Hi again,
another addition to Flicks the Commons:
http://blog.flickr.net/en
Any ideas which licenses we could use for these three groups of pictures?
Thanks,
Flo
I propose forbid uploading images from Ukrainian Wikipedia, because uk-wp
admins abuse copyright. Some of them uploads non-free images with free
licence. Other ones use fairuses in templates and userpages. And you may
upload ANY image and put license {{Fairuse in}} and image will stay on
Wikipedia during months.
Last week some sysop (Turzh) uploaded many images with license CC-BY-SA from
the site sobory.ru , but author allows only non-commercial usage (see OTRS
ticket#2008070810020169<https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=…>).
I ask that sysop to delete these images because such permission is
unappropriate but he continued upload images. Today I ask him again to
delete it (because images with free license maybe uploaded by any user to
Commons; and I as Commons' sysop care about purity of project), but he said
that he not uploaded it in Commons, it is uk-wiki, and he does what he want.
Then I put templates {{db}} to some images but he blocked me for 24 hours.
That's why I suggest to forbid uploading images from uk-wiki (firstly via
CommonsHelper and then with another ways) without admin review.
--
Anatoliy Honcharov (Анатолій Гончаров)
mailto:Ahonc.ua@gmail.com
Hi all,
Last week I went to a conference hosted by Creative Commons Australia
<http://creativecommons.org.au/australasiancommons>. One of the talks
was "Play at Powerhouse" by Sebastian Chan, the manager of web
services at Powerhouse Museum. They are one of the institutions
participating in Flickr's "The Commons" -
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/powerhouse_museum/>.
A lot of their images have been transferred to Commons. I sat up in my
chair fairly well when Seb raised this as an "issue". From his
perspective, this is a problem, because once the images leave Flickr,
they lose the ability to easily track and report usage. As an
institution they use these stats to justify the effort of making their
content digitally available (and geocoding it, and maintaining the
Flickr community, etc).
There are some screenshots showing Flickr stats in this post:
<http://searchengineland.com/071213-161815.php>
Making institutions feel more comfortable with their content appearing
on Wikimedia Commons is obviously a good thing for us. We have
pageview stats and checkusage and who knows what other exciting stuff.
I think we should develop an automated process for creating
institutional stats reports and then contact the institutions whose
works we use and offer them this report - starting with the Powerhouse
Museum.
In fact, I don't see a reason not to make the reports public. They
could be generated once a month (or day, whatever) and then sit on the
toolserver for people to look at. Providing them as a public reference
might actually serve as incentive for more institutions to actively
engage with us.
Thoughts? Good idea or waste of time?
cheers,
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Is it appropriate to ask for history information here? Or where can I ask?
My ancestors were in Heilbronn in the 1300s, surname of MARKART and MAERKLIN. I want to find out what Heilbronn was like then. What were the houses made of? What kind of boats were on the Neckar? There are photos of the Deutschof but are there other photos of buildings in this era? There is a map here dating 1557 and I would love to know the buildings shown.
Is there anyplace that I can purchase a brochure or book on this time period? Or links you can send me too.
It is better to have information in English but I do use Babelfish with funny results but at least it helps concerning the subject.
This is a wonderful place to go exploring!
thank you,
Mariam in sunny Phoenix
mhc217(a)cox.net
Yay documentation!
What Adam didn't say is that participation is open and warmly
welcomed, in real life (by showing up) or by IRC. I would love some
Parisian Wikimedians to come by and hang out. :)
Please fwd as appropriate
thanks,
Brianna
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: adam hyde <adam(a)flossmanuals.net>
Date: 2008/7/3
Subject: [FM Discuss] Announcing Inkscape Book Sprint
To: floss <discuss(a)lists.flossmanuals.net>
Cc: Leslie Hawthorn <lhawthorn(a)google.com>, Allen Gunn
<gunner(a)aspirationtech.org>
hi,
I am very happy to announce the FLOSS Manuals/Inkscape Booksprint. The
project is in collaboration with Inkscape and sponsored by Google.
The event will be held in Paris at La Cité des Sciences in Paris from
July 5-12. Participating on site will be:
Cédric Gémy - French documentation writer involved with the Inkscape
Docs team and also author of a wonderful book on Gimp, and Secretary of
the Scribus Foundation
Alexandre Prokoudine - documentation writer from Russia, he has
translated docs for Audacity, Rosegarden, Hydrogen, Inkscape and
Scribus. Also the founder of Open Font Library
(http://www.openfontlibrary.org/) amongst other very interesting
projects.
Joshua Facemyer - doc writer from Chicago, involved a lot with the
Inkscape docs team and also a designer
Elisa de Castro Guerra - author of a wonderful Inkscape book (new
edition forthcoming) and manager of the forthcoming French FLOSS
Manuals
Brianna Laugher - goto person for Wikimedia Commons. Based in Melbourne
and detouring to the Book Sprint on the way to Wikimania 2008
Popolon - patch contributor to Inkscape, and author of Inkscape
Tutorials
Adam Hyde - (me!)
The manual outline has been created :
http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Inkscape
We will be working in realspace in Paris and living together for for the
week in two shared apartments hired for the duration.
We start on Saturday July 5th with some discussion and then straight
into the writing. The manual will be written in English and translated
to Russian and French. I will also talk to Ali (co-ordinator of FLOSS
Manuals Farsi) about adding the manual to their repository.
At the end of the Book Sprint Brianna and I will present the material
during a workshop in Wikimania (Alexandria, Egypt- July 17).
If you would like to join us during the Book Sprint we will have a irc
channel up for the duration of the sprint and remote collaboration is
welcomed! The channel is on irc.freenode.net, and the channel is
#booksprint
I will post more details of the sprint to the list and on the FM Blog
(http://www.flossmanuals.net/about) once we have started :)
Thanks must go to all the people I mentioned above and to Allen Gunn
(Aspiration Tech) and Leslie Hawthorn (Google) without which this sprint
would not have been possible.
adam
--
Adam Hyde
FLOSS Manuals
http://www.flossmanuals.net
+ 31 6 2808 7108
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss(a)lists.flossmanuals.net
http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Wikimedia Commons, like many Wikimedia Projects, doesn't generally
block anonymizing (i.e. services/servers that could be used to hide
your identity) proxies unless they are causing problems.
Since commons is less often a target for troublemakers than some other
projects with the same policy, we often seem to have much fewer
proxies blocked. This also important because of the blocking practices
of some governments. Generally our practices do not seem to cause us
too much trouble, but there are some implications.
For one, it means that proxy-blocked users on other projects can get a
'second life' out of their proxies by harassing their target projects
via commons. It also enables various forms of split project
sock-puppetry, and the larger project block logs become handy proxy
directories for troublemakers willing to go after the smaller
projects.
It may eventually become a PR issue with our customer projects, ...
they can't be happy when their troublemakers come back via commons. It
certainly would be if we ever stopped our practice of blocking
troublemaking proxies once they were found.
As a result of these issues, we're slowly blocking proxies over time
... after all, eventually each one will have been a trouble maker at
some point.
This result in another issue: Since we're generally permissive about
the proxies there are a non-trivial number of apparently good
contributors who edit via these proxies. As we block proxies we
continually frustrate and impede these users, who expected commons to
continue working.
I don't know that there is much we can do about this now but I wonder
if other commonslisters had some comments on the matter.
