http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/186182.html
(a friend who is a Unix sysadmin so is used to finding his way around
annoying crap that doesn't work, but was beaten by the old version of
the form)
Quick Guide for How To Upload Your Own Pictures:
1. Create a Commons login. Say something about yourself on your user page.
2. Upload your stuff. Pick one of the "Own work" options.
3. Fill in some categories, etc. (wikitext, same as on Wikipedia).
Would that be worth putting in above or in place of one of the huge
walls of text presently on the upload form?
- d.
Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis support for the HTML5 <video> element has
landed in Firefox Minefield nightlies (3.1a2-pre). This is *big news*
because it means a standard way of displaying video in web browsers
will be available to all without being stuck with Flash. And Theora is
the only accepted format on Wikimedia Commons.
See:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-July/045036.htmlhttp://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=492http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/07/theora-video-backend-for-firefox-lande…
What we need is people to test this. So please download a copy of
Minefield, test it thoroughly on Wikimedia Commons video, beat on it,
thrash it, report bugs. There's plenty.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Video
You need to load the video, click "More …" and it'll give you the
option. Wikimedia would very much like to make it a first option
rather than a last one, but first it needs to be better (more
functional and stable) than loading Cortado with Java.
Apple and Nokia tried some truly disgusting FUD around the topic and
successfully got the words "Vorbis" and "Theora" taken out of the
HTML5 spec, but Firefox adoption means 20% of Web users in short
order. So we can leave them to play catchup per business needs. "You
got a Nokia? No wonder you can't watch that Wikipedia video, Nokias
suck."
- d.
I'm very pleased to point out this announcement from the Mozilla project:
"Mozilla is committing to include native support for OGG video and
audio in its next release that includes support for the video element
tag." [http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=492]
This is an announcement that Mozilla will be supporting the WhatWG
HTML5 multimedia tags as well as including Xiph's unencumbered media
codecs as part of Firefox.
The WHATWG HTML5 <video/> and <audio/> tags allow supporting browsers
to naively display multimedia content just as they display still
images: without the need for plugins or extensions and with full
integration. Mozilla's commitment to including a set of reasonably
performing and unencumbered codecs as a baseline means that web
developers and users have an opportunity to have multimedia that Just
Works without licensing obligations adding friction to the free flow
of knowledge. Together the native multimedia support and the baseline
inclusion of unencumbered multimedia codecs are an essential step
forward in preserving the open and unrestricted qualities of the web
which are so important to our mission.
The Wikimedia projects have long had a strong commitment to free media
formats, and Wikimedia Commons is probably the largest repository of
videos in Ogg Theora on the web. But our commitment has, at times,
been a costly one: As an early adopter of free media technology we've
suffered from more than our share of complications and incompatibilities.
After years of effort driving adoption and our own work improving the
state of the art for free media formats we're now seeing the beginnings
of a true mainstream adoption which will allow these multimedia formats
to be truly costless for producers and consumers of knowledge. I know
from my own involvement that Wikimedia's adherence to free formats has
been essential in moving things this far, and everyone who has worked
on multimedia within the Wikimedia projects should be proud of our
collective contribution here.
This could never make it into the mainstream without the groups
developing and promoting these free codecs -- particularly Xiph.org,
spreadopenmedia.org, and the FSF's PlayOGG campaign. The W3C's policy
of only accepting royalty-free technology has played an essential
role by not allowing encumbered codecs as part of the standard, but
there has been a stalemate in the adoption of a useful, royalty free
baseline codec set. Because of this, I'd like to personally extend
thanks to the Mozilla Foundation for joining our leadership in this
important area of web standards. Without their help Web Video would
have no hope of escaping the environment of incompatible, proprietary,
"de facto standards" with their related costs.
The Wikimedia projects have had integrated video playback support
for some time now via the OggHandler extension. OggHandler supports a
multitude of playback methods (such as a Java player using Cortado, and
the VLC browser extension) in an effort to get unencumbered multimedia
format support working for as many people as possible. OggHandler has
been a great success, already working for a vast majority of readers, but
the native support in a popular browser will make OggHandler even better
(smoother performance, zero install or an easy upgrade to FireFox, etc).
The new <video/> tag in Firefox has been supported as a playback method
in OggHandler since day zero so the new Firefox builds will automatically
use their native playback ability on the Wikimedia sites.
The code for native support for Ogg Theora and Vorbis
was checked into the Mozilla mainline last night and is
already available in nightly builds marked 3.1a2pre or later
[http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/].
The support is new and pretty raw: There are obvious outstanding issues
with things like timing and audio access on some platforms (such as many
GNU/Linux distros). Once the known bugs are fixed I'll be soliciting
Wikimedians to check for bugs in both our own player code as well as
the Firefox test releases.
Now would be a good time to start building up some material on commons
to showcase this support for Firefox's official release. Although
we've had video on our projects for a long time it's still largely a
new and unexplored territory for us. There are many opportunities to
make important contributions and to have a lot of fun.
--Greg Maxwell
-- Eredeti üzenet --
Feladó: commons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Címzett: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Másolat:
Elküldve: 2008.07.26 14:00
Téma: Commons-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 17Send Commons-l mailing list submissions tocommons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-lor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tocommons-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.orgPlease, don't sebd for me letter nowaday. Thank you, MoíraYou can reach the person managing the list atcommons-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."Today's Topics:1. Fwd: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA AND INTERNETARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGES (David Gerard)2. Suggestion for improvement (Timwi)3. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Daniel Schwen)4. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Platonides)5. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Andrew Gray)6. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Bryan Tong Minh)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:19 +0100From: "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>Subjectubject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA ANDINTERNET ARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<fbad4e140807251219w613b6d57m1dfeb3edc442b8e6@mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Mind you, are there any places we could use a NASA pic we don't already?- d.---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Waerth <waerth(a)asianet.co.th>Datet;Date: 2008/7/25Subject: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVELAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>I just received this press release from NASA. Since NASA images aremostly PD to my knowledhe we missed an opportunity here:July 24, 2008David E. SteitzHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1730david.steitz(a)nasa.govPaul HickmanInternet Archive415-462-1509, 415-561-6767paul(a)archive.orgRELEASE: 08-173NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESWASHINGTON -- NASA and Internet Archive, a non-profit digital librarybased in San Francisco, made available the most comprehensivecompilation ever of NASA's vast collection of photographs, historicfilm and video Thursday. Located at www.nasaimages.org, the Internetsite combines for the first time 21 major NASA imagery collectionsinto a single, searchable online resource. A link to the Web sitewill appear on the http://www.nasa.gov home page.The Web site launch is the first step in a five-year partnership thatwill add millions of images and thousands of hours of video and audiocontent, with enhanced search and viewing capabilities, and new userfeatures on a continuing basis. Over time, integration ofwww.nasaimages.org with http://www.nasa.gov will become more seamlessand comprehensive ."This partnership with Internet Archive enables NASA to provide theAmerican public with access to its vast collection of imagery fromone searchable source, unlocking a new treasure trove of discoveriesfor students, historians, enthusiasts and researchers," said NASADeputy Administrator Shana Dale. "This new resource also will enablethe agency to digitize and preserve historical content now notavailable on the Internet for future generations."Through a competitive process, NASA selected Internet Archive tomanage the NASA Images Web site under a non-exclusive Space Actagreement, signed in July 2007. The five-year project is at no costto the taxpayer and the images are free to the public."NASA's media is an incredibly important and valuable national asset.It is a tremendous honor for the Internet Archive to be NASA'spartner in this project," says Brewster Kahle, founder of InternetArchive. "We are excited to mark this first step in a long-termcollaboration to create a rich and growing public resource."The content of the Web site covers all the diverse activities ofAmerica's space program, including imagery from the Apollo moonmissions, Hubble Space Telescope views of the universe andexperimental aircraft past and present. Keyword searching isavailable with easy-to-use resources for teachers and students.Internet Archive is developing the NASA Images project using softwaredonated by Luna Imaging Inc. of Los Angeles and with the generoussupport of the Kahle-Austin Foundation of San Francisco.For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit:http://www.nasa.govWaerthhttp://fi.ndit.athttp://www.archive.org_______________________________________________foundation-l mailing listfoundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgUnsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l------------------…: 2Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:49:16 +0100From: Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>Subjectubject: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgMessage-ID: 1(a)ger.gmane.org>Content-Typeype: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedA friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error message suggested to use a different filename.Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he canreplace the image on Commons.Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. Heshould not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replacedwherever it is.Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-siteaccounts.Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.Thanks for listening!Timwi------------------------------Message: 3Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:08:05 -0500From: Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de>Subjectubject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Message-IDage-ID: <200807251808.05917.lists(a)schwen.de>Content-Typet-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.[..]> Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He> should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced> wherever it is.Apart from the valid points, I believe this is a fringe case. The case in which you should upload over existing images are few. The alternative of uploading with a new filename doesn't seem so counterintuitive to me that it should deterr a lot of contributors. But I could be wrong here.------------------------------Message: 4Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:43:10 +0200From: Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com>Subjectubject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.orgMessage-ID: 1(a)ger.gmane.org>Content-Typeype: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedTimwi wrote:> A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating > problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.> > This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.> > He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was > actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because > Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.> > He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.> > Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error > message suggested to use a different filename.> > Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can> replace the image on Commons.> > Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He> should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced> wherever it is.> > Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.> > Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site> accounts.Now, that's a nice structured message. A pity i see it after the more cryptic ones on wikitech :)However, thetre's little to do at commons for your friend.#1 Short-term is a message to be changed on the wikipedias or mediawiki localisation.#1 Long-term is a feature request for the devs, but i see it unlikely, as the shared repository might not be a wiki, you may not have credentials, etc.Not that images on commons showed on local projects don't show the link "Upload a new version of this file".> Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons > didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".> > This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts > absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to > prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a > net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.> > Thanks for listening!> TimwiNew users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images. They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were the original uploader) .------------------------------Message: 5Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:35 +0100From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com>Subjectubject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<f3fedb0d0807251648n32933b83h905f82806b339963@mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-12008/7/26 Platonides <Platonides@gmail.com>:> New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images.> They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change> existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.> Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons> and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.It also helps discourage accidental overwriting, which used to bereasonably common - someone would upload something with a fairlygeneric filename, not realise they were overwriting an existing image,and we'd realise a few days later that the Belgian prime minister'sarticle on several projects was displaying a large photograph of atrain.-- - Andrew Grayandrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk------------------------------Message: 6Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:19:30 +0200From: "Bryan Tong Minh" <bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com>Subjectubject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<fd5886130807260019p43568244s536368bf88eef6e2@mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Platonides <Platonides(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Timwi wrote:[...]>> Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons>> didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".>>>> This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts>> absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to>> prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a>> net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.>>>> Thanks for listening!>> Timwi>> New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images.> They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change> existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.> Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons> and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.>> Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to> only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were> the original uploader).>>>> _______________________________________________> Commons-l mailing list> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia .org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l><https://bugzi… mailing listCommons-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-lEnd of Commons-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 17*****************************************
I don't know if we have a list moderator.
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l> doesn't seem
to name anyone. Anyone else think it would be a good idea to agree on
someone?
-Giggy
On 7/28/08, mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> *sob*
>
>
>
> Can this be
> <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DIN_4844-2_Warnung_vor_feuergefaehr
> lichen_Stoffen_D-W001.svg> Killed with fire please?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Muhammad [mailto:noreply@mob.com]
> Sent: July 28, 2008 5:58 AM
> To: commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Commons-l] MOB.COM - Muhammad invites you to The Mob
>
>
>
> <spam redacted>
>
>
A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating
problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.
This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.
He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was
actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because
Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.
He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.
Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error
message suggested to use a different filename.
Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can
replace the image on Commons.
Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He
should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced
wherever it is.
Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.
Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site
accounts.
Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons
didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".
This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts
absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to
prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a
net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.
Thanks for listening!
Timwi
Mind you, are there any places we could use a NASA pic we don't already?
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Waerth <waerth(a)asianet.co.th>
Date: 2008/7/25
Subject: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVE
LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGES
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
I just received this press release from NASA. Since NASA images are
mostly PD to my knowledhe we missed an opportunity here:
July 24, 2008
David E. Steitz
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1730
david.steitz(a)nasa.gov
Paul Hickman
Internet Archive
415-462-1509, 415-561-6767
paul(a)archive.org
RELEASE: 08-173
NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGES
WASHINGTON -- NASA and Internet Archive, a non-profit digital library
based in San Francisco, made available the most comprehensive
compilation ever of NASA's vast collection of photographs, historic
film and video Thursday. Located at www.nasaimages.org, the Internet
site combines for the first time 21 major NASA imagery collections
into a single, searchable online resource. A link to the Web site
will appear on the http://www.nasa.gov home page.
The Web site launch is the first step in a five-year partnership that
will add millions of images and thousands of hours of video and audio
content, with enhanced search and viewing capabilities, and new user
features on a continuing basis. Over time, integration of
www.nasaimages.org with http://www.nasa.gov will become more seamless
and comprehensive.
"This partnership with Internet Archive enables NASA to provide the
American public with access to its vast collection of imagery from
one searchable source, unlocking a new treasure trove of discoveries
for students, historians, enthusiasts and researchers," said NASA
Deputy Administrator Shana Dale. "This new resource also will enable
the agency to digitize and preserve historical content now not
available on the Internet for future generations."
Through a competitive process, NASA selected Internet Archive to
manage the NASA Images Web site under a non-exclusive Space Act
agreement, signed in July 2007. The five-year project is at no cost
to the taxpayer and the images are free to the public.
"NASA's media is an incredibly important and valuable national asset.
It is a tremendous honor for the Internet Archive to be NASA's
partner in this project," says Brewster Kahle, founder of Internet
Archive. "We are excited to mark this first step in a long-term
collaboration to create a rich and growing public resource."
The content of the Web site covers all the diverse activities of
America's space program, including imagery from the Apollo moon
missions, Hubble Space Telescope views of the universe and
experimental aircraft past and present. Keyword searching is
available with easy-to-use resources for teachers and students.
Internet Archive is developing the NASA Images project using software
donated by Luna Imaging Inc. of Los Angeles and with the generous
support of the Kahle-Austin Foundation of San Francisco.
For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov
Waerth
http://fi.ndit.athttp://www.archive.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wtf?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf(a)googlemail.com>
Date: 2008/7/22
Subject: [Foundation-l] At least 500 images will have to be deleted
from the National Portrait Gallery
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portra…
The following was never revoced in this list:
"[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
purposes"
Erik Moeller at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-February/038394.html
foundation-l
May I also remember Jimbo Wales' Manifesto:
"5. Free the Art!
Show two 400 year old paintings. Routinely get complaints from
museums saying there is copyright infringements. National Portrait
Gallery of England threatens to sue, a chilling effect, but they have
no grounds."
http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/jimbos_problems_1.html
For years there was no doubt that Bridgeman v. Corel was accepted on
Commons. It is said that British courts would'nt accept Bridgeman v.
Corel but there is no proof for this. It is true, in the contrary,
that the NY US judge has diligently discussed UK law with the result
that also according UK copyright law mere reproductions are NOT
protected.
Bridgeman vs. Corel is an essential point for Commons and for all
Wikimedia projects. This is not an issue some Commons pseudo-experts
could decide. Before 500+ pictures of PUBLIC DOMAIN PAINTINGS are to
be deleted the board of the Foundation should decide if Moeller's
quote above is still its position.
Klaus Graf
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l