Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
On 14/04/12 14:16, Roger Bamkin wrote: I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well. I am aware than Commons is not fit for purpose. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
On 16/04/12 10:26, Gordon Joly wrote: On 14/04/12 14:16, Roger Bamkin wrote: I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well. I am aware than Commons is not fit for purpose. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org Commons is not fit for purpose. Trying to get august bodies such a the Geogolical Society to use it (as suggested in the workshop) is in my opinion a non starters. Archives for All (Access to Archives) is much better option for most collections. I have used Chesire3 for a small community archive. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/ Round pegs, square holes As for Geograph ... words fail me! Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
On 16 April 2012 10:30, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: On 16/04/12 10:26, Gordon Joly wrote: On 14/04/12 14:16, Roger Bamkin wrote: I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well. I am aware than Commons is not fit for purpose. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org Commons is not fit for purpose. Trying to get august bodies such a the Geogolical Society to use it (as suggested in the workshop) is in my opinion a non starters. Archives for All (Access to Archives) is much better option for most collections. I have used Chesire3 for a small community archive. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/ Round pegs, square holes As for Geograph ... words fail me! As I said there, institutions need to define their purposes, and then act accordingly. I don't see much percentage in us debating here what fit for purpose means as a generalised thing applied to Commons. It obviously does support WP and other WMF projects. I'm all for contrarian views rather than groupthink, but this thread is starting to ramble. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Re Johnbod's comment about Catalot and uncategorised templates, there have been big improvements to both Hotcat and Catalot this year and the situation is somewhat improved. The problem now are the images that have been bot categorised. But Catalot now removes the uncategorised template if you use it from a Catalot grid ref category to copy otherwise uncategorised images to another category. As for finding and searching, sometimes the descriptions are fine, sometimes you need local knowledge, and sometimes a bit of Googling and looking the geograph images up on the map identifies the place - its a mix and categorisation is helpful. Re Andy's suggestion of creating Geograph categories for places, we could just categorise the categories of the individual grid squares to the relevant villages and towns. Of course some will match to multiple places. But now that Catalot has been improved I'm not sure I see the benefit. WSC On 14 April 2012 14:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: A simple solution would be to create new categories, such as Geograph:West Sussex and Geograph:Barnes. Bots could then upload images to those, which could be subcategories of the respective parent categories, without clogging the latter, and images could be switched manually, as they're checked (simply by deleting the prefix were applicable). On 14 April 2012 14:30, John Byrne j...@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote: Yes, many of us are aware of the issues with Geograph, above all WSC. I agree the categorization side of it has been the real Achilles heel, and in my experience the problem is often worse than WSC suggests. When I filled up the Commons category for Wimbledon Common, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wimbledon_Common, I found that a significant number of images were categorized in West Sussex categories (what, 80 miles away?) and several others as Barnes (only 5 miles out, but that's a lot in London). But the good news was that I was able to find these images easily enough through the basic Commons search, as the original Geograph text info had enough detail. I've had this sort of result doing other categories. I understand that because templates were mostly used to record images as uncategorized etc, and categorizing with cat-a-lot doesn't remove these, and they are a pain to remove when you're doing bulk, these tend not to get removed. So a good number of the images categorized with uncategorized or category query templates are actually ok, and we don't have any reliable numbers for what is still a problem.Many of the ones supposed to have problems don't, and many of the ones supposed to be ok aren't. If you want images for a place in the UK, you should always do a basic search as well as looking at the category. But actually that's true of most things on Commons. Johnbod ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
On 13 April 2012 22:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: snip I don't anticipate that this suggestion to offer a manual commons upload for the Geograph users and the high def images they now load would be as contentious as it would be to resume the bot based import. The kind of debate that has been opened up here is, in Wikipedia terms, one of the oldest (the Rambot issue of almost a decade ago). I wouldn't say that the Commons community will necessarily come to the same conclusions as (English) Wikipedia did, namely that large-scale additions of free content should not be resisted simply on the grounds that quantity is in tension with quality. But the precedent agrees with my views as an end-user, which is that more images implies broader coverage implies I'm more likely to find there is some image I could use to illustrate an article when I go to look for one. (I gave an example in another thread recently, i.e. [[Lewis Cubitt]]). Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
I am aware of the commons botload problem ... I did my share as well. However we know that Wikipedia has made some very big mistakes. Its still the best encyclopedia in the world and a marvellous example of man's good will triumphing over apathy and cynicism. Lets not make the mistake of blaming Tim Berners Lee for online-pornography and international terrorism whilst forgetting that some other good things come from his invention as well. or in this case Geograph Just because we have had a less than perfect experience with botloading then lets not foget that as far as I know the first country in the world to offer a free license picture of every square km was the UK. Wiki loves monmuments has had difficulty estblishing itself here. One reason is that we had (in part) done it. I would estimate that there are thousands upon thousands of well placed images in wikipedia articles because of the foresight of Geograph. Or put it another way?? Who should we give the UKWikimedian of the year awards to? cheers Roger On 14 April 2012 09:11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.comwrote: On 13 April 2012 22:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: snip I don't anticipate that this suggestion to offer a manual commons upload for the Geograph users and the high def images they now load would be as contentious as it would be to resume the bot based import. The kind of debate that has been opened up here is, in Wikipedia terms, one of the oldest (the Rambot issue of almost a decade ago). I wouldn't say that the Commons community will necessarily come to the same conclusions as (English) Wikipedia did, namely that large-scale additions of free content should not be resisted simply on the grounds that quantity is in tension with quality. But the precedent agrees with my views as an end-user, which is that more images implies broader coverage implies I'm more likely to find there is some image I could use to illustrate an article when I go to look for one. (I gave an example in another thread recently, i.e. [[Lewis Cubitt]]). Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Yes, many of us are aware of the issues with Geograph, above all WSC. I agree the categorization side of it has been the real Achilles heel, and in my experience the problem is often worse than WSC suggests. When I filled up the Commons category for Wimbledon Common, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wimbledon_Common, I found that a significant number of images were categorized in West Sussex categories (what, 80 miles away?) and several others as Barnes (only 5 miles out, but that's a lot in London). But the good news was that I was able to find these images easily enough through the basic Commons search, as the original Geograph text info had enough detail. I've had this sort of result doing other categories. I understand that because templates were mostly used to record images as uncategorized etc, and categorizing with cat-a-lot doesn't remove these, and they are a pain to remove when you're doing bulk, these tend not to get removed. So a good number of the images categorized with uncategorized or category query templates are actually ok, and we don't have any reliable numbers for what is still a problem.Many of the ones supposed to have problems don't, and many of the ones supposed to be ok aren't. If you want images for a place in the UK, you should always do a basic search as well as looking at the category. But actually that's true of most things on Commons. Johnbod ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
A simple solution would be to create new categories, such as Geograph:West Sussex and Geograph:Barnes. Bots could then upload images to those, which could be subcategories of the respective parent categories, without clogging the latter, and images could be switched manually, as they're checked (simply by deleting the prefix were applicable). On 14 April 2012 14:30, John Byrne j...@bodkinprints.co.uk wrote: Yes, many of us are aware of the issues with Geograph, above all WSC. I agree the categorization side of it has been the real Achilles heel, and in my experience the problem is often worse than WSC suggests. When I filled up the Commons category for Wimbledon Common, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wimbledon_Common, I found that a significant number of images were categorized in West Sussex categories (what, 80 miles away?) and several others as Barnes (only 5 miles out, but that's a lot in London). But the good news was that I was able to find these images easily enough through the basic Commons search, as the original Geograph text info had enough detail. I've had this sort of result doing other categories. I understand that because templates were mostly used to record images as uncategorized etc, and categorizing with cat-a-lot doesn't remove these, and they are a pain to remove when you're doing bulk, these tend not to get removed. So a good number of the images categorized with uncategorized or category query templates are actually ok, and we don't have any reliable numbers for what is still a problem. Many of the ones supposed to have problems don't, and many of the ones supposed to be ok aren't. If you want images for a place in the UK, you should always do a basic search as well as looking at the category. But actually that's true of most things on Commons. Johnbod ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Hi Richard, I'm aware of the categorisation issue and have done a few thousand myself. Yes there were problems with the earlier Geograph loads, the bot based categorisation is inadequate and the process has been on hold for a year or two. I'm not sure that the proportion with incorrect Geocodes was particularly high, but sometimes the bot would allocate images that only made sense when you spotted which village names didn't have categories in the county where the images belonged In the meantime the Geograph has changed their processes to allow higher definition images. I don't anticipate that this suggestion to offer a manual commons upload for the Geograph users and the high def images they now load would be as contentious as it would be to resume the bot based import. WSC On 13 April 2012 22:14, Richard Wendland rich...@wendland.org.uk wrote: Are folks aware of the difficulties there have been with the uploading of Geograph photos to the commons? I would encourage serious study of the history of this effort, and the strong objections there have been, before going ahead with this. I've not been involved in the discussions, but my personal experience of the early Geograph uploads is that it effectively destroyed the reasonably good categorisation of user uploaded photos, by overwhelming existing categories with poorly categorised, and often poor quality photos, many of which are unlikely to be of use on any project using commons. I personally sorted out the categorisation of many hundred geograph photos dumped in the top level of my city's categorisation, which made it unusable for practical purposes. It took many hours to sort this out, moving to the appropriate sub-category for a pile of mostly not very good photos, many really for not-so-nearby villages that should not have been dumped in the city category. This problem was addressed after a while by not automatically trying to categorise within the normal hierarchy, but creating an alternative Geograph grid-square hierarchy, that users are I believe supposed to manually recategorise, but I think little of that has been done. There are I think currently over 800,000 geograph photos, possibly well over a million, in the Geograph categories awaiting an initial ordinary category or category review: needing category review: 589387 needing categories by date: 806653 needing categories by grid square: 50,949 subcats, unknown number of photos Also most of the geolocation on Geograph photos is fairly inaccurate, which is easy to see of you fire up Google Earth with the WikiCommons layer enabled. Before these arrived most of the photos near my city had accurate geolocation, but not any more because of the Geograph images. (Though this will improve with new photos as GPS enabled cameras become common.) I was pretty fed-up with it, though I did not enter the discussions on Commons about this, which lead to the upload effort being abandoned. Just because there are millions of licence compatible photos out there, I see no compelling reason to load them all into commons if that reduces the average quality and utility. What I think we want is tools to very easily upload individual images/files when a commons user sees a good quality one on compatible sites that s/he wants to use. A more minor issue is that the Geograph upload project only uploaded 640x480 versions into commons, when Geograph in many case has higher resolution originals. I haven't studied this issue in depth, and am only reporting my experience with the Geograph upload. Here are some starting points for looking at the old discussions about this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Geograph#Indefinitely_on_hold http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections/Archive_7#GeographBot http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Geograph#Problem_with_geographic_categories http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_29#User:BotMultichillT http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project_needing_category_review http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Geograph_Britain_and_Ireland Richard -- Richard Wendlandrich...@wendland.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Hi, for those who don't know, the Geograph is a photography contest and site that operates across the UK and Ireland and has a compatible license to ours. So close to 1.8 million of their images have been imported into Commons and are a major part of the reason why Commons has such good coverage of English churches, fields and minor roads. But we stopped mass importing their images some time ago due to the difficulty of categorising them, and there are now a million un copied images including all or almost all their hi-definition ones. The Geograph has just become a registered charity much like us. So I thought I'd check out what their attitude was to our copying and using their images. It turns out that they aren't aware that the migration has stalled, as their site still claims that all their images get migrated to Commons http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?q=wikipedia I think there is a big opportunity for the chapter here, perhaps we could approach them and suggest changing their upload software to dual use? So Geograph users have the option of posting their images directly on Commons provided they add categories. I suspect there would be some software implications, but if so it might be a useful use of a UK grant. WereSpielChequers ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
On 9 April 2012 14:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: It turns out that they aren't aware that the migration has stalled, as their site still claims that all their images get migrated to Commons http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?q=wikipedia I think there is a big opportunity for the chapter here, perhaps we could approach them and suggest changing their upload software to dual use? So Geograph users have the option of posting their images directly on Commons provided they add categories. I suspect there would be some software implications, but if so it might be a useful use of a UK grant. +1 Would it be worth approaching the Geograph community and asking them to work on the categorisation backlog themselves directly? - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Oh I so agree, this would make Wiki Loves Monuments really work for us. Geograph is a brilliant project and WMUK should support them as easily as we would wikimedia commons. (I have a suspicion that photos from Geograph will be less tricky to categorise if they arrive with geotagging built into the picture.) so yes +1 On 9 April 2012 14:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 April 2012 14:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: It turns out that they aren't aware that the migration has stalled, as their site still claims that all their images get migrated to Commons http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?q=wikipedia I think there is a big opportunity for the chapter here, perhaps we could approach them and suggest changing their upload software to dual use? So Geograph users have the option of posting their images directly on Commons provided they add categories. I suspect there would be some software implications, but if so it might be a useful use of a UK grant. +1 Would it be worth approaching the Geograph community and asking them to work on the categorisation backlog themselves directly? - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Thanks Roger. Would it be appropriae for the Board to get our CEO to make contact? Currently the Geograph images are geotagged in Commons, but Commons doesn't have ideal lookup tables to link them to appropriate towns and villages, I believe a bot was doing much of it based on proximity to the centre of somewhere, but boundaries are tricky things especially in the UK and the end result was that some geograph images got miscategorised. In some cases to the wrong side of the Solent. There are tables that exist which include boundaries of towns and villages, and with those tables one can use geocodes to correctly categorise images, at least to a geographic location. However I doubt if those tables would be available open source, and though I'm sure they are commercially available I'm not so sure whether it would be appropriate for us to license them - it probably isn't viable as any such license is likely to prohibit reverse engineering which would make it incompatible with Commons anyway. But it might be worth asking the office to at least make enquiries. WSC On 9 April 2012 15:17, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com wrote: Oh I so agree, this would make Wiki Loves Monuments really work for us. Geograph is a brilliant project and WMUK should support them as easily as we would wikimedia commons. (I have a suspicion that photos from Geograph will be less tricky to categorise if they arrive with geotagging built into the picture.) so yes +1 On 9 April 2012 14:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 April 2012 14:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: It turns out that they aren't aware that the migration has stalled, as their site still claims that all their images get migrated to Commons http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?q=wikipedia I think there is a big opportunity for the chapter here, perhaps we could approach them and suggest changing their upload software to dual use? So Geograph users have the option of posting their images directly on Commons provided they add categories. I suspect there would be some software implications, but if so it might be a useful use of a UK grant. +1 Would it be worth approaching the Geograph community and asking them to work on the categorisation backlog themselves directly? - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph
Well I think this links in with wiki loves monuments so i'll send a copy to Fae as I know he took an interest during the recent meeting although we are still looking around for a UK flag carrier for the WLM project. Oh and here is an idea - the Wikipedian of the Yeahttp://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/UK_Wikimedian_of_the_Year_2012r has a special award - we could give it to Geograph - there must thousands of UK articles that are much more informative due to this project. On 9 April 2012 15:35, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.comwrote: Thanks Roger. Would it be appropriae for the Board to get our CEO to make contact? Currently the Geograph images are geotagged in Commons, but Commons doesn't have ideal lookup tables to link them to appropriate towns and villages, I believe a bot was doing much of it based on proximity to the centre of somewhere, but boundaries are tricky things especially in the UK and the end result was that some geograph images got miscategorised. In some cases to the wrong side of the Solent. There are tables that exist which include boundaries of towns and villages, and with those tables one can use geocodes to correctly categorise images, at least to a geographic location. However I doubt if those tables would be available open source, and though I'm sure they are commercially available I'm not so sure whether it would be appropriate for us to license them - it probably isn't viable as any such license is likely to prohibit reverse engineering which would make it incompatible with Commons anyway. But it might be worth asking the office to at least make enquiries. WSC On 9 April 2012 15:17, Roger Bamkin victuall...@gmail.com wrote: Oh I so agree, this would make Wiki Loves Monuments really work for us. Geograph is a brilliant project and WMUK should support them as easily as we would wikimedia commons. (I have a suspicion that photos from Geograph will be less tricky to categorise if they arrive with geotagging built into the picture.) so yes +1 On 9 April 2012 14:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 April 2012 14:52, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: It turns out that they aren't aware that the migration has stalled, as their site still claims that all their images get migrated to Commons http://www.geograph.org.uk/faq3.php?q=wikipedia I think there is a big opportunity for the chapter here, perhaps we could approach them and suggest changing their upload software to dual use? So Geograph users have the option of posting their images directly on Commons provided they add categories. I suspect there would be some software implications, but if so it might be a useful use of a UK grant. +1 Would it be worth approaching the Geograph community and asking them to work on the categorisation backlog themselves directly? - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Geograph images
As a result of this, one of the Geograph articles has become Wikimedia Commons' 6 millionth file. Please help writing the blog post about this: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Blog_posts/Geograph_images :-) Mike On 30 Jan 2010, at 19:38, Andrew Turvey wrote: Could anyone help us draft a blog post about this? I've started a page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/ Geograph_images - Forwarded Message - From: Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net To: bo...@wikimedia.org.uk WMUK Board bo...@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 11:58:22 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WMUK Board] Geograph images Hi all, I've just been given a heads-up that 250,000 images of the UK that people have released on Geograph.org.uk are currently being mass- uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project We should probably do a blog post about this sometime soon; next week perhaps? Mike ___ Board mailing list bo...@wikimedia.org.uk http://wikimedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/board_wikimedia.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Geograph images
Could anyone help us draft a blog post about this? I've started a page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/Geograph_images - Forwarded Message - From: Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net To: bo...@wikimedia.org.uk WMUK Board bo...@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 11:58:22 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WMUK Board] Geograph images Hi all, I've just been given a heads-up that 250,000 images of the UK that people have released on Geograph.org.uk are currently being mass- uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project We should probably do a blog post about this sometime soon; next week perhaps? Mike ___ Board mailing list bo...@wikimedia.org.uk http://wikimedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/board_wikimedia.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
