It would appear that about 11% of the Ogg videos on commons aren't Ogg
at all, they mostly seem to be renamed AVI and the like...
Is there any reason I shouldn't run through all these and transcode
them in mass to Ogg/Theora?
sorry wasn't registered
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian W <bawolff(a)gmail.com>
Date: Oct 5, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] UMP Convention - what about
semantic mediawiki
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)wikimedia.org>
On wikinews, we were talking about using semantic mediawiki a bit ago
[ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/semantic_MediaWiki and
http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php ] . I think that, that extention
would be perfect for commons and would fix many issues you talked
about, specificly picture keyword (bearing in mind that I have very
limited knowladge about the
extention and may be wrong on that)
--
- Bawolff
Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85
million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
On 10/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wrote the following in a message on Wikimedia/Wikipedia
> popularity to foundation-l:
>
> > In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> > categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> > like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> > basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine). You
> > describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> > and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> > something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> > search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> > Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa." You would, with a moment's
> > thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> > that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
>
>
> The conversation came from one particular journalist and watching his
> eyes light up at the idea of a free photo repository that was any
> bloody good.
>
> So. I've never used Getty Images or a similar stock photo database.
>
> * What does Commons need in terms of indexing to be that *usable*?
> * How are we for subject area coverage? (I have no idea what searches
> are popular.)
> * Do we have a list of taglines print editors can slap on photos and
> be working within the licence? Shorter the better, obviously.
> ("Working within the license" here meaning that it would be clear to a
> judge that when the paper put the photographer's name and "Reusable
> under Creative Commons cc-by-sa 1/2/2.5" they were communicating it
> enough for any sensible person and not even the most querulous
> cc-by-sa user would have a real case. Though that's verging on
> lawyering without a licence. But anyway.)
>
> etc. What question have I missed? What do we need to be a useful image
> repository for consumers such as commercial print media? Imagine that
> much open content circulating, and spreading the notion of openness
> ...
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
I just wrote the following in a message on Wikimedia/Wikipedia
popularity to foundation-l:
> In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine). You
> describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa." You would, with a moment's
> thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
The conversation came from one particular journalist and watching his
eyes light up at the idea of a free photo repository that was any
bloody good.
So. I've never used Getty Images or a similar stock photo database.
* What does Commons need in terms of indexing to be that *usable*?
* How are we for subject area coverage? (I have no idea what searches
are popular.)
* Do we have a list of taglines print editors can slap on photos and
be working within the licence? Shorter the better, obviously.
("Working within the license" here meaning that it would be clear to a
judge that when the paper put the photographer's name and "Reusable
under Creative Commons cc-by-sa 1/2/2.5" they were communicating it
enough for any sensible person and not even the most querulous
cc-by-sa user would have a real case. Though that's verging on
lawyering without a licence. But anyway.)
etc. What question have I missed? What do we need to be a useful image
repository for consumers such as commercial print media? Imagine that
much open content circulating, and spreading the notion of openness
...
- d.