geni wrote:
>On 13 December 2014 at 02:48, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>>An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)
>
>Individualised ones don't scale
>
>>Or at least make them far less obnoxious.
>
>Been tried. A lot. It doesn't make any difference mind but I assume people
>will continue trying.
>
>> Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a
>>pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
>
>Going after commons for a project wide issue however pretty pointless.
>
>> Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers
>> in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images,
>> TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches.
>
>They tend to object to people trying to run too many automated searches on
>their services.
My reading is that your replies have a very defeatist outlook. And it
feels a bit like simple laziness ("everybody does this and we can't make
messages less awful because it's just too harrrrd"). There are a few clear
problem here and they're regularly hurting us. So one way or another, we
need to find acceptable short-term and long-term solutions. Instead of
being defeatist, we need a willingness to try and try again. :-)
>In browser editing is kinda dicey.
Why dicey? At a minimum, we need support for basic image editing
(cropping, resizing, rotating). And there are external libraries we can
likely leverage here.
>> This is a nasty cop-out.
>
>Not really. Recognising our limits has its uses and if we can turn the
>chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs know will point them
>in useful direction we at least get to know what is going on.
>
>> We already do this in a limited fashion, but we
>> need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons.
>> There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all
>>kinds of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize.
>>There are at least two broad categories I see that could make donations:
>>GLAMs
>
>That's ongoing but it has issues with diminishing returns
>
>http://wp.me/p19PjC-1I
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.
>> and individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a
>>bad image.
>
>Generally works better if done by the project in question rather than
>commons.
Why is that? Isn't the most efficient and most logical path to media
donations via Commons? Is that path currently the least painful?
Another idea I'd like to see worked on would be upload capability via
e-mail (or via Facebook, maybe). If we want to "recognize our limits," we
could see that other technologies are more understandable and much more
prevalent. We could capitalize on this by making MediaWiki (the platform)
smarter and significantly more capable of accepting file uploads. (Drag
and drop support to upload might also be a nice-to-have... maybe
UploadWizard already has this?)
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
