Wikimedia Commons is a very important resource, but it also has
policies which many people will find difficult to understand. They
cannot just upload whatever they want, they have to provide full
source information, and they should have at least a basic
understanding of licensing.
Many ideas have been mentioned here to somehow limit uploads by first
timers. One that I haven't heard mentioned is to require every new
user to go through some interactive tutorial process that explains the
basics. How could this be done?
1) Create a new permission for uploading.
2) Any user who doesn't have the permission, and tries to upload, is
presented with the tutorial.
3) Once they have completed the tutorial, they receive the permission.
On the implementation level, it seems that this can be done as an
extension which a) hooks into the upload process and checks whether a
user has the permission, b) displays a set of pages from the
MediaWiki: namespace (important so the tutorial can be localized using
the "/de", "/en" .. subpage syntax), each of them with a
"Previous"/"Next" button. Only when a user has viewed the final page
in the sequence, they would be given the upload permission.
All existing users (except sysops) would have to go through the process as well.
Future refinements could include interactive questions/answers about
copyright issues. As for bots, bot status has to be set by bureaucrats
anyway, so these could also give bots the upload permission.
Does this idea make sense? If it works for Commons, a simplified
version might even be useful for each individual Wikimedia project.
Erik
[[Category:against policy]] has less than 600 items! (from 1000)
[[Category:Unknown - March 2006]] is gone! (from 1000)
[[Category:Unknown - April 2006]] is gone! (from 1400)
[[Category:Unknown - May 2006]] is gone! (from 2800)
[[Category:Unknown - June 2006]] has less than 2000 items!
[[Category:Images with unknown source as of unknown date 2006]] has
around 4000 items (last time I wrote statistics, these images were in
[[Category:Unknown - June 2006]])
[[Category:Incomplete license]] has less than 400 items. (from >400)
[[Category:Images with no copyright tag]] has less than 400 items (from 500).
[[Category:Duplicate]] has less than 800 items (the same).
[[Template:Delete]] links to ~ 2050 pages. About the same.
Just at a rough guess, there are probably still about 200 items listed on
[[Commons:Deletion requests]].
Thanks to everyone who responded to my deletion push - (obviously we
still have some way to go) - especially Magnus, Essjay, Brion, also
Grön, Samulili and Jon Harald Søby who have nominated themselves for
adminship (haha - the first time I wrote "deletion" ;)), and also any
admins who have quietly but steadily been deleting (I don't check the
deletion log that often).
So, the two next biggish problems I see are (A) why are there 2000
links to [[template:delete]]?? and (B) what can we do to make
[[COM:DEL]] more managable?
For (A), it is probably not too hard. Here is a list of RDRs to
[[template:delete]]: (all in the template namespace)
vfd
deletionrequest
del
d
destruir
apagar
ifd
dr
Image-Bigfoto (pretty sure this is a mistake, so don't include it)
ek
deletion request
* Check all the images that have one of these tags. Check to see if
the image is linked to on any of the pages in
{{Special:Prefixindex/Commons:Deletion requests}}. If it is, put it on
a list to be checked manually (did they forget to remove the tag, or
forget to delete the image?). If it isn't, remove the tag with an edit
summary 'removing delete tag, no entry at [[Commons:Deletion
requests]] - see [[Commons:Deletion guidelines]] for speedy tags &
guidelines'
For (B), probably (sadly) it cannot be solved by a bot, but by clearer
guidelines on how to request deletion (still sees a lot of misplaced
requests) and, I dunno, maybe splitting the page up into different
days or reasons or something...still not sure on that one.
Another write-me-some-code request:
for any image in [[category:duplicate]], where the replacement image
has a different file extension, remove {{duplicate|Image:...}} and
replace with {{superseded|Image:...}} (if it's not already there) with
edit summary '{{duplicate}} is only for exactly identical images,
please don't use it for different file types, they cannot be
identical'.
I am happy to run a script that does this, since it might well cop some flak. :)
Thank you code monkeys and everyone else with wonderful ideas and a
willingness to improve the Commons :)
Brianna
I noticed that [[Category:One Hundred Poets]] was in there. It looks,
however, that all of these images should in fact be jpeg files, because
png-8 format is making them into monsters of files. I'm uploading rotated
versions of jpeg files and marking the originals as {{superseded}}.
Cary Bass
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Bastique
[[Category:Images requiring rotation]] has had all approximately 150 images
rotated back to proper viewing this week. I left the category and there
should be more coming in to fill the article and be worked on. I also
created a category for Vietnam War Memorial photographs and catelogued the
existing ones that were in neither article nor category other than Vietnam
War, which seemed innapropriate.
Wayne Ray
I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
CC-licensing) of images.
I am thinking especially of images that we cannot take ourselves; dead
celebrities for example (and no, don't go grave-digging ;-)
There must be a huge amount of photos that have next no no commercial
value anymore, because they are not good enough for a magazine cover,
but would do well for documenting an encyclopedia article. Of course, we
would prominently credit the source in the image description (which will
be transcluded to every wikipedia that uses it), or even in the image
title. Images could be watermarked, of course, and for largeer amounts
of photos, we'd create a category, gallery and all. Repeaded mentioning
(in a good light!) in a project of the wikimedia magnitude might be
worth more than paid advertisement, fo virtually no cost.
We could even offer a service: I'm sure some of us have
(semi-)professional film scanners (I do). Deal goes like this: mail us
your films (encyclopedia/commons-style only; not your family picknick;-)
and a note that releases them under GFDL/CC/PD/whatever, and we'll
upload them in high-res on commons, where you can download them. Free
film digitization!
With people on commons obviously interested in media, there must be some
of us with ties to "the industry" who can initiate such contacts. "The
Yorck Project" already donated a lot of PD images, as you might
remember. If we can get just a few photographers/companies to release
images as well, others might follow just to not lag behind.
Magnus
Hello chaps,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#.5B.5B:Image:C…
The CC "BY" "SA" etc little icons are up for deletion... again.
The first time (to my knowledge) was here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives04#Imag…
Also relevant is: http://creativecommons.org/policies#license
It seems to me that they were kept the first time for expediency, and
that our flaw was in not linking the image to the corresponding
license text on the CC website (instead, it always links to our image
page), and offering them as freely licensed by virtue of them being
available on our site.
There are coloured homemade alternatives available. Although
consistency and recognisability are certainly important. But then,
we're policy purists, after all. So what are the chances of
(a) getting a technical fix so that these images link to the required
CC license, in every use on every WM wiki? (then we are compliant)
(b) gaining an exemption for them under the Wikimedia logos precedent?
(then... wait, we're still not compliant)
(c) asking CC if having the image description page link to the
corresponding license is close enough + (b) ('cause we've gotta put
/some/ explanation on the page itself)
Regards,
Brianna/user:pfctdayelise
[[Category:Images requiring rotation]] has had all approximately 150 images rotated back to proper viewing this week. I left the category and there should be more coming in to fill the article and be worked on. I also created a category for Vietnam War Memorial photographs and catelogued the existing ones that were in neither article nor category other than Vietnam War, which seemed innapropriate.
Wayne Ray
http://wayneray.ca/
As a personal excercise in a programming language rather new to me, C#,
I have started a commons category browser. It uses WikiSense to generate
a commons category tree on-the-fly, and downloads the images in a
selected category to be displayed as thumbnails.
Noteworthy points:
* Tries to download existing image thumbnails first to increase
speed/save bandwidth
* Caches the thumbnail locally
* Doubleclick opens the browser with the image description page
Note that not much else is working right now; it's just what I hacked
together in an afternoon, in a programming language I'm still exploring.
Scrolling through thumbnails doesn't work yet, some images are ignored,
UTF8 category names are broken, etc.
Plans:
* Fix bugs
* Cache category tree locally
* Load thumbnails in the background, so one can browse in the meantime
* Analyze description pages in the background to mark images with
troublesome templates
For those not faint of heart, with a fast internet connection and .NET
2.0 installed (Window$ only, though AFAIK the current Mono should
theoretically support it):
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/CommonsBrowser.zip
For the rest of you, here's a screenshot:
http://magnusmanske.de/wikipedia/Screenshot.png
Just the executable, source will be released under GPL, in anyone is
interested that is ;-)
Magnus
FYI; part of a long thread on foundation governance and structure.
Those interested in discussions about foundation membership, the
meta-organization of the projects, and the future of the foundation :
you may want to join or browse foundation-l. I don't know where these
conversations will take place in the future, but at present they seem to
be gathering in frequency and length on that list, and long-ranging
decisions are being made over the next few months.
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:00:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way
Hiya,
Thanks for the long and insightful posts to this list recently.
Some quick thoughts.
> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.
Opt-in membership is useful; I always liked the idea, regardless of
whether or how dues were set up.
> ARTICLE II
> Section 4. Community.
> The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
> throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
> Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
> Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
This would be an unfortunate first sentence. Foundations do not usually
acknowledge the contributions of projects they support. The contributions
of donors, perhaps...
More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be
used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors
form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context
('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')...
similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid"
rather than "connoisseur".
I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity,
active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of
'volunteering' for a cause.
When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one
call it "volunteering"? No. Participating in a barn-raising for a
neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm? Likewise no.
Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend
a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening
in language-exchange.
Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply
doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should
come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
> Hence my trying to turn toward you.
> How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
[over 100,000]
> How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
[only? when was the last time a call for sign-ups went out?]
> How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
> How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
> How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
[more coming...]
This model was fascinating, though a lot to digest. (It would be even
more fascinating to see one or two other models, and hear details of how
and why they were set up.)
> ----------
> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change
the world.
> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
Right.
> ----------
> Which model would be better in our case ?
>
> One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
> efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
> reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
> I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
> meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
> their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
> the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
> business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
>
> But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
> the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
> More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.
I don't know. The best support of the projects and goals that I can
imagine doesn't stem directly from money, but from an ever-increasing
community participation; something which Wikipedia and other projects have
enjoyed to date.
> The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
> expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
> volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
> because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
> discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
> to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
> business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
> citizens all over the world.
> I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
> the boiling culture.
I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply
"by individuals" all over the world. Many people who don't get 'free
culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project)
-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
is guided by a broad and milling community.
Tangentially, it's not at all clear to me that this would mean less money
in the long run; more to the point, goals of generating and distributing
content may be better served without that intermediary.
> If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The
Also a chance for community members to reflect on the best that they have
gotten from the projects, and the best that they have seen in the world;
regardless of which model is picked, it would be better if a few hundred
community members took this analysis and brainstorming seriously so that
it was a considered choice and not a default one based on what is easiest.
> I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
> would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
> we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
> proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
> volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
> successful ?
Not only successful. Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of
magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants. There are
subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively
explored. Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors
/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed
to work on specific projects.
> I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.
Do you think it has value for the general good?
> --------
> between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
> appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
> reducing the lack of communication.
>
> But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
> and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
>
> At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
> a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need
It is hard to get feedback on newly drafted bylaws when they are not
public. How could the community help draft new bylaws that were different
from what has been written?
> Sorry for the long rant.
> I hope it clarifies the current situation.
>
> Anthere
Thanks again.
Catching up on email,
SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I counted these by hand, so there could be mistakes.
[[Category:against policy]] has nearly 1000 items. These are items
that should be speedy deleted as obvious copyright violations.
Literally, these are supposed to be deleted on sight.
[[Category:Unknown - March 2006]] has over 1000 items. These are items
that were tagged as missing source information in March. They should
be speedy deleted after 7 days.
[[Category:Unknown - April 2006]] has around 1400 items.
[[Category:Unknown - May 2006]] has an astounding 2600-2800 items for
deletion. (You know you're in trouble when you count "1000" and the
file names are still at "D")
[[Category:Unknown - June 2006]] has something incredible like over
4000 items for deletion...and it's only June 9th!!!
OK actually all the categories 1 June - 8 June have less than 200
items each, so something weird is going on. I don't know where all
those extra items are coming from. Hm it looks like some are people
misusing the 'Unknown' template and they somehow get added to the
current month. Ah... yes, that is it.
[[Category:Incomplete license]] has about 400 items. (For some, their
7 days might not have expired yet.)
[[Category:Images with no copyright tag]] has about 500 items. I think
this is all Orgullobot's work (only recently had a bot tag all new
uploads with this tag if there's no license tag).
[[Category:Duplicate]] has about 800 items. These are non-essential deletion.
[[Template:Delete] links to some 2000 items (although some of those
are policy pages, for example). But even then I think there must be a
gap between that template and [[Commons:Deletion requests]].
Just at a rough guess, there are probably about 200 items listed on
[[Commons:Deletion requests]]. And these are supposed to be deletions
requiring discussion (and for some reason today I see another 43 (!)
"delete this because there's an SVG" nominations just from one user :/
). These are supposed to be important cases that can set precedents.
How can admins even find these debates let alone take part in them?
This page (the template) is 247kb. No wonder <10 admins (of over 130)
regularly look at it.
I don't think it is an exaggeration to say, it doesn't matter how many
admins we have, or how hard they work, we cannot realistically reduce
this backlog by using the current methods we follow.
On the 8th June less than 250 items were deleted (including categories
and articles, etc). Same on the 7th June.
....................................
?????????????????????
....................................
Is this something we should not worry about?
Or how can we ever solve it? Over 12,000 images waiting to be deleted.
A severely depressed,
Brianna /[[user:pfctdayelise]]
