I hear many time that people think this is a great project, but in fact
the Commons' administrators were quite hostile towards it from its very
beginning. Like in many other issues, most of the complaints were
technical, but I cannot believe that technicalities are the problem
here. None of the images lack source. The person who contributed the
images and relinquished his/her copyrights is always mentioned, but not
in the field where the administrators expect it. The fact that the
"description" template is produced automatically makes this minor error
very easy to ignore or fix. An administrator merely needs to look two
lines below, and if it is really disturbing, an automated process can
fix the error in the future. Many people upload images manually and the
risk of error there is much higher. The fact that these technicalities
were enough to block the project (not the bot, but the whole project, as
this bot is actually the door between the localized interface and the
Commons) makes me wonder whether these technicalities are just an excuse.
The Commons, the Wikipedias, the Foundation and the chapters are all
part of one structure. The Commons' administrators have more privileges
than any other element in this structure. They are entrusted with a huge
international project, seen by people from five continents, they are
selected for indefinite period of time, and they don't have to reveal
their identity. It is also unclear who they are accountable to. These
privileges mean that the administrators need to be extremely careful and
cooperative. The fact that none of the administrators ever thought of
contacting a chapter to consult it about local copyright arrangements or
to suggest project related to the Commons is an indication that most
administrators are not aware of the structure within which they operate,
and don't understand the way Wikimedia works.
Being an administrator at the Commons doesn't necessarily mean deleting
images whose source is unclear or approving controversial material on
the account that it is "educational". Being an administrator also, and
most importantly, means knowing the way the Wikimedia movement works,
being interested in new projects, offering help, and being fully
cooperative with new initiatives. Think about it - had one of the
administrators sent a template code to the email of the Pikiwiki
project, the whole "source issue" would have been resolved. However, the
administrators chose to take a passive approach, complain about the
minor error without explaining it properly, and blocking the project
eventually. This is not how things should work. The administrators also
must remember that the rules are there to serve the community. It is not
the community that need to serve the rules. The spirit of the project
always comes before the technical rules. If obeying the rules becomes
more important than the spirit of the project, then it's a sign that the
project is decaying.
Dror K
FYI, our plan is to start with the Hunter Museum in Tennessee as a
test, because this is our smallest museum set.
Thanks,
Richard
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Maggs <Michael(a)maggs.name>
Date: Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Wikipedia Loves Art
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Pharos Wikipedia <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
Great news. I would suggest letting people know on the VP and doing a
test upload of, say, 10 images just to check there are no technical
problems or other issues that might need to be discussed before mass
uploading starts.
Michael
Andrew Turvey wrote:
>
> On the subject of chapter-led projects that import large amounts of content into commons:
>
> The Wikipedia Loves Art ran through the month of February 2009 (more details are at [1][2][3]) and has generated about 5,000 images. At some stage the plan is to upload these to Commons and thence link to Wikipedia articles.
>
> I've included Pharos in this email who was one of the main organisers.
>
> Is there anything that needs to be considered or put in place before the mass uploading starts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
> [1] http://www.flickr.com/groups/wikipedia_loves_art
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLART
> [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikipedia_Loves_Art
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
This discussion was probably discussed before. It has to be discussed
again. I would like the members of this list to express their opinion
about the following:
1. Why are these cartoons on the Commons, considering they educational
value is dubious, as they merely express one person's opinion and are
not documentary in any way or present useful sketches or other
productive material.
2. Why are these cartoons categorized in a way that force user to see
them even if they prefer to avoid them. In particular - why a person who
looks for Allan Dershowitz's portrait should be forced to see a cartoon
that defames him in the most harsh way? (There are other similar
examples, but that's the most critical.)
3. Latuff released his cartoons to the public domain. My attempt to
upload paraphrases of these cartoons was banned by a few administrators.
Is that acceptable on Commons' users? Isn't that a breach of the "fair
play" rules and "no censorship" rules? Why would uploading the Israeli
flag with a ban sign on it and the inscription "no Israel" is okay,
while uploading paraphrases on Latuff's cartoons would be banned?
4. Should the Commons welcome new political cartoons which express
personal opinions about ongoing events, and isn't that a risk to the
project? If the Commons should welcome these cartoons, who has the right
to decide whom of the caricaturists is notable, which of the caricatures
is educational etc.?
Please express your opinions, it is highly important.
Dror (K)
Reply from Pharos.
Anything else that needs arranging at the Commons end?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Pharos" <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Turvey" <andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
Cc: "." <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 7 June, 2009 00:48:01 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Loves Art
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Andrew
Turvey<andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On the subject of chapter-led projects that import large amounts of content
> into commons:
>
> The Wikipedia Loves Art ran through the month of February 2009 (more details
> are at [1][2][3]) and has generated about 5,000 images. At some stage the
> plan is to upload these to Commons and thence link to Wikipedia articles.
>
> I've included Pharos in this email who was one of the main organisers.
>
> Is there anything that needs to be considered or put in place before the
> mass uploading starts?
Yes, unfortunately we don't yet have all the museum captioning completed yet.
When it is complete, we will get word on that from the museums, and we
will then have at it with a semi-automated centralized uploading
process that I have been discussing with Ryan Kaldari, and also Husky
of WLA/NL.
We do have a template for this purpose that I have also been working
on in the meantime here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:WLA
Thanks,
Pharos
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
> [1] http://www.flickr.com/groups/wikipedia_loves_art
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLART
> [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikipedia_Loves_Art
>
Technicalities are the best way to avoid discussion (you came to the
wrong department, we've discussed it already, come back tomorrow etc.)
I have never heard one single good explanation why a caricature which
shows a known person masturbate (and placing it next to his portrait, so
everyone who looks for his portrait is forced to see it!) or why a
caricature which praises terrorists who blow up buses and call for more
actions like that, should be considered educational material. I didn't
get an answer why paraphrases of this caricatures are banned, even
though the caricaturist himself allowed it by releasing his works to the
public domain.
Whether the administrators mean it or not, there is a strong sense of
corruption here. There is a strong feeling as if the Commons took a
political stand, not only by hosting these cartoons, but also by the way
they are categorized, and by banning opposite opinions. Even though many
people say privately they object these caricatures, and even though at
least one of them was voted for deletion, some administrators insist on
keeping them, without providing proper explanations. Most of the
explanations resort to technicalities (as we've seen right now), some of
them claim that the Commons are not censored while they censor the
opposite opinions.
I want to know how many people on this mailing list actually support
keeping this caricatures, and what they think about the way they
categorized. I want to hear a good explanation (for a change) why they
are considered educational. I would say even more - the offensive nature
of these caricatures demands that these questions be raised
periodically, so we know for sure that the controversial decision to
keep these problematic files is not coincidental nor accidental, but is
indeed accepted on the community.
Dror K
On the subject of chapter-led projects that import large amounts of content into commons:
The Wikipedia Loves Art ran through the month of February 2009 (more details are at [1][2][3]) and has generated about 5,000 images. At some stage the plan is to upload these to Commons and thence link to Wikipedia articles.
I've included Pharos in this email who was one of the main organisers.
Is there anything that needs to be considered or put in place before the mass uploading starts?
Thanks
Andrew
[1] http://www.flickr.com/groups/wikipedia_loves_art
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WLART
[3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikipedia_Loves_Art
There are severe public relations problems between WM-IL and some
Commons admins at present over the Pikiwiki project. They're getting
attention at the Foundation level.
Anyone here have anything to say on the problems?
(They appear to relate to how much of a service project for other
Wikimedia projects Commons is, can be and bothers to act like instead
of being bureacratically obstructive.)
- d.