WereSpielChequers, 23/07/2012 13:47:
> We need to enhance the upload wizard so that it works like hotcat and
> gives you the redirected category
MediaWiki assumes that redirects to categories don't exist, Hotcat is
arguably broken rather than not.
> I didn't address your localisation nightmare comment because I don't
> understand localisation well enough to comment on it.
Creating potentially hundreds of categories not linked to each other in
any way is the wrong way to localise any kind of string on a wiki. Have
you ever tried an old translation request on Meta, and compared it to
how it works with the Translate extension?
See also
<https://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Translating_the_wiki_w…>
Nemo
WereSpielChequers, 23/07/2012 12:30:
> That's about recategorising articles that have been put in the
> redirected category, and yes if that became a big problem it would be
> worth resolving. But if you have category redirects and you use hotcat
> to add categories it will automatically add the category that you are
> being redirected to, not the category that you typed.
I love HotCat and cat-a-lot, but only a fraction of users use them and
we can't expect all tools to work like that, they're broken enough with
the current categorization system (think of the Upload Wizard).
>
> And if people do add the redirected category I believe there is a bot
> that will move it to the target category
>
> Conversely if you were searching for a particular category in Tamil, if
> there were a category redirect it would take you to the corresponding
> English category and tell you that your search word redirects there.
>
> All that currently works,
I don't think the search works like that at all.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Category_redirects_suck would
> seem to be a dormant draft that discourages people from creating
> category redirects. But it may be time to reopen the debate and make
> this an opportunity to make Commons more multilingual.
>
> How about a policy of "Our category names are in English, but you are
> welcome to create category redirects from other languages".
The category system seems to be hard enough to understand without
redirects. That's why redirects are disabled on category namespace pages.
Besides, you didn't address my comment that it would be a localisation
nightmare. Really.
Nemo
Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:50:14 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: bawolff+wn(a)gmail.com, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] translation of categories
> Message-ID: <5007CA46.6040100(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> bawolff, 25/02/2011 22:53:
> > 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.
>
> There's a feature request for the Translate extension (which is needed
> anyway to make MediaWiki a multilingual wiki) at:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29975
>
> Nemo
>
>
>
Is there anything to stop us using category redirects to resolve this?
Currently I think there is advice to use them sparingly, but that could be
out of date. I can see that in the past there may have been processing
overhead concerns, but category redirects do strike me as the most logical
way to resolve this. Of course with 2 million categories and over two
hundred languages there is a possibilty of there being quite a large number
of category redirects and that having an impact on Hotcat and catalot. But
there would be a way to resolve this, categorise those category redirects
as redirects from particular languages to English and enable editors to
pick and choose which languages in addition to English that they want
Hotcat and Catalot to offer them in auto completion - the default obviously
would be your language preference and the babel boxes on your userpage.
WSC
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
Hi all,
Erik Zachte has compiled some new statistics for Wikimedia Commons.
Previously, WikiStats primarily captured the standard metrics (editing
activity etc.). Since Commons is first and foremost about media, those
metrics weren't as useful to see trends in activity. You can see the
new numbers starting here:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#upload…
.. and they should be reliably and automatically generated going
forward. There are also some new summary graphs:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/SummaryCOMMONS.htm
Note that we can break out in both tables the impact of Upload Wizard.
The numbers show that the growth rate of Commons increased very
significantly after UW was enabled in May 2011. The number of
contributors grew by about 25% from March 2011 to March 2012, compared
with ~12% in the prior year.
The numbers also clearly show the impact of "Wiki Loves Monuments" in
terms of the number of uploaders -- in September 2011, 22642 people
uploaded at least one file to Commons, a huge jump from the previous
month (16869). The number of uploaders quickly returned to previous
levels, but it's fantastic to see that a single event can bring in so
many new people.
Erik's working on some additional stats, but I wanted to share this
date with you. He's also going to write a blog post about this new
data. Please report any oddities or inconsistencies directly to him.
I also want to give a shout-out to Bryan Tong Minh who's been
maintaining the incredibly useful commons-stats here:
https://toolserver.org/~bryan/stats/ - which previously were my
primary source of relevant data (and there are still some stats there
that don't exist anywhere else).
Cheers,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Perhaps we can best move forwards by dealing with some concrete
examples. So long as there IS a level above which you're willing toa
ccept my rights, that some things fall below it isn't as bad.
Here's my restoration of Left Hand Bear
http://adamcuerden.deviantart.com/art/Left-Hand-Bear-Oglala-chief-190160390
And here's the original. As can be seen, I have had to do
reconstruction work in all four corners (as well as a hell of a lot
else, but let's leave that aside for now)
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.15973/
Can we at least agree that if major damage can be seen at low
resolution in the original that I can claim copyright?
So, let me get this straight. Commons' argument is that a database of match
schedules is, without any test of this argument in the courts, legally
equivalent to a 8 to 50 hour restoration job on an artwork, which may
include reconstructing missing parts of the image.
...Seriously.
That's your final word on the subject?
-Adam
Cary wrote:
>
> On 7/9/2012 5:33 AM, Harry Burt wrote:
> > Likewise, Cary's suggestion that Commons takes a view on "bad law" is
> > clearly not correct, as can be seen over the PD-1996 discussions.
> I did not suggest that 'Commons takes a view on "bad law".' Where did
> you read that?
>
> - C
That was a reply to your final line:
> You will never convince Commons users to use a copyright tag on
> something that is not enforceable by copyright law which either doesn't
> exist (US) or is bad law (UK).
>
> Cary
--
Harry Burt (User:Jarry1250)
Talking about that: What happened to the case? Someone has any info about
it?
_____
*Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
On 9 July 2012 09:13, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jurisdiction needs to be decided before violation of laws are considered.
> Are there similar cases where UK citizens putting content on US servers
> have had their day in a UK court? Commons and wikis in general become a
> lot harder if we have to have policy that upholds all laws of all countries
> that our contributors come from. Creative Commons solves many issues, but
> not all.
>
> Do we have a disclaimer on the upload form which covers 'public domain' ?
>
> A case that could have tested this didnt go to court.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Founda…
>
> The Darwin images was another case.
>
> EU privacy laws have been applied to facebook; moral rights are also
> recognised by WMF projects even tho they dont exist in the US.
>
> Sorry I dont have an answer.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>