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!


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:01 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <> 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:
> . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated
> education programme portal:
> 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 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 <
> >> 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:
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > New messages to:
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > <>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > and
> > >
> > > New messages to:
> > > Unsubscribe:,
> > > <>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > and
> >
> > New messages to:
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> --
> Samuel Klein          @metasj          w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to