On 24/01/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/01/2008, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24/01/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I just did some experimentation on a local MediaWiki. A blue circle-i
> > > looks like rubbish (and, worse, non-obvious) below about 15px, so
> > > whatever expects 15x11 would need fixing too. I got a nice 15x15
> > > circle-i, though (better than merely scaling an SVG).
>
> > How about a circled + sign? Should be equally obvious.
>
>
> circle-i = information (at least in English). Better even than the
> square-i Greg was using in the tests on Thebainer's subpage.
I just had a blazingly obvious idea.
We don't *need* a perfect multilingual obvious image. At all. After
all, if you're reading en.wikibooks you can read English, if you're
reading fr.wikipedia you can read French, etc. And two words can
convey meaning a lot clearer than a 15x15 button...
Rather than get MediaWiki to display the button next to each image,
just have it display something like "[picture credit]", a simple text
link to the image page (as well as the image itself linking).
Then make "picture credit" a configurable element (or whatever the
term is) so that it can be localised for any given interface language.
Is there an obvious reason this wouldn't work?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
Hello,
Voting for the 2007 Picture of the Year has now closed. We expect to
release results within 24-48 hours.
Before then, please help us by taking a quick look at the voting register:
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Results/…>
and report any possible sockpuppets to <commons-poty(a)googlegroups.com>.
thanks,
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Cc-by-sa plus main page attention is a very good reward for professional
photographers, particularly if they get dual FP status on Commons and
en:Wikipedia. I wrote an article about this for a business publication a
few months ago where I crunched the Alexa numbers and concluded that a day
on that main page is considerably more valuable than below the fold
placement on the front page of The New York Times.
For the most part, the people we're trying to reach:
A. Don't realize this is an opportunity.
B. Are in the habit of retaining full copyright.
My argument was that judicious relicensing can be a very smart move for
portfolio material that no longer generates revenue streams, particularly in
terms of generating viral links and incoming traffic to the photographer's
website.
I wouldn't mind writing up a photographer-specific variation on that article
for a photography magazine. My e-mail is enabled; mail me an editor's name
if you know one.
-Durova
On 23/01/2008, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
[Getty Images]
> Looking at their site, I found that they pride themselves on four advantages
> that make all the difference between a media dump and a media collection. It
> is worth considering how our own image bank meets these standards, which, as
> they say, have emerged as industry standards over the past several years.
http://gettyimages.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=company_overview
> How can we improve our own platform to simplify the process for people
> wishing to use free images?
Our search is rubbish. That's the big need.
The other part of the problem is how to use images in compliance with
the licence. To this end, I started
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse a while ago, with the intended
audience being casual readers who know nothing about Wikimedia but who
call up or email asking if they can reuse an image they saw on
Wikipedia. Any improvements anyone can make for accuracy and *CLARITY*
are most welcomed.
> How can we expedite any number of processes so that people get what they
> want, and quickly?
RSS of categories or tags? This means making categories or tags much
easier. I try to remember to categorise my Commons uploads, but it's
more work than it should be just to find the right category.
> Do we have the kinds of images that people really want to use/reuse? How is
> that determined?
At the moment our remit is stuff that is used on a project or
reasonably would be used on a project. Is that good enough? How would
we reasonably expand on that?
(cc'd to commons-l - this thread belongs there too)
- d.
Speaking of video... anyone live in California?
cheers
Brianna
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heather Ford <heather(a)icommons.org>
Date: 23 Jan 2008 23:12
Subject: [Icommons] DIY Video Summit
To: icommons(a)lists.ibiblio.org
iCommons is a friend of this awesome summit happening from 8-10
February at USC in California :) We're hoping to bring through some of
the workshops and discussions to the iSummit this year :)
http://icommons.org/calendar/247-a-diy-video-summit-1
Best,
Heather.
24/7: A DIY VIDEO SUMMIT
February 8-10, 2008
School of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California
Conference web site: http://www.video24-7.org
Blog: http://diy.video24-7.org/
Registration is nearly full for the the academic panels and the
workshops. The video screenings are free and open to the public.
Please help us spread the word about this event.
24/7: A DIY Video Summit will bring together the many communities that
have evolved around do-it-yourself (DIY) video: artists, audiences,
technology providers, academics, policy makers and industry
executives. The aim is to discover common ground, and to chart the
path to a future in which grassroots and mainstream, amateur and
professional, artist and audience can all benefit as the medium
continues to evolve.
This three-day summit features:
SCREENINGS OF DIY VIDEO
On February 8 and 9, there will be screenings of DIY video that are
open to the public. These will feature curated programs on design
video, activist documentary, youth media, machinima, music video,
political remix and video blogging. The video program will culminate
in an evening program and reception on February 9 that will draw from
all of these video genres.
ACADEMIC PROGRAM
Registered attendees will have access to the academic program on
February 8 and 9 that features panels on The State of Research, The
State of the Art, DIY Media: The Intellectual Property Dilemma and DIY
Tools and Platforms. Featured speakers include Yochai Benkler, John
Seely Brown, Joi Ito, Henry Jenkins, Lawrence Lessig, and Howard
Rheingold.
WORKSHOPS AND BIRDS-OF-A-FEATHER MEETINGS
On February 10, the day will be devoted to practical and hands-on
workshops for registered attendees on topics such as intellectual
property, media creation, distribution and new-media design tools.
Attendees will also have the option of organizing their own
birds-of-a-feather meetings to connect with other attendees.
Heather Ford
iCommons Executive Director
http://icommons.org
The iCommons Summit: 29 July - 1 August 2008, Sapporo, Japan
Phone: +27 11 327 3155
PO Box 1453, Saxonwold, 2132, Johannesburg
_______________________________________________
Icommons mailing list
Icommons(a)lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/icommons
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Success is less about the content, and more about *the collection* and
> the search. Google made its first zillion billion not because it
> controlled a lot of content but because it helped people find a lot of
> other people's content.
The search, the search, the search! "We have Wikimedia Commons, with
millions of freely-reusable pre-cleared photos. It's like Getty Images
with a really crap search."
(No, not even Mayflower has fixed that.)
> I think this is an area where commons really has something to offer:
> Universally editable metadata could make for impressive search power,
> and free licensing means all images are available for use (sometimes,
> with copyleft works, at the price of freely releasing your own work).
If turning categories into tags within Mediawiki is unlikely to happen
soon (I recall the previous experiment where on Postgres it was lovely
and on MySQL it was horribly slow ... and there's zero chance of
Wikimedia abandoning MySQL in the foreseeable future) - what about a
"tags" template for image pages, which can then be parsed by a search
application on the toolserver? Update daily or something. Then an
image can have 10 or 100 or 1000 tags, even if that many Mediawiki
categories would be problematic to display or process. Sound feasible?
(cc to commons-l and wikitech-l)
- d.
FYI.
cheers, Brianna
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
Date: 22 Jan 2008 07:21
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Format Conversion
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
On Jan 21, 2008 1:48 PM, teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> A pragmatic approach, where we convert stuff on upload into a
> free format is something i asked for in vain at commons. I am very glad to
> see resurface that idea here.
Uploading to our projects sucks. It's hard all around.
I'm working on an upload tool for video that has an improved ajaxy
upload form to better gather data, and can transcode uploads. So far
I only support pulling video from things like Youtube, Google Video,
Dailymotion, Guba, Stage6 and Metacafe, but I will eventually support
a couple of other upload mechanisms (http upload, etc). It will allow
anonymous uploading, with a submission queue so that named users can
approve uploads before they hit the site. I think thats better than
not allowing anonymous uploading.
Like the WikiMediaPlayer I expect that this will eventually be
re-invented as a mediawiki extension once the uses and needs are
clear.
[snip rest]
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/