Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

bout 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. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

d (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 >&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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 Mes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

rra 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 dat

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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 (

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

"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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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 Betre

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

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

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. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

eel 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 >> >> >

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

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@

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

o...@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 > volunteer

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

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

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

kimedia-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

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

Dear James, A few quick points 1. I had clearly ascribed the uploading of these images to "volunteers" and not to the "evil WMF". " .. I see that the Wikimedia volunteers on Facebook blissfully uploading ..." 2. The first image I linked to explicitly prohibits (in his CC-BY-4 permissions

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

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:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

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 >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons search display results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 –

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

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 ? ___

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

- 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

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.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

And where do you see what you are writing here? If you really consider it bullying to say outside Commons that you think something is wrong with Commons, then the situation is much worse than I thought it would be. Your analogy is severely flawed in many places, and only functions to enrage those

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Am I the only one that sees the irony in asking folks not to pick on the Commons community, then immediately asserting that enwp is the source of all drama? Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12/12/2014 4:56 PM, Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote: As you said, the first issue of Commons is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Vous savez quoi? Allez tous vous faire foutre. C'est facile de se moquer dans sa langue maternelle, de jouer sur les mots et d'entourer ses insultes d'un joli emballage. Ça n'est pas vraiment ma manière d'être, alors dans une langue étrangère... C'est facile de venir taper sur Commons sur cette

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Absolutely not the only one!   Sent from Samsung Mobile Original message From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net Date: 12/12/2014 11:44 (GMT+02:00) To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

Gerard, Thanks for adding all of those statements to Wikidata! Thanks to you, I have been able to match up thousands of artists in Mix-n-Match! Like you, I am not afraid of a 1%-3% error margin, especially when tools like Mix-n-Match mean we can uncover such mistakes quickly and efficiently.

  1   2   3   >