Basilica of Our Lady of
Licheń  in
the village of Licheń Stary
 in Poland, but there it
is anyway!


> Is this part of the Discovery team work?
>

Yes, improving the experience of the search page on-wiki is within the
scope of the Search Team in the Discovery Department. However, the team is
not actively working on this right now. Improving media search in
particular is presently on the roadmap for FY 2016-17

(July 2016 - June 2017) as a strategic focus area.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

2016-03-30 Thread David Cuenca Tudela
I was looking for some lichen images on Commons and I was wondering how can
I show a grid of images. I tried several options but nothing, I think that
there was some hack to make the search results look more like Google
images, or maybe I am wrong?

Is this part of the Discovery team work?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-18 Thread Ivan Martínez
Hi folks, following this conversation, Creative Commons published this post
yesterday.

https://creativecommons.org/campaigns/trans-pacific-partnership-would-harm-user-rights-and-the-commons

2015-11-07 2:15 GMT-06:00 Ivan Martínez :

> Hi, there's a lot of review and analyze about TPP because not only in the
> States we will have potential strong legal modifications. In Wikimedia
> Mexico we are aware since one year ago at least following the analysis of
> other NGOs devoted to internet freedom and copyright which can be a
> potential risk to Wikimedia mission.
>
> The main issue in the next days is that the extension of the revealed text
> needs to have much analysis to have clear points that can be potential
> risks to our mission.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2015-11-07 1:16 GMT-06:00 Gergő Tisza :
>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see anything in the TPP requiring retroactive application of
>> > copyright terms. We'll have to wait and see how the various countries
>> > choose to apply the new terms. Applying terms retroactively is uncommon,
>> > but possible. We also have no idea when these countries are actually
>> going
>> > to apply the new terms.
>> >
>>
>> I don't think it's uncommon, the US is the odd one out on this (or almost
>> out, since in the end it did apply Berne  terms retroactively). For
>> example
>> the EU Copyright Directive prescribes a death + 70 copyright term so
>> countries joining the EU restore copyright to all works for which they had
>> shorter protection. International copyright treaties tend to be
>> retroactive
>> by default; "works shall be protected for X years after the death of the
>> author" applies to all works, whether they are in the public domain
>> currently or not.
>>
>> From the regulator's point of view this is reasonable; the point of these
>> treaties is harmonization of the law, and harmonizing the protection term
>> of one group of works but leaving another group protected in some
>> countries
>> and unprotected in others doesn't really make sense. The alternative would
>> be a rule of the shorter term, but the US does not have that, and they are
>> the driving force behind TPP, so...
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Iván Martínez*
>
>
> *Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakid*
>
> Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
> proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*


*Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakid*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-07 Thread Ivan Martínez
Hi, there's a lot of review and analyze about TPP because not only in the
States we will have potential strong legal modifications. In Wikimedia
Mexico we are aware since one year ago at least following the analysis of
other NGOs devoted to internet freedom and copyright which can be a
potential risk to Wikimedia mission.

The main issue in the next days is that the extension of the revealed text
needs to have much analysis to have clear points that can be potential
risks to our mission.

Thanks,

2015-11-07 1:16 GMT-06:00 Gergő Tisza :

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari 
> wrote:
>
> > I don't see anything in the TPP requiring retroactive application of
> > copyright terms. We'll have to wait and see how the various countries
> > choose to apply the new terms. Applying terms retroactively is uncommon,
> > but possible. We also have no idea when these countries are actually
> going
> > to apply the new terms.
> >
>
> I don't think it's uncommon, the US is the odd one out on this (or almost
> out, since in the end it did apply Berne  terms retroactively). For example
> the EU Copyright Directive prescribes a death + 70 copyright term so
> countries joining the EU restore copyright to all works for which they had
> shorter protection. International copyright treaties tend to be retroactive
> by default; "works shall be protected for X years after the death of the
> author" applies to all works, whether they are in the public domain
> currently or not.
>
> From the regulator's point of view this is reasonable; the point of these
> treaties is harmonization of the law, and harmonizing the protection term
> of one group of works but leaving another group protected in some countries
> and unprotected in others doesn't really make sense. The alternative would
> be a rule of the shorter term, but the US does not have that, and they are
> the driving force behind TPP, so...
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*


*Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakid*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-06 Thread Isaac David



Le ven. 6 nov. 2015 à 11:22, Ryan Kaldari  a 
écrit :

Applying terms retroactively is uncommon, but possible.


Already happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension


___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-06 Thread Gergő Tisza
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> I don't see anything in the TPP requiring retroactive application of
> copyright terms. We'll have to wait and see how the various countries
> choose to apply the new terms. Applying terms retroactively is uncommon,
> but possible. We also have no idea when these countries are actually going
> to apply the new terms.
>

I don't think it's uncommon, the US is the odd one out on this (or almost
out, since in the end it did apply Berne  terms retroactively). For example
the EU Copyright Directive prescribes a death + 70 copyright term so
countries joining the EU restore copyright to all works for which they had
shorter protection. International copyright treaties tend to be retroactive
by default; "works shall be protected for X years after the death of the
author" applies to all works, whether they are in the public domain
currently or not.

From the regulator's point of view this is reasonable; the point of these
treaties is harmonization of the law, and harmonizing the protection term
of one group of works but leaving another group protected in some countries
and unprotected in others doesn't really make sense. The alternative would
be a rule of the shorter term, but the US does not have that, and they are
the driving force behind TPP, so...
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] TPP - copyright

2015-11-06 Thread Ryan Kaldari
I don't see anything in the TPP requiring retroactive application of
copyright terms. We'll have to wait and see how the various countries
choose to apply the new terms. Applying terms retroactively is uncommon,
but possible. We also have no idea when these countries are actually going
to apply the new terms. It took the UK 100 years to apply the terms of the
Berne Convention after signing it. If a country proposes a retroactive
copyright extension as part of their compliance legislation, it is still
possible to fight the retroactive provision (regardless of what BoingBoing
says). In other words, it's way too early to start talking about deleting
files from Commons. Even the URAA took 18 years from the time it was passed
until Commons had to actually deal with it (due to the *Golan v. Holder*
decision).

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:

> We have a new problem to face in the coming months assuming countries
> ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
>
> The text of the agreement has been released in the last 24 hours, early
> commentary is indicating that copyright changes will occur restoring
> copyright to some works that are currently PD.
> http://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/how-tpp-will-clobber-canadas.html
>
> According reports this will affect media sourced in Canada where copyright
> will be extended from 50-70 years meaning that image sin this period may
> need to be deleted both on commons and on en:wp, Australian sourced images
> face a similar issue as will other countries.
>
> Rather than a piece meal commons copyright battle, and a duplicate one on
> en:wp being lead by  unqualified wikilawyers resulting in project
> discrepancies. I'm calling on the community to take  more holistic approach
> and request that the WMF ask for its legal eagles to give an edict we can
> take or communities to explain what will happen in each jurisdiction as the
> TPP is ratified.
>
> This will also give us guidance as to how Affiliates can approach and
> support activities locally  to ensure material that is already freely
> available remains so.
>
>
>
> --
> G
> ​ideon
>
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>
>
> ___
> Commons-l mailing list
> common...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Jeevan Jose
An there is much stress for our volunteer (unpaid) job too. I definitely
need to slow down:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Request_to_confirm_release_from_the_artist.2C_rather_than_the_gallery_-_Joep_van_Liefland

Regards,
Jee

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:

 I mentioned a few basic things in my previous email. There's probably
 little point in my writing a comprehensive wish list unless you or some
 other volunteer can agree to work on providing an API against which a tool
 could be written.

 Michael

 Michael
  On 4 Feb 2015, at 12:19, Krd k...@wikipedia.de wrote:
 
  Am 02/04/15 um 13:14 schrieb Michael Maggs:
  Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies
  only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the
  information that should I think be available.
 
  ...which is in detail?
 
 
  ___
  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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Gergo Tisza
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
wrote:

 My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o
 to chapters?
 Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
 Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or
 something else.
 What could speed up the volunteers work?


I put some ideas about such a tool at
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88620
Feedback would be appreciated.
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
Well - regarding permission-commons ques the current problem with mass
upload agreements is Common's regulation that ticket-templates has to be
added by OTRS volunteers themselves, except, when you are using GLAM tool,
but GLAM tool is tailored for really huge mass uploads as it requires lot
of preliminary preparations. So, there is no good path for mid-size mass
uploads - say from 10 till 100-500 files.

This is incredibly boring job to add 100 templates to 100 files. There are
some semiautomatic tools for this - but it still requires small programming
and/or direct personal assistance - with at least 2 clicks per file.  So
OTRS volunteers - when they see agreements for for example100 pictures -
are avoiding this, becasue handing this means not only aswering for E-mail
but also 100 boring edits...

I was addressing the issue on OTRS e-mail list, around a year ago, but the
answer was, that this is not the problem. But in fact - whenever there is
such semi-mass-upload agreement - you can observe that OTRS volunteers are
avoiding answering them.



2015-02-04 11:46 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com:

 Thanks Ryan for the clarification.
 My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o to
 chapters?
 Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
 Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or something
 else.
 What could speed up the volunteers work?

 Aubrey


 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:

  James,
 
 
  I realize your tickets were already resolved but I thought I'd take a
  moment to clarify the issues that cause the delays in response.
 
 
  The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) relies on the generous
 work
  of hundreds of volunteers from all over the world to handle hundreds of
  thousands of e-mails each year.
 
  The scope of these tickets range from vandalism reports or technical
 issues
  to problems with biographies of living people and other generic edit
  requests, and dozens of other categories.  A large percentage of the
  overall tickets received are permissions tickets -- e-mails used to
  verify the release of content on Wikimedia sites, typically from third
  parties.
 
  Like every project that Wikimedians work on, there are various things
 that
  the volunteers are tasked to handle. The agents who take on this role do
 so
  in addition to their existing editing activities, often at the cost of
  their own free time. Due to the trust and patience required to handle
 these
  public-facing aspects of Wikimedia, the pool of available volunteers
 tends
  to be smaller than in other areas of the projects. Unfortunately,
 backlogs
  can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially
 in
  the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
  process. It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some
 backlogs
  never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
  unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of
 us
  can relate to in one way or another.
 
  We had very good queue levels for much of 2014, but began noticing an
  increase in permissions and general information tickets (specifically in
  the English language) around the end of the year. Unfortunately, the end
 of
  the year typically shows higher than usual response times, likely because
  of volunteer free time. While OTRS agents are very dedicated, answering
  tickets can be stressful at times, so it’s not typically the type of
 thing
  you’ll want to during holiday vacations. Pair those longer response times
  with an increase in tickets because of our hard-working Wikimedians
 adding
  content and submitting more permissions tickets in their holiday free
 time,
  and it creates a bit of a backlog. :-)
 
  Just as in other areas of our projects, backlogs are inevitable,
 especially
  in the more mundane and tougher areas. However, our dedicated pool of
  volunteers works diligently to clear these backlogs when they come up.
  While, again, it’s a tough job that’s not for everyone, we always welcome
  new applicants. Actually, we're continuously adding new agents. In 2014
 we
  added 62 new community queue accounts[2] to handle general information
 and
  permissions inquiries. Additionally, our agent retention is better - we
  lost about half as many agents in 2014 as we did in 2013. But finally, if
  you really want to help with the backlogs, we’re always looking for great
  new team members.  Feel free to throw up an application on
  [[m:OTRS/Volunteering]] if you think you’d make a good agent and we’ll be
  happy to review it.
 
  Basically, OTRS is tough job that runs into backlogs just like any other
  part of Wikimedia. However, we’re continuously working to add more agents
  and clear those backlogs as soon as they start.
 
  I hope this helps clarify the current issues.
 
  Ryan // User:Rjd0060
 
  (OTRS 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread
If either a public API were implemented, or a mirror of the
(non-confidential parts at least) database were available on WMFlabs,
then volunteers could happily generate all sorts of reports and tools,
which would probably be far more effective than expecting WMF
development to create new reporting pages that are publicly visible
(noting that some non-public reports are available to those chosen for
OTRS access). This has all been raised before, so anyone with a
technical interest would do well to contribute to
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikimedia-otrs/ so that these
proposals can be prioritized.

As I'm one of the keen ex-volunteers bounced out of the system a few
months ago without any sensible explanation, it comes as no surprise
that there is a shortage of appropriately experienced volunteers that
can help with Commons image donations.

Fae

On 4 February 2015 at 12:19, Krd k...@wikipedia.de wrote:
 ...which is in detail?

___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:


 Unfortunately, backlogs
 can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
 the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
 process.



Just for the avoidance of doubt – when you say these e-mails can take up
to an hour to process, I presume you mean that it takes one hour just to
read them and understand the complaint. Am I understanding you correctly?

Given the nature of the beast, I am sure you must sometimes be getting
lengthy (or repetitive) complaints of unclear merit that require
significant on-wiki and off-wiki investigation just to understand whether
the complaint is justified or not. And I imagine that coming up with an
appropriate response and identifying a suitable course of action is another
task altogether.

Bearing in mind that all of this is volunteer work, I'd assume that the
more difficult cases sometimes languish for want of an intrepid volunteer
happy to take them on.

In your experience, what is the median time between receipt of a
BLP-related e-mail complaint and a response being sent out, and what is the
maximum time it can take?



 It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some backlogs
 never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
 unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of us
 can relate to in one way or another.



I'd like to second Michael Maggs' suggestion – having real-time statistics
on OTRS queues available online would aid visibility and transparency
(assuming such data aren't publicly available already some place I am
unaware of). It might also help recruitment, and bring in volunteers to
help with backlogs and bottlenecks.

Andreas
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Krd

Hello.

Am 02/04/15 um 12:11 schrieb Michael Maggs:

I would like to see a bot or tool that could provide visibility of statistics 
on the various OTRS queues in near-real time.


You know https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog ?

___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread George Herbert
Aubrey -

It's not a tools problem, it's a time and number of people problem.

It necessarily draws upon the smaller pool of more stable, mature responsible 
levelheaded good judgement Wikipedians, who are in short supply on-Wiki now 
much less available for lots of extra off-Wiki, poorly understood or 
(community) acknowledged work.

Speaking of which, tomorrow I'm going to reapply to reactivate my OTRS, as 
there's a need and I have bandwidth again...


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 4, 2015, at 2:46 AM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Thanks Ryan for the clarification.
 My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o to
 chapters?
 Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
 Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or something
 else.
 What could speed up the volunteers work?
 
 Aubrey
 
 
 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 James,
 
 
 I realize your tickets were already resolved but I thought I'd take a
 moment to clarify the issues that cause the delays in response.
 
 
 The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) relies on the generous work
 of hundreds of volunteers from all over the world to handle hundreds of
 thousands of e-mails each year.
 
 The scope of these tickets range from vandalism reports or technical issues
 to problems with biographies of living people and other generic edit
 requests, and dozens of other categories.  A large percentage of the
 overall tickets received are permissions tickets -- e-mails used to
 verify the release of content on Wikimedia sites, typically from third
 parties.
 
 Like every project that Wikimedians work on, there are various things that
 the volunteers are tasked to handle. The agents who take on this role do so
 in addition to their existing editing activities, often at the cost of
 their own free time. Due to the trust and patience required to handle these
 public-facing aspects of Wikimedia, the pool of available volunteers tends
 to be smaller than in other areas of the projects. Unfortunately, backlogs
 can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
 the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
 process. It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some backlogs
 never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
 unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of us
 can relate to in one way or another.
 
 We had very good queue levels for much of 2014, but began noticing an
 increase in permissions and general information tickets (specifically in
 the English language) around the end of the year. Unfortunately, the end of
 the year typically shows higher than usual response times, likely because
 of volunteer free time. While OTRS agents are very dedicated, answering
 tickets can be stressful at times, so it’s not typically the type of thing
 you’ll want to during holiday vacations. Pair those longer response times
 with an increase in tickets because of our hard-working Wikimedians adding
 content and submitting more permissions tickets in their holiday free time,
 and it creates a bit of a backlog. :-)
 
 Just as in other areas of our projects, backlogs are inevitable, especially
 in the more mundane and tougher areas. However, our dedicated pool of
 volunteers works diligently to clear these backlogs when they come up.
 While, again, it’s a tough job that’s not for everyone, we always welcome
 new applicants. Actually, we're continuously adding new agents. In 2014 we
 added 62 new community queue accounts[2] to handle general information and
 permissions inquiries. Additionally, our agent retention is better - we
 lost about half as many agents in 2014 as we did in 2013. But finally, if
 you really want to help with the backlogs, we’re always looking for great
 new team members.  Feel free to throw up an application on
 [[m:OTRS/Volunteering]] if you think you’d make a good agent and we’ll be
 happy to review it.
 
 Basically, OTRS is tough job that runs into backlogs just like any other
 part of Wikimedia. However, we’re continuously working to add more agents
 and clear those backlogs as soon as they start.
 
 I hope this helps clarify the current issues.
 
 Ryan // User:Rjd0060
 
 (OTRS admin)
 
 [1]
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements
 
 [2] Community queue accounts are OTRS accounts with access to queues that
 answer general information inquiries about our projects, permissions and/or
 photosubmissions tickets. Other types of accounts do not have answer these
 tickets, but instead have access to a smaller subset of queues, such as
 those related to the Foundation (e.g., donations), chapters, or advanced
 rights on the projects (e.g., oversight, stewards). See
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy#Community_queues for
 more 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Michael Maggs
Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies 
only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the 
information that should I think be available.


Michael


Krd mailto:k...@wikipedia.de
4 February 2015 11:55
Hello.



You know https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog ?

___
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

Michael Maggs mailto:mich...@maggs.name
4 February 2015 11:11
I would like to see a bot or tool that could provide visibility of 
statistics on the various OTRS queues in near-real time. At present 
there is no automated way to see on Commons or any of the Wikipedias 
that backlogs even exist, let alone see how they vary with time, what 
the average time to first response is, time to resolve/close etc.


It would be great if we had a template I could add to a Commons page 
so I could see this information every time I login.


Michael

Michael
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

James Heilman mailto:jmh...@gmail.com
3 February 2015 04:52
OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am 
simply

uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.


___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Krd

Am 02/04/15 um 13:14 schrieb Michael Maggs:

Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies
only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the
information that should I think be available.


...which is in detail?


___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Rjd0060
James,


I realize your tickets were already resolved but I thought I'd take a
moment to clarify the issues that cause the delays in response.


The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) relies on the generous work
of hundreds of volunteers from all over the world to handle hundreds of
thousands of e-mails each year.

The scope of these tickets range from vandalism reports or technical issues
to problems with biographies of living people and other generic edit
requests, and dozens of other categories.  A large percentage of the
overall tickets received are permissions tickets -- e-mails used to
verify the release of content on Wikimedia sites, typically from third
parties.

Like every project that Wikimedians work on, there are various things that
the volunteers are tasked to handle. The agents who take on this role do so
in addition to their existing editing activities, often at the cost of
their own free time. Due to the trust and patience required to handle these
public-facing aspects of Wikimedia, the pool of available volunteers tends
to be smaller than in other areas of the projects. Unfortunately, backlogs
can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
process. It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some backlogs
never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of us
can relate to in one way or another.

We had very good queue levels for much of 2014, but began noticing an
increase in permissions and general information tickets (specifically in
the English language) around the end of the year. Unfortunately, the end of
the year typically shows higher than usual response times, likely because
of volunteer free time. While OTRS agents are very dedicated, answering
tickets can be stressful at times, so it’s not typically the type of thing
you’ll want to during holiday vacations. Pair those longer response times
with an increase in tickets because of our hard-working Wikimedians adding
content and submitting more permissions tickets in their holiday free time,
and it creates a bit of a backlog. :-)

Just as in other areas of our projects, backlogs are inevitable, especially
in the more mundane and tougher areas. However, our dedicated pool of
volunteers works diligently to clear these backlogs when they come up.
While, again, it’s a tough job that’s not for everyone, we always welcome
new applicants. Actually, we're continuously adding new agents. In 2014 we
added 62 new community queue accounts[2] to handle general information and
permissions inquiries. Additionally, our agent retention is better - we
lost about half as many agents in 2014 as we did in 2013. But finally, if
you really want to help with the backlogs, we’re always looking for great
new team members.  Feel free to throw up an application on
[[m:OTRS/Volunteering]] if you think you’d make a good agent and we’ll be
happy to review it.

Basically, OTRS is tough job that runs into backlogs just like any other
part of Wikimedia. However, we’re continuously working to add more agents
and clear those backlogs as soon as they start.

I hope this helps clarify the current issues.

Ryan // User:Rjd0060

(OTRS admin)

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements

[2] Community queue accounts are OTRS accounts with access to queues that
answer general information inquiries about our projects, permissions and/or
photosubmissions tickets. Other types of accounts do not have answer these
tickets, but instead have access to a smaller subset of queues, such as
those related to the Foundation (e.g., donations), chapters, or advanced
rights on the projects (e.g., oversight, stewards). See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy#Community_queues for
more information.

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:52 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
 images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am simply
 uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread pajz
Hi Andreas and others,

On 4 February 2015 at 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Just for the avoidance of doubt – when you say these e-mails can take up
 to an hour to process, I presume you mean that it takes one hour just to
 read them and understand the complaint. Am I understanding you correctly?


I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, yeah.

I'd like to second Michael Maggs' suggestion – having real-time statistics
 on OTRS queues available online would aid visibility and transparency
 (assuming such data aren't publicly available already some place I am
 unaware of). It might also help recruitment, and bring in volunteers to
 help with backlogs and bottlenecks.


Yes, I agree with that. Incidentally, Krd just made an attempt at
implementing something like that (i.e. live-reporting the queue size) a
few days (weeks?) ago, and I've suggested we post this to Commons directly
rather than OTRS Wiki. It's pretty much experimental at the moment, and I
think needs some tweaks first (Krd can tell you more), but I imagine this
to be a file on Commons updated automatically on a daily basis, which can
then be transcluded from some maintenance page. That way, Commons
volunteers will get an idea of how permissions is doing at the moment.
Here's an example with up-to-date values:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g78un01dx3krxdm/State_of_the_permissions-commons_queues_in_the_last_4_weeks.png?dl=0
-- I think that's pretty cool (the graph, that is, not the backlog ...).

Now, as far as other metrics are concerned, it's something that we (as OTRS
admins) are working on, but also something that is not too easy given OTRS'
built-in reporting functionalities are so rudimentary, they can hardly be
used to produce anything meaningful. Starting this month, however, we'll
post monthly reports (rather than just an annual report), featuring first
response times, workload distributions and ticket load. These will be
posted with a bit of a delay (to be able to report the response time), i.e.
the January report is due at the beginning of March. Our annual report for
2014 -- which will be signicantly expanded vis-à-vis the 2013 doc -- will
be posted sometime during the next two weeks (an announcement will also be
sent to this list).

It's likely that there is quite some bid-ask spread when it comes to
getting good stats, but I very much welcome your suggestions.

Cheers,
Patrik
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread James Heilman
I applied for OTRS a while back and was turned down. Not sure why. I have
arranged the release of 10s of thousands of medical images and uploaded
nearly a thousand myself. Am involved in dozens of collaborations with like
minded organizations and I have a good grasp of copyright. Anyway I now
have someone to ping when I need a faster response.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Andrea Zanni
Thanks Ryan for the clarification.
My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o to
chapters?
Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or something
else.
What could speed up the volunteers work?

Aubrey


On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 James,


 I realize your tickets were already resolved but I thought I'd take a
 moment to clarify the issues that cause the delays in response.


 The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) relies on the generous work
 of hundreds of volunteers from all over the world to handle hundreds of
 thousands of e-mails each year.

 The scope of these tickets range from vandalism reports or technical issues
 to problems with biographies of living people and other generic edit
 requests, and dozens of other categories.  A large percentage of the
 overall tickets received are permissions tickets -- e-mails used to
 verify the release of content on Wikimedia sites, typically from third
 parties.

 Like every project that Wikimedians work on, there are various things that
 the volunteers are tasked to handle. The agents who take on this role do so
 in addition to their existing editing activities, often at the cost of
 their own free time. Due to the trust and patience required to handle these
 public-facing aspects of Wikimedia, the pool of available volunteers tends
 to be smaller than in other areas of the projects. Unfortunately, backlogs
 can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
 the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
 process. It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some backlogs
 never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
 unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of us
 can relate to in one way or another.

 We had very good queue levels for much of 2014, but began noticing an
 increase in permissions and general information tickets (specifically in
 the English language) around the end of the year. Unfortunately, the end of
 the year typically shows higher than usual response times, likely because
 of volunteer free time. While OTRS agents are very dedicated, answering
 tickets can be stressful at times, so it’s not typically the type of thing
 you’ll want to during holiday vacations. Pair those longer response times
 with an increase in tickets because of our hard-working Wikimedians adding
 content and submitting more permissions tickets in their holiday free time,
 and it creates a bit of a backlog. :-)

 Just as in other areas of our projects, backlogs are inevitable, especially
 in the more mundane and tougher areas. However, our dedicated pool of
 volunteers works diligently to clear these backlogs when they come up.
 While, again, it’s a tough job that’s not for everyone, we always welcome
 new applicants. Actually, we're continuously adding new agents. In 2014 we
 added 62 new community queue accounts[2] to handle general information and
 permissions inquiries. Additionally, our agent retention is better - we
 lost about half as many agents in 2014 as we did in 2013. But finally, if
 you really want to help with the backlogs, we’re always looking for great
 new team members.  Feel free to throw up an application on
 [[m:OTRS/Volunteering]] if you think you’d make a good agent and we’ll be
 happy to review it.

 Basically, OTRS is tough job that runs into backlogs just like any other
 part of Wikimedia. However, we’re continuously working to add more agents
 and clear those backlogs as soon as they start.

 I hope this helps clarify the current issues.

 Ryan // User:Rjd0060

 (OTRS admin)

 [1]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements

 [2] Community queue accounts are OTRS accounts with access to queues that
 answer general information inquiries about our projects, permissions and/or
 photosubmissions tickets. Other types of accounts do not have answer these
 tickets, but instead have access to a smaller subset of queues, such as
 those related to the Foundation (e.g., donations), chapters, or advanced
 rights on the projects (e.g., oversight, stewards). See
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy#Community_queues for
 more information.

 On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:52 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

  OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
  images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am
 simply
  uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.
 
  --
  James Heilman
  MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
 
  The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
  www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Michael Maggs
I would like to see a bot or tool that could provide visibility of statistics 
on the various OTRS queues in near-real time. At present there is no automated 
way to see on Commons or any of the Wikipedias that backlogs even exist, let 
alone see how they vary with time, what the average time to first response is, 
time to resolve/close etc. 

It would be great if we had a template I could add to a Commons page so I could 
see this information every time I login. 

Michael 

Michael 
Michael 
 On 4 Feb 2015, at 10:46, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Thanks Ryan for the clarification.
 My question is: what could we ask, as a community, to the WMF, o to
 chapters?
 Is there some tool/task/workflow that could receive help from Wikimedia?
 Maybe a new software, or some trusted agents in key position, or something
 else.
 What could speed up the volunteers work?
 
 Aubrey
 
 
 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 James,
 
 
 I realize your tickets were already resolved but I thought I'd take a
 moment to clarify the issues that cause the delays in response.
 
 
 The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) relies on the generous work
 of hundreds of volunteers from all over the world to handle hundreds of
 thousands of e-mails each year.
 
 The scope of these tickets range from vandalism reports or technical issues
 to problems with biographies of living people and other generic edit
 requests, and dozens of other categories.  A large percentage of the
 overall tickets received are permissions tickets -- e-mails used to
 verify the release of content on Wikimedia sites, typically from third
 parties.
 
 Like every project that Wikimedians work on, there are various things that
 the volunteers are tasked to handle. The agents who take on this role do so
 in addition to their existing editing activities, often at the cost of
 their own free time. Due to the trust and patience required to handle these
 public-facing aspects of Wikimedia, the pool of available volunteers tends
 to be smaller than in other areas of the projects. Unfortunately, backlogs
 can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
 the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
 process. It happens on every large Wikimedia project -- where some backlogs
 never get cleared (just look at the English Wikipedia’s articles with
 unsourced statements! [1])-- so it is something I believe almost all of us
 can relate to in one way or another.
 
 We had very good queue levels for much of 2014, but began noticing an
 increase in permissions and general information tickets (specifically in
 the English language) around the end of the year. Unfortunately, the end of
 the year typically shows higher than usual response times, likely because
 of volunteer free time. While OTRS agents are very dedicated, answering
 tickets can be stressful at times, so it’s not typically the type of thing
 you’ll want to during holiday vacations. Pair those longer response times
 with an increase in tickets because of our hard-working Wikimedians adding
 content and submitting more permissions tickets in their holiday free time,
 and it creates a bit of a backlog. :-)
 
 Just as in other areas of our projects, backlogs are inevitable, especially
 in the more mundane and tougher areas. However, our dedicated pool of
 volunteers works diligently to clear these backlogs when they come up.
 While, again, it’s a tough job that’s not for everyone, we always welcome
 new applicants. Actually, we're continuously adding new agents. In 2014 we
 added 62 new community queue accounts[2] to handle general information and
 permissions inquiries. Additionally, our agent retention is better - we
 lost about half as many agents in 2014 as we did in 2013. But finally, if
 you really want to help with the backlogs, we’re always looking for great
 new team members.  Feel free to throw up an application on
 [[m:OTRS/Volunteering]] if you think you’d make a good agent and we’ll be
 happy to review it.
 
 Basically, OTRS is tough job that runs into backlogs just like any other
 part of Wikimedia. However, we’re continuously working to add more agents
 and clear those backlogs as soon as they start.
 
 I hope this helps clarify the current issues.
 
 Ryan // User:Rjd0060
 
 (OTRS admin)
 
 [1]
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements
 
 [2] Community queue accounts are OTRS accounts with access to queues that
 answer general information inquiries about our projects, permissions and/or
 photosubmissions tickets. Other types of accounts do not have answer these
 tickets, but instead have access to a smaller subset of queues, such as
 those related to the Foundation (e.g., donations), chapters, or advanced
 rights on the projects (e.g., oversight, stewards). See
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy#Community_queues for
 more information.
 
 On 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Michael Maggs
Or AWB, though neither option provides the sort of efficiency that is 
needed tio deal easily with the sort of issues that Tomasz mentions.


Michael


Jeevan Jose mailto:jkadav...@gmail.com
4 February 2015 12:01


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js can be 
used for

mass edits.

Jee
___
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

Tomasz Ganicz mailto:polime...@gmail.com
4 February 2015 11:03
Well - regarding permission-commons ques the current problem with mass
upload agreements is Common's regulation that ticket-templates has to be
added by OTRS volunteers themselves, except, when you are using GLAM tool,
but GLAM tool is tailored for really huge mass uploads as it requires lot
of preliminary preparations. So, there is no good path for mid-size mass
uploads - say from 10 till 100-500 files.

This is incredibly boring job to add 100 templates to 100 files. There are
some semiautomatic tools for this - but it still requires small 
programming

and/or direct personal assistance - with at least 2 clicks per file. So
OTRS volunteers - when they see agreements for for example100 pictures -
are avoiding this, becasue handing this means not only aswering for E-mail
but also 100 boring edits...

I was addressing the issue on OTRS e-mail list, around a year ago, but the
answer was, that this is not the problem. But in fact - whenever there is
such semi-mass-upload agreement - you can observe that OTRS volunteers are
avoiding answering them.






James Heilman mailto:jmh...@gmail.com
3 February 2015 04:52
OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am 
simply

uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.


___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Jeevan Jose
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well - regarding permission-commons ques the current problem with mass
 upload agreements is Common's regulation that ticket-templates has to be
 added by OTRS volunteers themselves, except, when you are using GLAM tool,
 but GLAM tool is tailored for really huge mass uploads as it requires lot
 of preliminary preparations. So, there is no good path for mid-size mass
 uploads - say from 10 till 100-500 files.

 This is incredibly boring job to add 100 templates to 100 files. There are
 some semiautomatic tools for this - but it still requires small programming
 and/or direct personal assistance - with at least 2 clicks per file.  So
 OTRS volunteers - when they see agreements for for example100 pictures -
 are avoiding this, becasue handing this means not only aswering for E-mail
 but also 100 boring edits...

 I was addressing the issue on OTRS e-mail list, around a year ago, but the
 answer was, that this is not the problem. But in fact - whenever there is
 such semi-mass-upload agreement - you can observe that OTRS volunteers are
 avoiding answering them.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js can be used for
mass edits.

Jee
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-04 Thread Michael Maggs
I mentioned a few basic things in my previous email. There's probably little 
point in my writing a comprehensive wish list unless you or some other 
volunteer can agree to work on providing an API against which a tool could be 
written. 

Michael 

Michael 
 On 4 Feb 2015, at 12:19, Krd k...@wikipedia.de wrote:
 
 Am 02/04/15 um 13:14 schrieb Michael Maggs:
 Yes, I do. That is updated manually, at irregular intervals, applies
 only to one Commons list, and doesn't provide anything like the
 information that should I think be available.
 
 ...which is in detail?
 
 
 ___
 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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-03 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 3 February 2015 at 06:56, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote:

 We have a 57 days backlog now (
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog) and we are
 processing first-come, first-served

Perhaps if OTRS volunteers weren't treated so badly *by OTRS admins*,
you'd have more people to help out?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-03 Thread Andreas Kolbe
While this may be a different OTRS queue, people have told me in the past
that OTRS can take weeks to reply, even in the case of acute BLP problems
such as the one described in this BBC Newsnight interview (time code 2:54):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg9O-e5KGdQ#t=174

I've heard this both from an affected BLP subject and from people with OTRS
access. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COIdiff=479583654oldid=479583284

I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about
unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks. [...]
[[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 02:50, 1 March
2012 (UTC)

Are such long waits still common?

Andreas

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Jeevan Jose jkadav...@gmail.com wrote:

 We have a 57 days backlog now (
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog) and we are
 processing first-come, first-served. In case of emergencies, please make a
 note at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or on
 my talk page.

 Regards,
 Jee

 On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, John Cummings 
 john.cummi...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

  Depending on where the content is coming from uploading the images to
  Flickr and then importing them may be an option. When I worked for the
  Science Museum we simply changed the licence of some of the images on
 their
  Flickr account and I used Flickr2Commons to import them, it also records
  the attribution and which CC licence the images used. I'm currently
 working
  with UNESCO to release some of their archive and will most probably
 suggest
  this route which as a bonus creates a second large audience for the
 content
  on Flickr.
 
  Hope this is helpful
 
  John
  On 2 Feb 2015 22:52, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus
 the
   images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am
  simply
   uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.
  
   --
   James Heilman
   MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
  
   The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
   www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
   ___
   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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-02 Thread James Heilman
Someone has thankfully read this issue and has agreed to deal with it. Many
thanks to the person involved :-) It is a huge amount of work to get
release for a single medical image. If commons admins wish the details they
can email me.

James

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:52 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
 images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am simply
 uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com




-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
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] Commons / OTRS is broken

2015-02-02 Thread James Heilman
OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am simply
uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-02 Thread John Cummings
Depending on where the content is coming from uploading the images to
Flickr and then importing them may be an option. When I worked for the
Science Museum we simply changed the licence of some of the images on their
Flickr account and I used Flickr2Commons to import them, it also records
the attribution and which CC licence the images used. I'm currently working
with UNESCO to release some of their archive and will most probably suggest
this route which as a bonus creates a second large audience for the content
on Flickr.

Hope this is helpful

John
On 2 Feb 2015 22:52, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
 images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am simply
 uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-02 Thread Jeevan Jose
We have a 57 days backlog now (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/backlog) and we are
processing first-come, first-served. In case of emergencies, please make a
note at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or on
my talk page.

Regards,
Jee

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, John Cummings 
john.cummi...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 Depending on where the content is coming from uploading the images to
 Flickr and then importing them may be an option. When I worked for the
 Science Museum we simply changed the licence of some of the images on their
 Flickr account and I used Flickr2Commons to import them, it also records
 the attribution and which CC licence the images used. I'm currently working
 with UNESCO to release some of their archive and will most probably suggest
 this route which as a bonus creates a second large audience for the content
 on Flickr.

 Hope this is helpful

 John
 On 2 Feb 2015 22:52, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

  OTRS does not even bother replying to the consents I send them. Thus the
  images I have received releases for get deleted. Going forwards I am
 simply
  uploading to En Wikipedia. Not ideal but not sure what the solution is.
 
  --
  James Heilman
  MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
 
  The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
  www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
  ___
  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 / OTRS is broken

2015-02-02 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

James Heilman, 03/02/2015 05:52:

not sure what the solution is.


Usually, following the docs: «use {{subst:OP}} to tell others that it's 
in progress» 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#Templates_to_use_on_image_pages


Nemo

___
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 copyright extremism

2014-12-14 Thread geni
On 13 December 2014 at 20:34, Lilburne lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net wrote:



 I can't imagine a publisher taking the risk on web images that some
 un-contactable anon uploaded. Imagine printing 1000s of copies of a book
 and then discovering that you don't have the rights to the images. No one
 does this in the real world, its a Commons fantasy.



I don't know about books but Private eye (circulation 200K) has used a
commons image at least once.


-- 
geni
___
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 copyright extremism

2014-12-13 Thread JP Béland
Russavia wrote To crop the
logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
copyvio.  Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even
force) any modifications of an image to be free also?

JP aka Amqui


2014-12-11 11:04 GMT-07:00 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com:

 Geni

 You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
 http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm

 This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
 issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging

 But in Steven's case, it is also complicated by Japanese law having to
 be considered.

 Jane

 FoP may or may not cover it.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Tunisia
 states the work has to be permanently located in a public place. It
 could also depend on the purpose of the photo.

 Nathan

 I'm sorry, but I can't believe you were seriously talking about a logo
 on the tractor which isn't basically visible in the original photo you
 showed. It's call de minimis in the photo on Commons. To crop the
 logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
 copyvio. There is another aspect of de minimis that needs to be
 considered. You can't walk into a bookshop and take photos of a rack
 of magazine covers (which would be copyrighted) and upload those to
 Commons, as in that context of that photo each individual part can not
 be separated from the overall motif of the photograph.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DM might be nice reading for
 you.

 Steven

 There's seriously so many aspects that we have to consider on Commons,
 and the entire VOLUNTEER community does it's best. It's not good to
 attack the entire community as you did in your opening post, when the
 editor who nominated the image for deletion did so in good faith, and
 in fact the issue of COM:PACKAGING deletions was being discussed in
 #wikimedia-commons for some hours. You make it sound that we love
 deleting people's uploads just to piss them off, and I guarantee you
 that is not the case. If you ever want to have a civilised discussion
 on the issues, go on project and start that discussion. Just don't
 approach the issue by calling us all extremists, because you'll simply
 be ignored, not only by myself, but by others too I would imagine.

 I've got nothing more to say here I think.

 Russavia






 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:25 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 11 December 2014 at 16:54, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  Steven,
 
  No Stephen, this is toxic --
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
 
  My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
 
 
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
  about your long, whiny post.
 
  Thanks for reading
 
  Russavia
 
 
 
  Really? The relevant caselaw isn't as clear as you appear to suggest. In
  particular the judges in the Ninth Circuit ruling (WMF is based in
  California so Ninth Circuit) have explicit rejected the idea that labels
 on
  useful articles (which packaging generally is) creative derivative when
  dealing with product photography. I am admittedly unaware of any case-law
  considering labels vs stuff directly printed onto packing but the general
  principles seem to hold.
 
  --
  geni
  ___
  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 copyright extremism

2014-12-13 Thread Marco Chiesa
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:

 Russavia wrote To crop the
 logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
 copyvio.  Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even
 force) any modifications of an image to be free also?


Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A
simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free
photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and
paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a
large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...

Cruccone



___
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 copyright extremism

2014-12-13 Thread JP Béland
We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not trademark that are
too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The
reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright.

2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com:

 On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:

  Russavia wrote To crop the
  logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
  copyvio.  Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and even
  force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
 

 Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A
 simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a free
 photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A and
 paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a
 large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...

 Cruccone

 
 
 ___
 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 copyright extremism

2014-12-13 Thread Bruentrup
You cannot crop a minor trademark element, eg. logo, incidentally
located within a free photographic image and upload it to Commons as
a free use instance of that trademark / logo.

BRUENTRUP

On 12/13/14, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:
 We're talking strictly about copyright here. If not trademark that are
 too simple to be copyrightable would be considered but they are not. The
 reason the logo would become unacceptable on Commons is based on copyright.

 2014-12-13 4:27 GMT-07:00 Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com:

 On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote:

  Russavia wrote To crop the
  logo out to appear as it does in your linked to image, it would be a
  copyvio.  Doesn't the free license we use is supposed to allow (and
  even
  force) any modifications of an image to be free also?
 

 Not necessarily. Basically, you cannot release rights you don't have. A
 simple example: let's say you have a free photo of politician A, and a
 free
 photo of porn star B (in some explicit pose). If you crop the head of A
 and
 paste on the body of B, it will probably considered illegal in quite a
 large number of countries. In this case, it's still free copyright-wise...

 Cruccone

 
 
 ___
 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 copyright extremism

2014-12-12 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hoi,
 This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware
 of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
 someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
 living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.

 When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
 only defence is you are demotivating me than that is exactly what needs
 to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their misguided
 interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
 will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.

 Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
 Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not moved
 to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off terribly
 and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
 and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
 more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
 work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.

And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html

Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764action=history
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263action=history

Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
batches of semi-automated edits.

--
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 copyright extremism

2014-12-12 Thread Pipo Le Clown
- You must change.
- Ok, let's discuss this together. Explain what you think is wrong, and how
we can fix it.
- No, you must change first.

Commons can change. Policies can evolve. But staying outside the circle and
throwing mud at those inside will not help them to open and accept you at a
friend...

This thread is like a bully kicking a child while asking why don't you
want to be my friend ?

Le ven. 12 déc. 2014 à 9:09, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com a
écrit :

 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hoi,
  This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
 aware
  of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
  someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
  living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
 
  When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
  only defence is you are demotivating me than that is exactly what needs
  to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
 misguided
  interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
  will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
 
  Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
  Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
 moved
  to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
 terribly
  and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
  and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
  more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
  work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.

 And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
 projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
 also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
 Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
 copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
 the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
 proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.

 http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-
 and-impact-factor-of-nature.html

 Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
 take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
 reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
 them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/

 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764action=history
 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263action=history

 Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
 times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
 believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
 caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
 wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
 content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
 batches of semi-automated edits.

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://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 copyright extremism

2014-12-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
When specific categories of data do not make it in Wikidata like the
impact factor, it is not a problem. As much can be understood from my
blogpost.

I may miss certain items as not being human. That is the exceptionto the
rule. In the past weeks I have added tens of thousands of statements. I
have in the past published many times about strategies of improving the
quality of Wikidata. I have worked with people on implementing such
strategies as well.

So what is your point ? Am I evil ?? If so, fine. When you have better
strategies for adding statements to Wikidata speak up.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 December 2014 at 09:08, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hoi,
  This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not
 aware
  of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
  someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
  living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
 
  When people complain that Commonists go to far in what they do and their
  only defence is you are demotivating me than that is exactly what needs
  to be done. They need to be demotivated to go berserk with their
 misguided
  interpretation of copyright.  When some hotheads leave the building, it
  will lower the temperature and we can start to talk.
 
  Commons is not the only project that serves the whole of our communities.
  Wikidata is another. I regularly find images for people that are not
 moved
  to Commons because Commons is not trusted. Now that pisses me off
 terribly
  and it sours my appreciation of Commons. As it is, Commons is not trusted
  and not discussing this only puts this discussion further back with even
  more ill feelings and even less appreciation for the people who do good
  work at Commons. They are ultimately the people who suffer the most.

 And the same is said and done regarding Wikidata , which client
 projects are very skeptical about trusting to hold data.  Wikidata
 also has its own copyright issues.  If Wikipedia data is migrated to
 Wikidata, and it is determined that Wikidata violations database
 copyrights (whereas Wikipedia may not have), we have to migrate all
 the data back.  Exactly the same as Commons.  Yet you've been a
 proponent of Wikidata ignoring these database copyright issues.


 http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/03/wikipedia-and-impact-factor-of-nature.html

 Wikidata also has quality control issues that will mean it is going to
 take a lot of work to clean up the data it contains in order to become
 reliable. e.g. in the last few days you've created items and labelled
 them as 'instance of human' , when they are not humans. :/

 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18615764action=history
 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q18601263action=history

 Your response when this exact same problem has been discussed several
 times is, if I can paraphrase, .. you do so many edits that you
 believe it is someone elses job to fix the small percentage of errors
 caused by your hyper-productivity.  That works in theory in large
 wikis, but doesnt work so well when the vast majority of new Wikidata
 content is added by simplistic bots and humans doing similarly large
 batches of semi-automated edits.

 --
 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

___
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

  1   2   3   >