Hi all,
Click this link: http://www.openwetware.org/wiki/SynBERC:MIT/Lab_video_tours
It's far different from most video on Commons: it's Flash streaming
video and it works in 99% of web browsers. (The VLC web browser plugin
is supoosed to support Flash video too, though I've never tried it.
Also I don't know if Flash video is based on patented codecs or not.
But assuming that no such problems come up...) Perhaps we should put
in a MediaWiki feature request:
MediaWiki should convert all our videos to low-rez Flash Video format
for streaming previewing as soon as the .ogg original is uploaded.
This way, more people will be able to view our videos, so we'll get
more uploads.
Agree or disagree?
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
416-781-5938 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
From: SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>:
>
> I'm an outspoken fan of fixing and improving Theora, and I think this
> sounds like a fantastic idea. We should do similar low-res versions
> of audio into something other than .ogg -- but make sure that the
> high-res version we archive and strongly encourage is, in both cases,
> the free-format Ogg version.
Cool. I like your idea about audio. Bug filed:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7433
To all: If you want the request to be fulfilled, it may help if you
visit the above URL, sign up for a Bugzilla account, and vote for the
request.
> There is *no* widely-used completely free audio or video format. We
> should not allow our strong support for Ogg to prevent our media from
> being used by the overwhelming proportion of our audience that cannot
> (or don't know how to) play those formats.
Maybe the Foundation / local chapters could get the EU to force M$FT
to include Ogg codecs with Windows :-)
> At the same time, we should use our extra free-format-friendly
> energies to promote those formats
> ...
We need to point directly to the .exe file of the latest codec
installer at Illiminable (and we should suggest they create an
ogg-codecs-latest.exe symlink that always points to the latest one.)
We need to far simplify the Free formats help page. It should be so
easy even my mom could grab the Illiminable codecs.
> Oh, yes -- and we can push the Mozilla Foundation to integrate ogg
> players into the default firefox distribution. <pokes MozFound about
> writing in libtheora support>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Ogg_Support
Is there a bug report? What's the bug URL? There's none listed at the
above URL. But I wanted to vote for it; every vote counts.
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile.
I also provide training and spyware removal services for homes and businesses.
Call or email for a FREE 5-minute consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed.
416-781-5938 / Email: info(a)jspiro.com / MSN: jasonspiro(a)hotmail.com
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:19:11 +0300, Fredrik Josefsson
<fred_chessplayer(a)yahoo.se> wrote:
> Fourth. Because of the increased traffic, there is a
> larger backlog, although not critical.
Fred, thank you for these statistics. I personally feel that thay are
useful as they are motivating for two reasons:
1. They list important things we can do something about.
2. They show how badly we are needed.
True, the second point isn't always so motivating. That's why I have
thought about ways to make the statistics more motivating or using them in
a better way.
What I've been thinking is weekly tasks. These tasks could be something
like
*delete backlog of images without source/license
*removing duplicates
*dealing with backlog in deletion requests
*deling with images that have {{delete}} tag but aren't in deletion
requests
*Orgullobots Welcome log
*{{CopyrightedFreeUse}}
*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Wantedcategories
*many other
*sorting images
The benefits of weekly tasks and working on a common goal include at least:
1. Doing things together is more fun
2. Working together shows our combined power
3. Achieving a goal feels good
4. Even big tasks are doable
Working on this model further, I propose we have two weekly (or biweekly
or whatever) tasks: one which requires admin privileges and one which
doesn't. This way we'd always have something to offer to those who are not
admins - and vice versa. Also when we see who participate in CommonTasks
(tm) we know who could be future admins.
PS. Now expect you to tell me that this already exists but I just don't
know about it ;)
--
Ystävällisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula
--
Ystävällisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula
Hi,
We have now started our official call for support regarding the long awaited
CommonsDelinker (-unlinker, -orphaner...).
Many people have agreed on the commons-l that we urgently need a bot for
delinking images in local wikis. Thus we now need to ask the foundation as
this bot necessarily will have to break usual bot rules as it needs to run in
every of the 701 Wikimedia wikis. It is unreasonable to await approval by 701
different Wikimedia wiki communities. They all use Wikimedia Commons and
Wikimedia Commons now needs to efficiently interact with them in return:
That for the administrators of Wikimedia Commons request to be exempt from
local bot policies in order to run this bot.
So I ask all people that are tired of time consuming human delinking in every
wiki and that want to get rid of our copyvio backlog efficiently sign this
call in meta-wiki (we need your support ;-):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker
Please also contact your local (wikipedia-, wikisource-, wikinews-...)
communities so that they are already prepared and know what it is about.
Communities that are openminded towards that service will take part as soon
as possible at the beta test phase of that bot running at large scale.
If you are interested to know how this bot will work in detail have a look at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
Cheers, Arnomane
Hello,
We now have a new mechanism for starting to clean up some of the
categories that are regularly abused by newbies, such as {{copyrighted
free use provided that}} (CFUPT) , {{copyrighted free use}} and
{{PD-because}}.
I have only started with CFUPT so I will just describe how it works.
If other people would like to, they can extend the system to the other
licenses/categories mentioned.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyrighted_free_use_provided_th…
Template:Copyrighted free use provided that
The template now has an optional parameter, reviewed. So if you look
at an image and you check the reason given, and if the reason is OK,
you can add reviewed=yes and then the image will be put in a
subcategory, [[Category:Reviewed copyrighted free use provided that]].
To make this review process much easier, I asked Magnus to put
together something for it and he came up with this excellent tool -
Image Review Tool:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/imagereview.php
Try it out and you will see it is very easy to work with. The "PfC"
links to Magnus' version of that user's "gallery". The PushforCommons
gallery gives you a nice overview to quickly see if that user has
uploaded lots of problem files.
At the moment each image has five options which I suggested:
* Mark as reviewed
* Mark as no source
* Mark for deletion
* Change to {{attribution}}
* Skip
It would be preferred to change this license to a better one, if one
existed. I went through about 20 photos and I noticed a good many
should actually have been {{attribution}}, so that's why that option
is there.
There are two common problems with images in this category:
1. the extent of 'free use' is not clear. In particular:
* conditions equivalent to {{notify}} are not acceptable [that is,
images must NOT require that the copyright holder be contacted before
any use of the image]
* Wikipedia-only, non-commercial, educational, non-profit etc
permissions are not acceptable
Commercial use and derivative works tend to be the killer
requirements. So... I am not really sure what to do with such images
(and there are a LOT). Possibly we could mark as subst:nld - as the
extent of the license is not clear. Thoughts???
2. The permission is not clearly available.
Permission tends to take the form of a website general release
statement, which should be linked to, or personal contact with a
webmaster, usually through email. This permission should ideally be
forwarded to OTRS. However, informally, we have also accepted copies
of emails on talk pages or user subpages. I think it's OK if we accept
these that already exist, but all future permissions should be very
strongly encouraged to be sent to OTRS.
Anyway what to do with these images, is clearer at least: mark as
subst:nsd. (Please also write somewhere WHY this applies, otherwise
you will mystify the uploader.) Maybe it would be nice to have a
template {{OTRS required}} to go with NSD, which could say something
like:
"The license information of this file asserts a permission release,
but does not provide a verifiable source. Please follow the procedure
described at [[Commons:OTRS]] and when the permission has been
approved, replace this template with {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}}."
LASTLY......
Please don't mention the reviewed=yes thing on the template page, the
template talk page, the category page or the category talk page. We
don't want newbies 'reviewing' their own images. You can't exactly
keep secrets on a wiki... but how many newbies do you really think
read COM:AN or the mailing list? :)
So!
Try out the tool!
Any comments, suggestions, please make them.
If you want to extend the other templates mentioned, or create {{OTRS
required}}, go ahead and then reply here.
Yours in the fight against the tsunami of copyvios,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
(PS. Magnus rocks)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bawolff <bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2006 5:28 PM
Subject: FWD: Californian photographers who'd like to go to the Oscars?
To: Wikinews mailing list <wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org>,
Wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org, Commons-l(a)wikimedia.org
I saw this on the water cooler (Wikinews Village pump equivelent) and
thought it might be a good idea to post to lists.
Are you interested in red carpet photography, or reporting on the Academy
> Awards? I'm trying to get one reporter for Wikinews, and one photographer
> for Wikimedia Commons/Wikinews/Wikipedia into the whole red carpet/backstage
> stuff. Press credentials for the Oscars are being released '''now''', so we
> need to act fast.
>
> I'm looking for someone that is clearly reliable, if not skilled with the
> camera. Being an entertainment buff with a good memory for famous faces is a
> big plus (so you don't miss stars, and shoot photos of random people), and
> living in or around California, particularly in or around Los Angeles are
> also big pluses. The photographer is my main concern, the reporter is less
> critical
>
> Post your reply info and a sample <nowiki><gallery></nowiki> of four
> photos, at least one has to be of a human, and at least one has to have been
> taken in natural light, and at least one photo has to have been taken in
> artificial light. Submit your interest or questions to
> [[n:en:user:zanimum/Oscars]].
>
> This message is being cross-posted to Commons, Wikinews, Wikipedia. --
> [[User:Zanimum|Zanimum]] 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Forwarded to mail lists by user:Bawolff
I have created a simple hack which allows dynamic localization of
content on commons. I envision it being used for boilerplate notices.
I have put a demo online. This feature could easily be extended to
support anons, and may help make commons a more friendly place for
non-english speakers.
Please see my post on the Village Pump:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Multiple_language_su….
It's pretty simple: I propose we formalise the policy of not accepting
trademarks, regardless of their copyright status.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Trademarks
Comment, discuss, support, oppose, etc, on Talk page.
thanks,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise