Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Vi to]

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget  ha
scritto:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
>

For EU citizens upload at Flickr could actually reduce our
GDPR-responsibility as platform.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 16:03 Lane Rasberry <
l...@bluerasberry.com> ha scritto:

>
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>

+10

Il giorno lun 13 mag 2019 alle ore 21:42 Isaac Olatunde <
reachout2is...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think
> allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons
> community works in general to delete\undelete files would be
> counterproductive.
>

I still think they can just left performing actions at their own
responsibility.

Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:25 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
> since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
> filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
> now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
> and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
> but nothing is perfect.


 I agree, but most of abusefilter effectiveness lies in 'block' option,
which is not so common among wikis.

Vito
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

To quote what you said

> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.

This is not about previous publishing, this is about the person
publishing a photo.

Problems with previous publishing is not special in any way for
professional photographers vs amateur photographers. If a photo is
previously published it _may_ be an indication of a copyvio, but it
can also clarify the matter as the previous published photo may carry
a byline stating the name of the photographer.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:44 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> The issue is not in that way.
> If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
> If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
> the author?
> OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
> etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad  a écrit :
>
> > Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> > newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> > name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
> >
> > There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
> >
> > John Erling Blad
> > /jeblad
> >
> >
> > tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yann Forget
> > > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > > and me being me, what is different?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > > for
> > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > capable
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > > what it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> > you
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > something
> > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > violating
> > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Thanks Lane for the clarification. I disagree on some points, but it is useful 
to read the points.

Galder

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Lane 
Rasberry 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
>
> It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
> publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
> moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> > previously
> > > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > >
> > > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> > >
> > > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Lane Rasberry]

wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -

   - recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and
   extraordinary
   - lack of on-wiki documentation of program
   - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation
   - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new
   Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual
   - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the
   program and its documentation

It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do
these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from
~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a
movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and
donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United
States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff
to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to
the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost
for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we
could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training
material development.

Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of
people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of
opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative
development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what
to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.

I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this
decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same
decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that
they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the
reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people
reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known.
Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.

You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our
inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have
regret.

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
>
> Thanks
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Lane Rasberry 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
>
> It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
> publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
> moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
>
> Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
> common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
> quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
> this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
>
> The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
> communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
> our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
> compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
> case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
> these already reasonable expectations.
>
> If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
> partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
> Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
> space.
> WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> > previously
> > > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > >
> > > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> > >
> > > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> > >
> >
> > Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> > AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> > Flickr before impo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?

Thanks

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Lane 
Rasberry 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.

It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> ___
> 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>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Lane Rasberry]

I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.

It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki
publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and
moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.

Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most
common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low
quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see
this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.

The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to
communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With
our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal
compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in
case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of
these already reasonable expectations.

If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional
partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports
Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation
space.
WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network



On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
> écrit :
>
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
> previously
> > > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> >
> > Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
> >
> > Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> > publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
> >
>
> Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
> AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
> Flickr before importing to Commons.
> This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright
> violation.
> Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
>
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > > OTRS.
> >
> > Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> > gather support.
>
>
> This is simply a consequence of the above.
> If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
> published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
> and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
> but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
> away for free.
> In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
> which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
> free license.
>
> Regards, Yann
> PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
> strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
> solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
> am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
> messenger.
>
> --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
>
>  Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett  a
écrit :

> On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
>
> Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
>
> Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
> publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
>

Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course.
AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to
Flickr before importing to Commons.
This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation.
Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
>
> Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
> gather support.


This is simply a consequence of the above.
If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being
published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned,
and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine,
but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them
away for free.
In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.),
which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a
free license.

Regards, Yann
PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less
strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would
solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I
am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the
messenger.

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


 Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia
since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for
filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good
now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch
and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course,
but nothing is perfect.

Best,
Paulo

Mister Thrapostibongles  escreveu no dia
segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 20:44:

> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

You are right, Asaf. It seems that getting the sysop bit is much harder now
than it used to be in the past, possibly due to many situations of
inexperienced sysops causing havoc in Commons. OTOH, any
destructive/untrustworthy account, such as "Daphne Lantier"/INC, can easily
get the flag by being overactive in the usual tasks, and even get a motion
by some of the most established sysops of Commons toward forgiveness and
tolerance of plainly destructive behavior, for all the "good work" it also
did there.

Paulo



Asaf Bartov  escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019
à(s) 15:51:

> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
> >
> > Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused
> on
> > a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.
> > rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,  > wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> That has not been my experience.  I recently wanted to help reduce the
> load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on
> undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent,
> and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR
> request).  Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track
> record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority
> opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a
> certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions
> (specifically) before they would consider accepting my help.  This does
> suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very
> low-risk volunteers like me.
>
> I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.
>
>A.
> --
> Asaf Bartov 
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Philip Kopetzky]

I really think that the main problem here is not automation but the problem
Asaf pointed out: A small circle of people dictating the rules and who's
allowed to participate and who isn't. Automation just perpetuates the cycle
of those same people being in control of those processes.

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:08, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I love this thread.  Thank you to all participating in it...
>
> Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there
> is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an
> admin!   SJ
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
> > This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you
> > are the author. Period."
> >
> > The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he
> > has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the
> > author of the material.
> >
> > Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on
> > the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any
> > attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that
> > a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could
> > still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS.
> > Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the
> > uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after
> > the material is made public.
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
> is
> > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> > to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
> know
> > how to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> > of Vi to 
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> mass
> > > > > housekeeping very easy.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andy Mabbett]

> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:46, David Gerard  wrote:

> Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
> part of a Wikmedian of long experience.  Your assumption of bad faith
> here is stupendous.

I too would like to see Yann's justfictation for this claim; and for
his on-wiki post threatening Andrew with a block.

-- 
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget  wrote:

> Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.

Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?

Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should
publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons

> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> OTRS.

Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would
gather support.

[snip quote of the entire thread to date]

Will *everyone* please stop doing that?

-- 
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Fæ]

Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we
imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to
look at.

A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential
close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing
Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any
reliance on external databases.

The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF
opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and
databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.

Fae

On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles
 wrote:
>
> Fae,
>
> I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
> that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
> directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
> blog post
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
> I
> presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
> their projects.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

In this case none of the images and videos were published outside Commons. But 
there were claims that this were Derivative Works. We are again in the same 
point: we are asking for uploaders to fulfill something beyond the usual 
uploading duties.

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Yann 
Forget 
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:43 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

The issue is not in that way.
If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
the author?
OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad  a écrit :

> Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
>
> There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
>
> tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann Forget
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > and me being me, what is different?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
&g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

The issue is not in that way.
If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem.
If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are
the author?
OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data,
etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad  a écrit :

> Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
> newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
> name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
>
> There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
>
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
>
>
> tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> > published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> > I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> > OTRS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann Forget
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > > and me being me, what is different?
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> screening
> > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
> Comm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a
newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the
name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?

There are no difference, this is a fallacy.

John Erling Blad
/jeblad


tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget :

> Hi,
>
> Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
> published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
> I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
> OTRS.
>
> Regards,
> Yann Forget
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a écrit :
>
> > I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> > hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> > says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> > being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> > violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> > argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> > take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> > photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> > and me being me, what is different?
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > highly
> > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > Education
> > > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> > project
> > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> > Commons
> > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> > projects
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violatio

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
OTRS.

Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad  a écrit :

> I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
> hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
> says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
> being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
> violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
> argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
> take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
> photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
> and me being me, what is different?
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> >
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> amount of
> > > material it has to deal with.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> to
> > > do
> > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > GLAM-related
> > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> what it
> > > > is
> > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> create a
> > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> Common's
> > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > project
> > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > files a
> > > > > day:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > >
> > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> with
> > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> time -
> > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > issue
> > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > uploads
> > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > components
> > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> highly
> > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> Education
> > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> project
> > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> Commons
> > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> projects
> > > > and
> > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > > remarks
> > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > > copyrighted
> > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > > care."
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
> for
> > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > > >> ___
> > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guide

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Isaac Olatunde]

Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think
allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons
community works in general to delete\undelete files would be
counterproductive.

I agree with Yann that training would work. I think resources allocation
and attention should be given to community who wish to train volunteers on
how to contribute to Commons (beyond image uploads)

Regards,

Isaac

On Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:35 PM Vi to  I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
> commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
> cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > having more admins?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > reduced.[1]
> > >
> > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > housekeeping very easy.
> > >
> > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > >
> > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > >
> > > Links
> > > 1.
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Fae,

I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism
that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright
directive.  Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their
blog post
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-internet-freedom-in-controversial-copyright-vote/
I
presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on
their projects.

Thrapostibongles

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ  wrote:

> A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> reduced.[1]
>
> Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> housekeeping very easy.
>
> A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
>
> Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
>
> Fae
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> >
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> amount of
> > > material it has to deal with.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> to
> > > do
> > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > GLAM-related
> > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> what it
> > > > is
> > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> create a
> > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> Common's
> > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > project
> > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > files a
> > > > > day:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > >
> > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> with
> > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> time -
> > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > issue
> > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > uploads
> > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > components
> > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> highly
> > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> Education
> > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_con

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Isaac Olatunde]

I am not in anyway surprise at this nonsensical behavior of Yann.

This user once posted a misleading information about me and when asked to
correct it they issued a block threat.

It's just terrible.

Isaac

On Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:46 PM David Gerard  Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
> part of a Wikmedian of long experience.  Your assumption of bad faith
> here is stupendous.
>
> You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard
> to drive people away.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget  wrote:
> >
> > This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yann
> > Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> > https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> > +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
> >
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
> >
> > > This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
> folks
> > > - the precautionary principle.
> > >
> > > It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
> the
> > > AGF page on Commons.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > > >
> > > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most
> of
> > > the
> > > > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
> is
> > > > unfair and nonsense.
> > > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > > think
> > > > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> to
> > > > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
> know
> > > how
> > > > to communicate and why they must do it.
> > > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > > > author. Period.
> > > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying
> which
> > > is
> > > > the original work is not a good practice.
> > > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > > > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
> can
> > > > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > > able
> > > > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > > less
> > > > problems.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Galder
> > > > 
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l  on
> behalf of
> > > > Vi to 
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
> interested in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Isaac Olatunde]

The expectations is at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators#Community role


Regards,

Isaac

On Sun, May 12, 2019, 10:43 PM Todd Allen  I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons.
> I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on
> Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm
> familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed
> been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first
> clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations
> are.
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia
> sysops
> > are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
> >
> > If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> > they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> > things that are Caesar's.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> > 21:13:
> >
> > > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > > efficient way.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > > has -
> > > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary
> skills
> > to
> > > > deal with copyright.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > > > escreveu:
> > > >
> > > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> > images
> > > > on
> > > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads
> come
> > > > from
> > > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > > jmh...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
> interested
> > > in
> > > > > > having more admins?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> > for
> > > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run
> a
> > > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not
> be
> > > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment
> to
> > > see
> > > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily
> housekeeping
> > > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would
> make
> > > mass
> > > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> > image
> > > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> > Commons
> > > > hat
> > > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > > than
> > > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem
> to
> > > suck
> > > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so
> long,
> > > that
> > > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > > short
> > > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> > useful
> > > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Links
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fae
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> > ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > > support
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > > ymb...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Isaac Olatunde]

Hello Paulo,


Thanks for restoring those images. If images are routinely deleted this
way, I'm afraid it would be difficult to retain new editors. Affiliates
invest a lot of time and resources to recruit new volunteers through
various programs/project and if their uploads are blindly deleted this way,
then it's a problem that needs urgent attention.

I honestly can't think of the best approach at the moment but something
needs to be done.

Regards,

Isaac

On Sun, May 12, 2019, 8:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta  This is true. I verified and restored almost all the files. There was one
> or two problems with students who uploaded an occasional derivative work
> (integrated in their own work), but almost all the files were OK, and
> correctly uploaded. The main problem here, IMO, was marking sourced stuff
> as "no source" without any explanation, marking stiff as derivative work
> without explaining or stating what the original work was, and then deleting
> it uncritically. I understand there is a tremendous backlog in Commons, and
> the community is tiny and most of the sysops (on which I include myself)
> are generally more interested in other activities than the regular
> management of the project, but IMO this sort of behavior should not be seen
> as acceptable. IMO it would be preferable to not delete or mark anything at
> all, and let the backlog grow freely, than to do it this way. On the other
> hand, in general the sysops with this kind of behavior are the most
> productive in the whole management of the project, and I feel I've no right
> to criticize when I have no plans to regularly  help in what they are doing
> with such dedication.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia domingo,
> 12/05/2019 à(s) 20:18:
>
> > Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before
> > uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all
> > the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow
> > when uploading to Commons.
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > Peter Southwood 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM
> > To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> >
> > It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so
> > people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a
> > bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without
> > analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation
> > really.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> components
> > of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > Newsletter
> >
> >
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> >
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> and
> > so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
> > were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> copyrighted
> > content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> > and
> >  "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> >
> > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > ___
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Vi to]

Many are.
I've always been in favour of a "do what you think you can do under your
responsibility"-model.

Any steward can do any action, still they don't do what they are not
familiar with. For example I seldom use central notice.


Vito

Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 22:28 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops
> are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
>
> If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> things that are Caesar's.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> 21:13:
>
> > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > efficient way.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > has -
> > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
> to
> > > deal with copyright.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > jmh...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> > in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> > see
> > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> > mass
> > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> image
> > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> Commons
> > > hat
> > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > than
> > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> > suck
> > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> > that
> > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > short
> > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> useful
> > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> > the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
> or
> > > > > capable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> > > polime...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[David Gerard]

Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
part of a Wikmedian of long experience.  Your assumption of bad faith
here is stupendous.

You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard
to drive people away.


- d.


On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
>
> > This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
> > - the precautionary principle.
> >
> > It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the
> > AGF page on Commons.
> >
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the
> > > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> > > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think
> > > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> > > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> > how
> > > to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is
> > > the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able
> > > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > > Vi to 
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman  > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> > hat
> > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

em, helping develop the 
video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus 
on), and how to find material that could be reused.
Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the 
materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the 
illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or had 
any doubt about their copyright status.
Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag 
that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading 
system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons and how to use 
the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with the students, and the 
third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained again what was the difference 
between free access and free license, because some of the students didn't get 
why we were not allowing them to upload some content.
Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors 
evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about 
their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then presented 
their works to a broader audience at the University.
Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all 
the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And 
then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to write a report 
about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I have followed all 
the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach Dashboard where I can track 
everything this students created, uploaded or 
edited:https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunikazioa_(2019)/home
 . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education 
programme portal:https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza

It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what 
licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I 
should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small 
book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had 
any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to each student, so they 
could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail so they could ask 
for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some answers.
Cheers
Galder
From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach We have dozens 
of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that 
if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who 
like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no 
point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long as they 
force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose them.
For example, many time I find a deleted file  I could spot dozens of similar in 
the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it 
or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the 
job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He 
probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. 
So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP 
for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the 
American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should),  
enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem 
when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random 
files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the 
same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N 
users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who 
perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who 
simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know 
how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they 
don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the 
newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " 
clause will appear.

So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means 
poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural 
incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain 
there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied 
by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andrew Lih]

Thanks for this, Galder. It's clear you went the extra mile to make sure
all these issues were addressed and in ways that exceed any education
project I have seen before, and I've been involved with Wikimedia and
education since 2003!

-Andrew


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:01 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I read this:
>
> On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with
> lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have
> met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard
> for the real expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be
> treated superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not
> relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you
> are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care
> for a functional working environment as well. You just expect someone else
> to build it for you.
>
> And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the
> environment triggers frustration.
>
> First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia
> contents for making richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues:
> the content should be as neutral as possible, all the content should be
> original and the music used should be cc-by-(sa). We explained this idea
> twice in two different meetings, first with one professor, then with all
> the team that was going to guide the students.
>
> Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four
> hours!) workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them
> examples of good content, we encouraged them to use only free sources and
> we explained how to work on Commons and why the content should be there.
>
> Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop
> the video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what
> to focus on), and how to find material that could be reused.
>
> Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all
> the materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the
> illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or
> had any doubt about their copyright status.
>
> Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to
> tag that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons
> uploading system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons
> and how to use the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with
> the students, and the third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained
> again what was the difference between free access and free license, because
> some of the students didn't get why we were not allowing them to upload
> some content.
>
> Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors
> evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about
> their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then
> presented their works to a broader audience at the University.
>
> Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that
> all the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW.
> Period. And then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to
> write a report about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I
> have followed all the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach
> Dashboard where I can track everything this students created, uploaded or
> edited:
> https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunikazioa_(2019)/home
> . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated
> education programme portal: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza
>
> It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work,
> what licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so,
> then I should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet
> and a small book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to
> them, so if they had any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to
> each student, so they could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct
> e-mail so they could ask for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we
> gave them some answers.
>
> Cheers
>
> Galder
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> We have dozens of cross p

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

I read this:

On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited 
understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people 
who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real 
expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated 
superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or 
why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused 
on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional 
working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you.

And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the environment 
triggers frustration.

First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia contents 
for making richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues: the content 
should be as neutral as possible, all the content should be original and the 
music used should be cc-by-(sa). We explained this idea twice in two different 
meetings, first with one professor, then with all the team that was going to 
guide the students.

Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four 
hours!) workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them examples 
of good content, we encouraged them to use only free sources and we explained 
how to work on Commons and why the content should be there.

Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop the 
video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus 
on), and how to find material that could be reused.

Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the 
materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the 
illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or had 
any doubt about their copyright status.

Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag 
that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading 
system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons and how to use 
the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with the students, and the 
third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained again what was the difference 
between free access and free license, because some of the students didn't get 
why we were not allowing them to upload some content.

Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors 
evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about 
their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then presented 
their works to a broader audience at the University.

Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all 
the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And 
then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to write a report 
about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I have followed all 
the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach Dashboard where I can track 
everything this students created, uploaded or edited: 
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunikazioa_(2019)/home
 . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education 
programme portal: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza

It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what 
licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I 
should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small 
book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had 
any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to each student, so they 
could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail so they could ask 
for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some answers.

Cheers

Galder

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of 
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling 
is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that 
people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established 
there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long 
as they force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose 
them.
For example, many time I find a deleted file  I could spot dozens of similar in 
the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it 
or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the 
job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general 
feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a 
way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is 
established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, 
because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they will 
kinda oppose them.
For example, many time I find a deleted file  I could spot dozens of similar in 
the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it 
or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the 
job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He 
probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. 
So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP 
for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the 
American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should),  
enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem 
when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random 
files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the 
same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N 
users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who 
perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who 
simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know 
how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they 
don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the 
newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " 
clause will appear. 

So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means 
poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural 
incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain 
there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied 
by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one 
of the reason of our current situation.

I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community 
really wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of 
course, but I fear that would be a strong resistance.

A. M:


Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein  
ha scritto:  
 
 Ditto.  But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing
need.
Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and
continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic
proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate
cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of
> copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images
> and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community
> was interested.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
> not
> > declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
> > different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
> > now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
> > overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
> > experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
> > the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
> > nobody else helps with that.
> >
> > IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
> > general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
> > stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
> it
> > is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
> > idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
> > and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
> > mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
> > it probably passes by that.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia
> segunda,
> > 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
> >
> > > A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> > > maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
> here.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andrew Lih]

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:03 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons.
> I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains
> why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of
> allowing  content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe
> disappointment and surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who
> uploads that this policy may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would
> also be useful to explain what to do if it is applied where it should not
> be applied, whether from lack of evidence or for any other reason, and how
> to avoid the problem.
> It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload
> wizard. When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be
> offended.
>

Exactly this.

Commons veterans are annoyed that uploaders don't understand all the
principles and rules of Commons.

So to be helpful, I go into Commons:AGF to add the precautionary principle.

This way, people like Galder and students will know that: "where there is
significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be
deleted"

My attempt to help is then reverted. Twice. Then I get threatened that I
will be blocked if I try to help give better instructions.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzheado&diff=349936173&oldid=345797075

Tell me then, which is it going to be?

-Andrew
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andrew Lih]

Oh the irony!

You assumed bad faith on my good faith edit to [[Commons:Assume good
faith]].

What would you consider "dishonest" about the edits or the summaries?
Telling folks that the [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]] is
part of the policy dynamic that even experienced Wikipedians may not know
about (I certainly didn't) is most certainly useful.

That people are reverting the edits, in what seems to be an attempt to
either hide the precautionary principle or obfuscate it seems quite odd.
I'm assuming good faith here, so I'm not ascribing any motives to these
reverts. You did not even give any reason for your revert, whereas I did in
fact leave edit summaries.

For reference:

Edit 1 - "add precautionary principle"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&diff=prev&oldid=349110161

Reverted by Yann with no comment.

Edit 2 - "refine wording"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&diff=prev&oldid=349650525

Reverted by Colin with "Nothing to do with AFG [sic] and certainly not
"refine wording" -- dishonest edit summary"

I changed "should be deleted" to "may be deleted" in case that was the
wording someone had issue with. That's why the edit summary said "refine
wording."

-Andrew




On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:10 AM Yann Forget  wrote:

> This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
>
> > This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
> folks
> > - the precautionary principle.
> >
> > It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
> the
> > AGF page on Commons.
> >
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the
> > > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> > > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think
> > > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> > > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> > how
> > > to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is
> > > the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
> can
> > > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able
> > > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of
> > > Vi to 
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Samuel Klein]

I love this thread.  Thank you to all participating in it...

Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there
is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an
admin!   SJ

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you
> are the author. Period."
>
> The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he
> has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the
> author of the material.
>
> Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on
> the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any
> attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that
> a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could
> still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS.
> Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the
> uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after
> the material is made public.
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
>  wrote:
> >
> > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> >
> >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> unfair and nonsense.
> >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
> to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> how to communicate and why they must do it.
> >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> author. Period.
> >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> is the original work is not a good practice.
> >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> take a whole year of volunteer work.
> >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> >
> > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> less problems.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Galder
> > ____
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of Vi to 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> >
> > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> on
> > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> from
> > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman  >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > > having more admins?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > reduced.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > >
> > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> hat
> > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Samuel Klein]

Ditto.  But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing
need.
Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and
continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic
proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate
cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman  wrote:

> I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of
> copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images
> and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community
> was interested.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
> not
> > declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
> > different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
> > now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
> > overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
> > experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
> > the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
> > nobody else helps with that.
> >
> > IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
> > general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
> > stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
> it
> > is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
> > idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
> > and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
> > mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
> > it probably passes by that.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia
> segunda,
> > 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
> >
> > > A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> > > maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
> here.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Asaf Bartov]

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
>
> Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused on
> a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.
> rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,  wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


That has not been my experience.  I recently wanted to help reduce the
load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on
undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent,
and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR
request).  Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track
record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority
opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a
certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions
(specifically) before they would consider accepting my help.  This does
suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very
low-risk volunteers like me.

I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.

   A.
-- 
Asaf Bartov 
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 If I could share my vision, I am not part of the group of "expert flagged 
users"(I have some flags here and there, I was asked to get more but I have no 
rush) and I am not part of the group of "expert outreach users" (I make events 
but change them so often I do not play any specific role). Surprisingly, I 
never had any problem so far with Commons. Some unnecessary excess, but limited 
and mostly immediately showed to newbies as an example. Obviously, there is no 
way I sugar coat them, it's part of being a honest teacher to show these 
aspects and they are not cow to milk. I guess it works probably because my 
approach is far from those that I see here on both side.

The people who patrol (or have similar functions) show often limited interested 
in a functional working environment. Their approach is in my opinion one of the 
cause of the backlog, not a consequence. I could make you a long detailed list 
right now about that. 

On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited 
understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people 
who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real 
expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated 
superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or 
why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused 
on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional 
working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you.

That being said, that there are many small ways to improve the situation, not 
even complicated ones, and they can act as a catalysts on the long term but 
they don't come for free or because "WMF does stuff" or because there are 
patient users who build them step by step in the dark. They could, if you are 
lucky, but probably in this scenario they will also start from from your 
self-criticism. 

if you can spot such attitude in these mails, there's hope. Otherwise, it's 
probably going to be the same for some time.
BTW, glad to be proven wrong.
have a nice wiki
A.M.



Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 14:27:01 CEST, John Erling Blad 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Some years ago I did a quite simplified analysis of the number of
active contributors, and normalized the number against the number of
people wit internet connections for the respective language groups.
The relative number was pretty similar for all languages from similar
cultural groups. I suspect that for a given group, or project, there
is a limit on the relative number of contributors and we can't get
above it without changing the project somehow. Another indication that
there is a "crowdsource constant" is the trend themselves on
contributors at the individual projects, they have been stable (or
near stable) for a very long time. (Yes they drop somewhat, I know
that!)

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe 
> (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

Some years ago I did a quite simplified analysis of the number of
active contributors, and normalized the number against the number of
people wit internet connections for the respective language groups.
The relative number was pretty similar for all languages from similar
cultural groups. I suspect that for a given group, or project, there
is a limit on the relative number of contributors and we can't get
above it without changing the project somehow. Another indication that
there is a "crowdsource constant" is the trend themselves on
contributors at the individual projects, they have been stable (or
near stable) for a very long time. (Yes they drop somewhat, I know
that!)

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe 
> (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

Trying to explain European copyright to Americans can be
quite hard… 

;)

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:07 AM Yann Forget  wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> Of course. More admins would lesser the work charge, and it would be great.
> We specially appreciate admins with multi-language capabilities, as it is a
> multilangual project.
> Of course, comprehensive knowledge of copyright is needed.
> That is complex, but it can be learnt.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman  a écrit :
>
> > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > having more admins?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > reduced.[1]
> > >
> > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > housekeeping very easy.
> > >
> > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > >
> > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > >
> > > Links
> > > 1.
> > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screenin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you
are the author. Period."

The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he
has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the
author of the material.

Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on
the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any
attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that
a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could
still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS.
Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the
uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after
the material is made public.

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
 wrote:
>
> As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
>
>   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the 
> Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is 
> unfair and nonsense.
>   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think on 
> experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince 
> to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to 
> communicate and why they must do it.
>   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. 
> Period.
>   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is 
> the original work is not a good practice.
>   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great job-queue. 
> But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole 
> year of volunteer work.
>   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able to 
> point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
>
> Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less 
> problems.
>
> Cheers
>
> Galder
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Vi 
> to 
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
> commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
> cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > having more admins?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > reduced.[1]
> > >
> > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > housekeeping very easy.
> > >
> > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > >
> > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > >
> > > Links
> > > 1.
> > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing
hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that
says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES
being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright
violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The
argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could
take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have
photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment,
and me being me, what is different?

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both.
>
> Best
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> > material it has to deal with.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> > do
> > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > >
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > GLAM-related
> > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > > is
> > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > >
> > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > >
> > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > project
> > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > similar.
> > > >
> > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > > other
> > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > files a
> > > > day:
> > > >
> > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > >
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > issue
> > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > >
> > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > uploads
> > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > >> Hello all,
> > > >>
> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > components
> > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > > >> Newsletter
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > > and
> > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > remarks
> > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > copyrighted
> > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > care."
> > > >> and
> > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > >> ___
> > > >> 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
> > ,
> > > >> 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > htt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[John Erling Blad]

I have proposed use of local sensitive hashing algorithms for at least
three different purposes in the past. All being turned down. Probably
it is due to LSHs being difficult to understand, and not to forget it
is a fairly bit of fighting over what is and whats not a "real" LSH.
In the past there have been a proposal to remove the SHA-1 digest for
the revision, which I guess shows how hard it is to argue about the
necessity of hashes.

If we want to do LSH for media, then we should probably check which
DCT gives best performance. In particular we should check out whether
there are methods that gives smaller footprints and faster calculation
and comparison. Media streams can also be fingerprinted by using clip
points. Also, as DCT is closely related to Fourier transforms (it is a
real component Fourier transform), it could also be interesting to
checking out cepstrum based transforms.

Related to this is also face recognition, but then we must discuss
various methods for generating eigenfaces. Not sure if this is the
proper forum for that!

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:41 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> reduced.[1]
>
> Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> housekeeping very easy.
>
> A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
>
> Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
>
> Links
> 1. 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
>
> Fae
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> >
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >
> > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> > > material it has to deal with.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> > > do
> > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > GLAM-related
> > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what 
> > > > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > project
> > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > files a
> > > > > day:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > >
> > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time 
> > > > > -
> > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > issue
> > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > uploads
> > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Hi all,

I think that Tomasz and Paulo have made two excellent points. Firstly,
Wikimedia Commons is a project on its own with a community that deserves
full respect and not just a storage of files that acts as a cloud service
to Wikipedia. Secondly, there is evident stagnation and even decline in the
on-wiki communities on the account of the expansion of the off-wiki
activities.

The problem here that almost all have pointed out is the enormous increase
of content compared to the fairly stagnant community growth. My impression
is that this is being allowed by the affiliates themselves when reaching
out to new partners and massively adding content with unchecked licencing
without caring much about the size of the on-wiki community that has to
deal with it. So, an ideal scenario would be to see affiliates not only
delivering new content but also contributing to community growth. As things
stand, the content growth at the current rates will make things impossible
to maintain by human hand, thus inviting the development of highly
sophisticated technology that needs to be integrated at a very high price.

In sum, the solution is either the development of new technology or
instructing the affiliates to grow the community while engaging in
collaborations that result in mass uploads.

Best,
Kiril

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:00 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not
> declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
> different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
> now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
> overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
> experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
> the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
> nobody else helps with that.
>
> IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
> general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
> stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it
> is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
> idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
> and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
> mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
> it probably passes by that.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia segunda,
> 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
>
> > A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> > maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> > ___
> > 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators

Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused on
a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.

Best,
Paulo

James Heilman  escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s)
11:02:

> I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of
> copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images
> and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community
> was interested.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
> not
> > declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
> > different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
> > now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
> > overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
> > experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
> > the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
> > nobody else helps with that.
> >
> > IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
> > general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
> > stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
> it
> > is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
> > idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
> > and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
> > mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
> > it probably passes by that.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia
> segunda,
> > 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
> >
> > > A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> > > maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
> here.
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

In my view it has not that much to do with AGF. In general people at
Commons do assume good faith, or at least they should. But when an user
uploads a mix of own work with copyvios, or a GLAM shows a complete lack of
understanding on copyright laws (by uploading modern art, for instance,
claiming that they own the paintings, so the copyright is theirs), in those
situations, use of the AGF principle is not possible, and the Precautionary
Principle enters the scene. In those situations it is common that the baby
gets thrown out with the bath water, which, IMO, is understandable and
expectable. In any case, whatever gets wrongly deleted in those situations
can be recovered afterwards.

Best,
Paulo

Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 08:03:

> The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons.
> I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains
> why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of
> allowing  content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe
> disappointment and surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who
> uploads that this policy may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would
> also be useful to explain what to do if it is applied where it should not
> be applied, whether from lack of evidence or for any other reason, and how
> to avoid the problem.
> It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload
> wizard. When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be
> offended.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Yann Forget
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:10 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
>
> Regards,
> Yann
> Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
> https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
> +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
>
>
>
> Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :
>
> > This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
> folks
> > - the precautionary principle.
> >
> > It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
> the
> > AGF page on Commons.
> >
> >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> > galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> > >
> > >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> > the
> > > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> > > unfair and nonsense.
> > >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> > think
> > > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> > > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> > how
> > > to communicate and why they must do it.
> > >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > > author. Period.
> > >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> > is
> > > the original work is not a good practice.
> > >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
> can
> > > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> > >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> > able
> > > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> > >
> > > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> > less
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Galder
> > > 
> > > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf
> of
> > > Vi to 
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> > >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[James Heilman]

I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of
copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images
and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community
was interested.

James

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not
> declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
> different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
> now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
> overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
> experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
> the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
> nobody else helps with that.
>
> IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
> general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
> stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it
> is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
> idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
> and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
> mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
> it probably passes by that.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia segunda,
> 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
>
> > A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> > maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole
different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
nobody else helps with that.

IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No
idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
it probably passes by that.

Best,
Paulo

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:

> A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Hi Todd,

If you are active in Commons, and demonstrably understand copyright, ToO,
DeMinimis, FOP, you are very welcome as a sysop there, AFAIK:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators

There are some minimal requests of participation, which should not be an
obstacle for anyone fairly active there.

Best,
Paulo

Todd Allen  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
22:43:

> I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons.
> I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on
> Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm
> familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed
> been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first
> clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations
> are.
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia
> sysops
> > are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
> >
> > If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> > they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> > things that are Caesar's.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> > 21:13:
> >
> > > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > > efficient way.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > > has -
> > > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary
> skills
> > to
> > > > deal with copyright.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > > > escreveu:
> > > >
> > > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> > images
> > > > on
> > > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads
> come
> > > > from
> > > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vito
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > > jmh...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
> interested
> > > in
> > > > > > having more admins?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> > for
> > > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run
> a
> > > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not
> be
> > > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment
> to
> > > see
> > > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily
> housekeeping
> > > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would
> make
> > > mass
> > > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> > image
> > > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> > Commons
> > > > hat
> > > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > > than
> > > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem
> to
> > > suck
> > > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so
> long,
> > > that
> > > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > > short
> > > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> > useful
> > > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Links
> > > > > > > 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fae
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> > ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > > support
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > > ymb...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

Fair comments.
It would be a useful allocation of the donors' money
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yann Forget
Sent: 12 May 2019 13:29
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Yes,  Yaroslav is right. The active community is small compared to the
amount of work to be done.

I have advocated since long that massive training is needed to fix this.
These trainings should be sponsored by the WMF and its affiliates.

Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 16:40, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :

> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> material it has to deal with.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> do
> > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > >
> > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> GLAM-related
> > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > is
> > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > >
> > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > >
> > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> project
> > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > similar.
> > >
> > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > other
> > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> files a
> > > day:
> > >
> > > See the list from just one day:
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > >
> > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> issue
> > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > >
> > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> uploads
> > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > >
> > >
> > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> Hello all,
> > >>
> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > components
> > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > >> Newsletter
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > >>
> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > and
> > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > remarks
> > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > copyrighted
> > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> care."
> > >> and
> > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > >>
> > >> Thrapostibongles
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

But the problem here is not about having a good coverage on copyright issues! 
Is about deleting things claiming that are DW without specifying what is the 
original work this files are derived from!
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

Same as for reviewing files.
I find more rewarding to work on content that creating and mainting help
pages.
I should mention that Aymatth2
 has done an amazing work
on completely reworking the copyright help pages, creating subpages by
country.
I think this helps a lot to find the information pertaining to a giving
file.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)

Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 13:11, Peter Southwood 
a écrit :

> And there is nobody who "must" improve commons help pages as they are all
> volunteers, so if someone wants better help pages, they can have a go at
> fixing them. Do be careful about how you go about it, as it must reflect
> project consensus.  Get agreement on the talk page first for any
> substantial change to minimise strife.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

My guest work is that
1. Adminship requires an extensive knowledge of copyright, that's the main
factor limiting the number of candidates.
2. Commons requires candidates to be active locally.
3. I find personally much more rewarding to work on content that reviewing
and cleaning files uploaded by others. I guess most people feel the same.

Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)

Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 11:39, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> a écrit :

> A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

And there is nobody who "must" improve commons help pages as they are all 
volunteers, so if someone wants better help pages, they can have a go at fixing 
them. Do be careful about how you go about it, as it must reflect project 
consensus.  Get agreement on the talk page first for any substantial change to 
minimise strife. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Tomasz Ganicz
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 5:14 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 16:23 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
napisał(a):

> As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
>
>   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
> Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> unfair and nonsense.
>

I think - what someone wanted to say - is that Commons is wiki with its own
community, which desire some respect as any other wikimedia communities. In
that sense - it is not cloud service which are usually maintained
automatically. It is better to think about Commons - as a wiki - not as a
cloud storage service.


  *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
> on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how
> to communicate and why they must do it.
>

That's true - therefore - when you organize any outreach or GLAM project it
is good to teach the users how to communicate on wiki - as it is a quite
strange system comparing to what typical internet user might be accustomed
to, nowadays.

  *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> author. Period.
>

Yes. Exactly. If you think about default upload wizard - it is possible to
upload other's works, but it is not that easy. Also - it is pretty hard to
upload public domain works.

  *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> take a whole year of volunteer work.
>

Well - this is disputable. I don't know global proportions - but for
example for Polish part of community - there are actually 3 employees doing
outreach and around 10 volunteers - and there are 3 really active Polish
Common's admins and only one regularly active OTRS agent (me)... Out of
these 3 really active Common's admins - 2 are actually also doing outreach.
And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team
at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common's habits and
how to effectively cope with them :-)


  *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
> to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
>

Yeah. Because there is no any single page on Commons that might solve your
problems.  This is the other issue - Common's help pages are well.. far
from being perfect.

Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less
> problems.
>
>
>
I hope too. This is for sure really interesting project worth any support.



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

In which sense weren't those instructions followed correctly?
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

Please read my post again,
Cheers
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:29 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

In which sense weren't those instructions followed correctly?
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

It seems that either the instructions were insufficient or not followed 
properly.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 8:36 PM
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before 
uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the 
own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when 
uploading to Commons.

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Peter 
Southwood 
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people 
did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No 
communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and 
proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hello all,

There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
Newsletter

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions

As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and
 "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".

Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?

Thrapostibongles
___
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>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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>


___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. I 
think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains why 
it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of allowing  
content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe disappointment and 
surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who uploads that this policy 
may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would also be useful to explain 
what to do if it is applied where it should not be applied, whether from lack 
of evidence or for any other reason, and how to avoid the problem.
It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload wizard. 
When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be offended.
Cheers, 
Peter Southwood

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yann Forget
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:10 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :

> This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
> - the precautionary principle.
>
> It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the
> AGF page on Commons.
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> >
> >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> the
> > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> > unfair and nonsense.
> >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> think
> > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> how
> > to communicate and why they must do it.
> >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > author. Period.
> >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> is
> > the original work is not a good practice.
> >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> able
> > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> >
> > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> less
> > problems.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Galder
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > Vi to 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> >
> > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> on
> > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> from
> > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman  >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > > having more admins?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > reduced.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > >
> > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> hat
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

This looks like a project at risk of collapsing under its own weight.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Yann Forget
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:48 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hi,

To have a clearer image of Commons admins, please see this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_administrators_by_recent_activity
There are currently 223 admins (comparing with the English Wikipedia 1,176).
Among them 165 have done one admin action during the last month.
But only around 30 admins have done most of the work.
The content has grown exponentially, but the community has not.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commons_Growth.svg
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/commons.wikimedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|All|~total


Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman  a écrit :

> It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> having more admins?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe 
(maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Hi,

To have a clearer image of Commons admins, please see this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_administrators_by_recent_activity
There are currently 223 admins (comparing with the English Wikipedia 1,176).
Among them 165 have done one admin action during the last month.
But only around 30 admins have done most of the work.
The content has grown exponentially, but the community has not.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commons_Growth.svg
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/commons.wikimedia.org/contributing/active-editors/normal|line|All|~total


Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman  a écrit :

> It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> having more admins?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Hi James,

Of course. More admins would lesser the work charge, and it would be great.
We specially appreciate admins with multi-language capabilities, as it is a
multilangual project.
Of course, comprehensive knowledge of copyright is needed.
That is complex, but it can be learnt.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman  a écrit :

> It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> having more admins?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The C

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.

Regards,
Yann
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih  a écrit :

> This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
> - the precautionary principle.
>
> It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the
> AGF page on Commons.
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
> >
> >   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
> the
> > Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> > unfair and nonsense.
> >   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
> think
> > on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> > convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
> how
> > to communicate and why they must do it.
> >   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> > author. Period.
> >   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
> is
> > the original work is not a good practice.
> >   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> > job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> > take a whole year of volunteer work.
> >   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
> able
> > to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
> >
> > Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
> less
> > problems.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Galder
> > 
> > From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> > Vi to 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
> >
> > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> on
> > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> from
> > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman  >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > > having more admins?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > reduced.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > >
> > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> hat
> > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > >
> > > > Links
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Todd Allen]

I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons.
I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on
Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm
familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed
been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first
clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations
are.

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops
> are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
>
> If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
> they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
> things that are Caesar's.
>
> Paulo
>
>
> Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
> 21:13:
>
> > Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> > efficient way.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> > has -
> > > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
> to
> > > deal with copyright.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
> images
> > > on
> > > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > > from
> > > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> > jmh...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> > in
> > > > > having more admins?
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
> for
> > > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> > see
> > > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> > mass
> > > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
> image
> > > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
> Commons
> > > hat
> > > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> > than
> > > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> > suck
> > > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> > that
> > > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> > short
> > > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
> useful
> > > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Links
> > > > > > 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> > ymb...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> > the
> > > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
> or
> > > > > capable
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops
are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.

If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins,
they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's.

Paulo


Vi to  escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s)
21:13:

> Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
> efficient way.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
> has -
> > and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to
> > deal with copyright.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> > on
> > > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> > from
> > > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
> jmh...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
> in
> > > > having more admins?
> > > >
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
> see
> > > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > > reduced.[1]
> > > > >
> > > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
> mass
> > > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> > hat
> > > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
> than
> > > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
> suck
> > > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
> that
> > > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
> short
> > > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Links
> > > > > 1.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > > >
> > > > > Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
> ymb...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
> the
> > > > > amount of
> > > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > > capable
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> > polime...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
> > undeleted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
> several
> > > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
> > describing
> > > > > what it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
> can
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
> with
> > > > > Common's
> > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Vi to]

Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an
efficient way.

Vito

Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily has -
> and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to
> deal with copyright.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
> escreveu:
>
> > I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
> on
> > commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
> from
> > cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman  >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > > having more admins?
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > > reduced.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > > housekeeping very easy.
> > > >
> > > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
> hat
> > > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > > >
> > > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > > >
> > > > Links
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
> support
> > > for
> > > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > > amount of
> > > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > > capable
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
> polime...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
> undeleted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
> describing
> > > > what it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > > Common's
> > > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> > you
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > > something
> > > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
> but
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> > violating
> > > > > > files a
> > > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

This is true. I verified and restored almost all the files. There was one
or two problems with students who uploaded an occasional derivative work
(integrated in their own work), but almost all the files were OK, and
correctly uploaded. The main problem here, IMO, was marking sourced stuff
as "no source" without any explanation, marking stiff as derivative work
without explaining or stating what the original work was, and then deleting
it uncritically. I understand there is a tremendous backlog in Commons, and
the community is tiny and most of the sysops (on which I include myself)
are generally more interested in other activities than the regular
management of the project, but IMO this sort of behavior should not be seen
as acceptable. IMO it would be preferable to not delete or mark anything at
all, and let the backlog grow freely, than to do it this way. On the other
hand, in general the sysops with this kind of behavior are the most
productive in the whole management of the project, and I feel I've no right
to criticize when I have no plans to regularly  help in what they are doing
with such dedication.

Best,
Paulo

Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  escreveu no dia domingo,
12/05/2019 à(s) 20:18:

> Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before
> uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all
> the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow
> when uploading to Commons.
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Peter Southwood 
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM
> To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so
> people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a
> bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without
> analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation
> really.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> Hello all,
>
> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> Newsletter
>
>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
>
> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> and
>  "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
>
> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> ___
> 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>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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>
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

A large part of the problem is the disconnection between online and offline
communities or types of users. It is quite counterproductive having
affiliates, outreach programs, whatever, reaching out to people out to the
Wikimediaverse inviting them to use our projects without having any plans
or means to have someone from the onwiki communities directly following and
monitoring those activities.

As Tomasz wrote: "*And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have
in any outreach team at least one person having good knowledge about
hostile Common's habits and  how to effectively cope with them :-)*"

This is very true, and IMO very much inescapable.

Best,
Paulo

Peter Southwood  escreveu no dia domingo,
12/05/2019 à(s) 18:59:

> It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so
> people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a
> bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without
> analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation
> really.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> Hello all,
>
> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> Newsletter
>
>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
>
> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> and
>  "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
>
> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before 
uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the 
own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when 
uploading to Commons.

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Peter 
Southwood 
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM
To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people 
did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No 
communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and 
proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hello all,

There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
Newsletter

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions

As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and
 "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".

Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?

Thrapostibongles
___
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>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Peter Southwood]

It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people 
did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No 
communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and 
proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

Hello all,

There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
Newsletter

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions

As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and
 "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".

Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?

Thrapostibongles
___
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, 


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to
deal with copyright.

Best,
Paulo

A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to 
escreveu:

> I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
> commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
> cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > having more admins?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > reduced.[1]
> > >
> > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > housekeeping very easy.
> > >
> > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > >
> > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > >
> > > Links
> > > 1.
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> > capable
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > > what it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > > create a
> > > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > > Common's
> > > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
> you
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> > something
> > > > > > similar.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright
> violating
> > > > > files a
> > > > > > > day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
> cope
> > > with
> > > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
> some
> > > time -
> > > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> > other
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
> screening
> > > > > uploads
> > > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Tomasz Ganicz]

niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 16:23 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
napisał(a):

> As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
>
>   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
> Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> unfair and nonsense.
>

I think - what someone wanted to say - is that Commons is wiki with its own
community, which desire some respect as any other wikimedia communities. In
that sense - it is not cloud service which are usually maintained
automatically. It is better to think about Commons - as a wiki - not as a
cloud storage service.


  *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
> on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how
> to communicate and why they must do it.
>

That's true - therefore - when you organize any outreach or GLAM project it
is good to teach the users how to communicate on wiki - as it is a quite
strange system comparing to what typical internet user might be accustomed
to, nowadays.

  *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> author. Period.
>

Yes. Exactly. If you think about default upload wizard - it is possible to
upload other's works, but it is not that easy. Also - it is pretty hard to
upload public domain works.

  *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> take a whole year of volunteer work.
>

Well - this is disputable. I don't know global proportions - but for
example for Polish part of community - there are actually 3 employees doing
outreach and around 10 volunteers - and there are 3 really active Polish
Common's admins and only one regularly active OTRS agent (me)... Out of
these 3 really active Common's admins - 2 are actually also doing outreach.
And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team
at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common's habits and
how to effectively cope with them :-)


  *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
> to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
>

Yeah. Because there is no any single page on Commons that might solve your
problems.  This is the other issue - Common's help pages are well.. far
from being perfect.

Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less
> problems.
>
>
>
I hope too. This is for sure really interesting project worth any support.



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Andrew Lih]

This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
- the precautionary principle.

It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the
AGF page on Commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&oldid=prev&diff=349650525




On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
>
>   *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
> Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is
> unfair and nonsense.
>   *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
> on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to
> convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how
> to communicate and why they must do it.
>   *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
> author. Period.
>   *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is
> the original work is not a good practice.
>   *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
> job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can
> take a whole year of volunteer work.
>   *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
> to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
>
> Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less
> problems.
>
> Cheers
>
> Galder
> 
> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
> Vi to 
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
>
> I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
> commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
> cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
> ha scritto:
>
> > It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> > having more admins?
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > > reduced.[1]
> > >
> > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > > housekeeping very easy.
> > >
> > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> > >
> > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> > >
> > > Links
> > > 1.
> > >
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> > for
> > > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > > amount of
> > > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Yaroslav
> > > > >
> > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga]

As I am the author of the post, some remarks:

  *   Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the 
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair 
and nonsense.
  *   Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think on 
experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to 
upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate 
and why they must do it.
  *   The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. 
Period.
  *   Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is the 
original work is not a good practice.
  *   Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great job-queue. 
But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year 
of volunteer work.
  *   After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able to 
point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.

Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less 
problems.

Cheers

Galder

From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of Vi to 

Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.

Vito

Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
ha scritto:

> It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> having more admins?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Vi to]

I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.

Vito

Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman 
ha scritto:

> It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
> having more admins?
>
> James
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> > access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> > copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> > terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> > if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> > reduced.[1]
> >
> > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> > image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> > housekeeping very easy.
> >
> > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> > hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> > on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> > mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> > up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
> >
> > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> > several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> > term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> > experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
> >
> > Links
> > 1.
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
> for
> > > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> > amount of
> > > > material it has to deal with.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> > benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
> capable
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > > GLAM-related
> > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> > what it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> > create a
> > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> > Common's
> > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > > project
> > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
> something
> > > > > similar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > > files a
> > > > > > day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> > with
> > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> > time -
> > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
> other
> > > > issue
> > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > > uploads
> > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > > components
> > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> > highly
> > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> > Education
> > > > > >> Newsletter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[James Heilman]

It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in
having more admins?

James

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ  wrote:

> A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
> access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
> copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
> terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
> if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
> reduced.[1]
>
> Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
> image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
> housekeeping very easy.
>
> A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
> hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
> on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
> mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
> up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
>
> Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
> several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
> originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
> term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
> experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
>
> Links
> 1.
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
>
> Fae
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
> >
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> > images that might be copyright violation, or both.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
> amount of
> > > material it has to deal with.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
> benjaminik...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
> to
> > > do
> > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > > >
> > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > > GLAM-related
> > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
> what it
> > > > is
> > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
> create a
> > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > > >
> > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
> Common's
> > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > > project
> > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > > similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > > files a
> > > > > day:
> > > > >
> > > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > >
> > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
> with
> > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
> time -
> > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > > issue
> > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > > uploads
> > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hello all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > > components
> > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
> highly
> > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
> Education
> > > > >> Newsletter
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
> project
> > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
> Commons
> > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
> projects
> > > > and
> > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > > rem

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Fæ]

A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for
access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a
copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be
terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be
reduced.[1]

Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping
image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass
housekeeping very easy.

A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image
hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.

Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were
originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful
experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.

Links
1. 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Google_has_opened_an_API_for_image_recognition
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash

Fae

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani  wrote:
>
> IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both.
>
> Best
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> > material it has to deal with.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> > do
> > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > > >
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> > GLAM-related
> > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > > is
> > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > > >
> > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > >
> > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> > project
> > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > > similar.
> > > >
> > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > > other
> > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> > files a
> > > > day:
> > > >
> > > > See the list from just one day:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > >
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> > issue
> > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > > >
> > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> > uploads
> > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > >> Hello all,
> > > >>
> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > > components
> > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > > >> Newsletter
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > > and
> > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > > remarks
> > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > > copyrighted
> > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> > care."
> > > >> and
> > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > > >>
> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thrapostibongles
> > > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yann Forget]

Yes,  Yaroslav is right. The active community is small compared to the
amount of work to be done.

I have advocated since long that massive training is needed to fix this.
These trainings should be sponsored by the WMF and its affiliates.

Regards,
Yann Forget
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator
https://www.jaijagat2020.org/
+91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)



Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 16:40, Yaroslav Blanter  a écrit :

> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> material it has to deal with.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> do
> > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > >
> > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> GLAM-related
> > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > is
> > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > >
> > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > >
> > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> project
> > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > similar.
> > >
> > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > other
> > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> files a
> > > day:
> > >
> > > See the list from just one day:
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > >
> > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> issue
> > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > >
> > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> uploads
> > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > >
> > >
> > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> Hello all,
> > >>
> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > components
> > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > >> Newsletter
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > >>
> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > and
> > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > remarks
> > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > copyrighted
> > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> care."
> > >> and
> > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > >>
> > >> Thrapostibongles
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> ,
> > >> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > ___
> > > 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Amir Sarabadani]

IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.

Best

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
> material it has to deal with.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
> do
> > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> > >
> > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
> GLAM-related
> > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> > is
> > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> > >
> > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > >
> > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
> project
> > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> > similar.
> > >
> > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> > other
> > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating
> files a
> > > day:
> > >
> > > See the list from just one day:
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > >
> > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
> issue
> > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> > >
> > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
> uploads
> > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> > >
> > >
> > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > >> Hello all,
> > >>
> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> > components
> > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> > >> Newsletter
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> > >>
> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> > and
> > >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> > remarks
> > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> > copyrighted
> > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
> care."
> > >> and
> > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> > >>
> > >> Thrapostibongles
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> ,
> > >> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > > ___
> > > 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of
material it has to deal with.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
>
> Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do
> the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
> > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> >
> > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related
> > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
> is
> > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them.
> >
> > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> >
> > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project
> > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
> similar.
> >
> > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
> other
> > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating files a
> > day:
> >
> > See the list from just one day:
> >
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> >
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue
> > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> >
> > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads
> > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> >
> >
> > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
> components
> >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> >> Newsletter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
> >>
> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
> and
> >> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd
> remarks
> >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
> copyrighted
> >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> >> and
> >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
> >>
> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
> >>
> >> Thrapostibongles
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> > ___
> > 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the 
job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? 



On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> 
> The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it is
> intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them.
> 
> See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> 
> Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something similar.
> 
> Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the other
> hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating files a
> day:
> 
> See the list from just one day:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> 
> so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
> 
> I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
> 
> 
> niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> 
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
>> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
>> Newsletter
>> 
>> 
>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
>> 
>> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
>> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
>> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
>> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
>> and
>> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
>> 
>> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
>> 
>> Thrapostibongles
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> 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] Dispute between Common and Outreach

[Tomasz Ganicz]

Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.

The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships

Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something similar.

Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds  of copyright violating files a
day:

See the list from just one day:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01

so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.

I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.


niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> napisał(a):

> Hello all,
>
> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education
> Newsletter
>
>
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Commons:_a_highly_hostile_place_for_multimedia_students_contributions
>
> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and
> so concluded they were copyright violations.  But some rather odd remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care."
> and
>  "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
>
> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
>
> Thrapostibongles
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
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,