Commons-l April 2012

commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

26 participants
11 discussions

Video skills and equipment
by Lars Aronsson 16 Apr '25

16 Apr '25

I just tried to watch some presentation videos from Wikimania. Some had very weak sound, some had no sound in the first minutes, some only played the first minute and then stopped. I don't think the Wikimania videos are unique in having such problems. Video is new to Commons, and the expert contributors are more familiar with still images. How can we learn to make better videos? Are there some good instructions? Perhaps a free instruction video (Wikibooks, but a video instead of a book) on how to produce good videos is what we need. In fact, the English Wikibooks has a title on "Video Production", http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Video_Production but it doesn't have a clear focus (pun not intended). It starts out with discussing satellite TV and has long sections on file formats in different operating systems. There is a help page on Commons for converting video to the Ogg Theora format, but that is only the last step in a long chain. Given that video is new, how can we find and rate videos, nominate "good/featured videos", and give advice on how to improve quality? Is the Commons village pump enough for this? Commons has a separate graphics village pump. Do we also need a separate video village pump? Current digital video cameras use hard disks or memory cards, instead of tape cassettes. Many new models cost less than 300 euro (or dollars), some as little as 120 euro (memory card perhaps not included). Some have a special "Youtube mode", and I guess that kind of usage is what drives the price down. What models are good, and what should one watch out for? We can find free still photos on Flickr and copy them to Commons. Is there somewhere we can find free videos and copy them? Yes, at the Internet Archive. Somewhere else? -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

4 5

translation of categories
by bawolff 19 Jul '12

19 Jul '12

Someone in the thread on friendliness mentioned that categories are always in one language (usually english). Well still a long way from fixing the issue, perhaps if we allowed unrestricted {{DISPLAYTITLE:...}}, combined with the {{int: hack, that'd allow better translatable categories. (of course you'd only be able to use the actual category name in [[category:Foo]] links. I suppose one could use a bot to automatically change links to redirect categories to their canonical name, but then we're getting really really hacky). Anyways, just a thought. cheers, bawolff

2 1

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikitech-l] Release of educational videos under creative commons
by David Gerard 24 Apr '12

24 Apr '12

On 24 April 2012 13:26, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Also, this message is more related to Wikimedia or Commons mailing lists > (cc:). If you are the owner of those videos and you want to donate them, > some people can help you in the process. Well, not really - uploading video is still laborious because we've been waiting literally years for the Timed Media Handler, which is a wikitech issue. Andrew could probably deal with the ffmpeg2theora bit, but it's still faffy and troublesome. - d.

2 1

[Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
by とある白い猫 22 Apr '12

22 Apr '12

Commons will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on 7 September 2014 and I feel this warrants a special occasion. We have about 1.5 years to prepare if we are going to plan on something. We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event could be something interesting to consider. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)

6 6

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
by とある白い猫 18 Apr '12

18 Apr '12

I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD which is something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large number to choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same winner again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be disqualified for this reason. I am not too sure about the procedure would be best to be honest. I hope this discussion would determine that very aspect. :) US GLAM is appealing but we do want something global. Certainly US GLAM partnerships should be part of it but they should not be all of it. WikiLoves Monuments was a good precursor to this kind of activity. Perhaps a kind of "lessons learned" assessment may be useful while working on this. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 07:31, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.rs> wrote: > > > 2012/4/17 とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com>: > > > > We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event > could > > > > be something interesting to consider. > > The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >

4 5

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons
by とある白い猫 18 Apr '12

18 Apr '12

It could very well be escalated to something like the monument campaign from last year. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2012/4/18 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> > 2012/4/17 とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com>: > > Commons will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on 7 September 2014 and > I > > feel this warrants a special occasion. We have about 1.5 years to prepare > > if we are going to plan on something. > > > > We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event could > > be something interesting to consider. > > > > Sure.. We have moving POTY gallery in Poland: > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wystawa_fotografii_POTY > > 16 POTY pictures printed in A1 scale travels around Poland. Maybe we > could make on September a series of such gallery openings all over the > world? The cost of making such a gallery is not so big - just print > POTY pictures and then try to find a place to show it at any > university entrance, library entrance or art gallery in your city... > In Poland the cost for us was around 250 USD for printing A1 size > pictures + around 500 USD for printing leafleats and cost of > transfering the gallery from one city to another. Except promotion of > Wikimedia Commons - such a gallery is a good occasion to organise a > small meeting of local Wiki(m)(p)ednians interested in photography... > > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >

2 1

Personality rights
by Andreas Kolbe 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution: ---o0o--- The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons. However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.* In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to: - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people> with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same. Approved 10-0. ---o0o--- Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas

20 57

Re: [Commons-l] Personality rights
by Craig Franklin 09 Apr '12

09 Apr '12

> > I don't think that more policies and guidelines are the answer; we already have official policies like this one that are routinely ignored because people concentrate on licencing at deletion discussions to the exclusion of all other issues. The correct answer is more effective use of existing guidelines and policies, both through better education and awareness that there are important issues beyond copyright on one hand, and if that doesn't work, thinking about some heavier consequences for users and admins who persistently ignore such policies. Cheers, Craig On 9 April 2012 12:06, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> wrote: > maybe we need a Flickr specific policy/guide like > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Precautionary_principle or put > more emphasis on the precautionary principle with living people change it > from significant doubt to plausible doubt, where the onus for undeletion > requires the photographer to establish permission. > > > > -- > GN. > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > >> >> >

2 1

Buzzfeed articles
by Andreas Kolbe 08 Apr '12

08 Apr '12

Note that there have been two recent Buzzfeed articles about Commons and Wikipedia, by Jack Stuef, who is a writer for The Onion: 1. The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to one thing: Ensuring that their penis is the visual definition of penis. Meet Jiffman, one such exhibitionist. (This article is very probably NSFW.) http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/inside-the-seedy-world-of-wikipedia-exhib… A shorter version of this article is also available in French: Autofellation: le combat d’un exhibitionniste pour illustrer la page de Wikipedia http://www.slate.fr/lien/52805/autofellation-wikipedia 2. Wikipedia's Kiddie Porn Problem Wikipedia's self-policing isn't working. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/its-almost-impossible-to-get-kiddie-porn-… A shorter summary of this story is also on Gizmodo: Why Is It So Hard to Get Kiddie Porn Off of Wikipedia? http://gizmodo.com/5899532/why-is-it-so-hard-to-get-kiddie-porn-off-of-wiki… For those interested, there are related discussions on Wikipediocracy.com: in the News and Media forum – http://www.wikipediocracy.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=6 in the Sexualisation forum – http://www.wikipediocracy.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=15 Andreas (I'm a moderator on Wikipediocracy, posting with the handle HRIP7.)

1 0

Creative Commons licenses v4 drafts available
by David Gerard 06 Apr '12

06 Apr '12

https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 The fussy buggers of commons-l need to get nitpicking ... - d.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l April 2012