Commons-l

commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

2055 discussions

PictureAustralia on Commons
by Liam Wyatt 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

Dear All, [cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l] Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we help? Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other contributors at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html This is a quote from the email written to me from PA: At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee: 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images. Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to some basic standards. (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html). 2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were attempting to buy a copy. 3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data. I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories? All the best, - Liam Wyatt -- Email - liamwyatt(a)gmail.com Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914 Skype - Wittylama Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]

4 5

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikimediaau-l] Commons on Picture Australia
by Gnangarra 03 Feb '09

03 Feb '09

repost to get cross posting now I'm on both wmau list and commons list 2009/2/3 Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> > > 1 - Commons file information is actually more accurate with greater detail > compared to flickr images we have a greater degree of scrutiny ensuring that > the images are appropriate and freely licensed, also our scope isnt that of > flickr and we seek more images of record/encyclopaedic relevance. I have > already contacted PA on a number of occassion with errors in identifications > and spelling on image they already have > > 2 - All of our images are under a free license in accordance with both > policies and Australian laws the image source is listed, we can filter out > image from other sources by just creating another category call "Picture > Australia" and setting up its scope of being self made Australian images. As > PA sources include libraries they already have a number of duplicated > images, many of which dont even have the same description. > > 3 - There are already bots/scripts available that can identify recent > additions, and there are some good OS writers so having something created to > do the work shouldnt be a big issue its just a matter of finding someone > willing. Of course this would be an open source program which PA could use > else where in the future > > 4. - a Picture Australia category, and the software written to aquire > images from that category inparticular and from other categories in > particular wouldnt be a problem > > 2009/2/3 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> [cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l] >> >> Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service >> but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we >> help? >> >> Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National >> Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian >> institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government >> departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at >> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other >> contributors at >> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html >> >> This is a quote from the email written to me from PA: >> At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are >> interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are >> a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee: >> 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are >> able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images. >> Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to >> some basic standards. (see >> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html). >> 2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from >> Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an >> issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were >> attempting to buy a copy. >> 3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how >> to ingest the data. >> >> I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or >> easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to >> PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories? >> >> All the best, >> - Liam Wyatt >> >> -- >> Email - liamwyatt(a)gmail.com >> Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914 >> Skype - Wittylama >> Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]] >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> >> > > > -- > GN. > http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/ > -- GN. http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

1 0

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikitech-l] Client side transcoding with firefogg (early testing)...
by Brianna Laugher 01 Feb '09

01 Feb '09

2009/1/29 Walter Siegmund <siegmund(a)astro.washington.edu>: > Hi, > > I tried the instructions in part 1 but was not able to see the > "Ubuntu icon/a film reel with a plus symbol". That is with OS X > 10.4.11/Safari 3.2.1. I did empty my browser cache. I tried Camino > 1.5 with the same result. Hi Walter, I see you copied a few things from my monobook.js, so you should have other things installed. Do you see the "category tree" icon at the right end of the icons above the edit box? Here is a screenshot: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tgr/catinsert.js> If you can see that, but not that film reel one, then it is a problem with the Metavid script. If you can't see either, then I suspect your cache is still not emptied. Or, hmm, maybe there is something Firefox specific about these scripts... but just for the add-media wizard, I think it is only Javascript stuff... Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

3 2

Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Are model releases required for 'Free' content? (was: Sexual Content on Wikimedia)
by David Gerard 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de(a)googlemail.com>: > David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was >> thinking of the personality rights tag. > Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about? This is the personality rights tag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality_rights This is the category of restrictions templates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Restriction_tags Possibly I was thinking of the note about model rights in the reuse page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:REUSE So if there isn't a tag warning in general about model rights (assuming reusers aren't reading all of Commons, they're just looking at an image page, seeing the licence and going "ooh I can use that" as Virgin did with the CC-by-sa pic they reused) - is a tag warning that, duh, you have to take care with pictures of people worthwhile? (cc to commons-l) - d.

1 0

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikitech-l] License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)
by Brianna Laugher 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

2009/1/30 Johannes Beigel <johannes.beigel(a)pediapress.com>: > On 29.01.2009, at 13:48, Brianna Laugher wrote: > > On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end: > > <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API> > > We've been aware of this page and Magnus' implementation, and we think > it looks really good! > > The information is (AFAIK) scraped from the rendered XHTML of > articles. This could be done in a less error-prone way (and more > efficiently) if the data would be stored and accessed via database in > some way. Of course this would require some discussion, formal > decisions and code changes. But as I stated in an earlier post: I > think MediaWiki is so widely used by people who want to share and > collaborate on free content, that it's not too farfetched to build > some "license infrastracture" into the software itself. I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to get to point of functionality. It may be a good idea to try and build the Commons API to mimic the MediaWiki API, imagining that in the future such information will be available via that. So then hopefully for now people could use the Commons API, and in the future switch to the MediaWiki API by just changing the API URL, and all their queries could stay the same. How does that sound? Other ideas about how to approach it are welcome... cheers Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

3 4

darma_greg13168@yahoo.com has invited you to have a 3D avatar chat
by corina 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

From: corina Avatar: Guest_gagirldig To: Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Hey Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,corina has added you as a friend on IMVU. Is corina your friend? Yes   No Please respond or corina may think you said no :) IMVU is the world's greatest 3D chat! Dress up your Avatar with 3D clothes. Chat with your friends & meet new ones. Decorate your own 3D Room with furniture. FREE to download & use! http://www.imvu.com Copyright © 2006-2007 IMVU, Inc. 411 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. This email was sent via IMVU by corina (darma_greg13168(a)yahoo.com) to commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org. If you want to prevent any future emails from IMVU, you can remove yourself by pointing your web browser to http://www.imvu.com/catalog/web_nonregisteredoptout.php?code=bef130&email=c…. Your unsubscribe confirmation code is bef130

5 6

Re: [Commons-l] [Textbook-l] License information (was: PDF/Collection feature live on de.wikibooks)
by Brianna Laugher 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

2008/10/14 Johannes Beigel <johannes.beigel(a)pediapress.com>: >>> Secondly, current version of the tool does a plagiarism - beacause >>> it does not mention >>> image authors and does not provide any mean (like by making images >>> clickable) to check >>> these authors. >> >> Ouch, thanks for pointing that out. Tricky to do this automatically >> since it's all wiki-text with templates, but we'll investigate a >> solution here. > > We'd highly appreciate input from the community regarding this topic! > > The printed books from PediaPress contain a list of figures where the > license of each image is listed, together with the URL to the image > description page. As some kind of "hotfix" this solution could be > implemented in the PDF export of the Collection extension, too. But > this doesn't really solve the problem. > > We think it's more of a technical/software thing, so I cross-posted > (and set Reply-To) to Wikitech-l. > > In our opinion, license management/handling must be a core feature of > MediaWiki, because the software is explicitely developed for the > collaborative distribution of free content. Licenses of the containing > articles and images should not be represented via some agreed-upon > convention but via structured (and machine-readable) information, > available for each relevant object in the wiki. > > Some information that would be desired: > > - Full (official) name of the license(s). > - Whether the full text of the license has to be included or a > reference sufficient. > - Reference to the full text of the license(s) (in some rigidly > defined format like wikitext). > - Whether attribution is required. If so: The list of required > attributions. > > So, basically all the information that's required to check if it's > possible to take some part of the MediaWiki and use it somewhere else > and all the information that has to be included in that other place. > This information could be made accessible via MediaWiki API, but > ideally it's contained in the wikitext and/or XHTML, too. Because different wikis implement licenses in different ways (ie there are no naming conventions for license templates), I am not sure this license information would belong in MediaWiki core. But I think that definitely Wikimedia Commons, and perhaps other Wikimedia wikis that accept freely licensed uploads, should work on providing a "community API" layer. My thinking behind this is that the communities build a lot of structure into their content via templates or categories or whatever. It makes sense to provide an API to stop every third party user having to reinvent the wheel. On Wikimedia Commons a little bit of work has been done to this end: <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Commons_API> In particular this contains some of the license info you mentioned. e.g. below is the info for the GFDL. GFDL full_name GNU Free Documentation License attach_full_license_text 1 attribute_author 1 keep_under_same_license 1 keep_under_similar_license 0 license_logo_url http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Heckert_GNU_white.… license_info_url http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html license_text_url http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt The "Commons API" also has an author field. <http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonsapi.php?image=Sa-warthog.jpg&meta> I think at the moment this is being taken from the {{information}} template. You can see in this example it includes a wiki link; it should have already been resolved to a full URL, so there is definitely still work to be done. I would be interested to know if further development of the Commons API would be "heading in the right direction" for PediaPress. cheers, Brianna -- They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: http://modernthings.org/

3 2

conform
by gagirl 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

thank you

2 1

How to get visit log of a wiki page
by Albert Grain 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

Dear members, I am a newbie of wiki and I want to do research on a wiki page. I want to know how to get the visit log of the page, i.e., hourly/ daily hit counts, and if possible, visitor IP address, user agent, etc. If you happen know the way, please finger it for me. Thanks in advance for your kind help! With best regards, Grain

2 4

File deletion / copyvio.s and stuff
by private musings 29 Jan '09

29 Jan '09

Hi all, This is a bit of a 'cross post' from here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Copyrig… (and http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22495 ) where I was raising the question of how Wikimedia deals with deletions, which of course aren't really full 'deletions' in that they're available to admin.s - my previous post follows; .....it's illegal to break copyright, right? - and if an article, or image on a wikimedia foundation project breaks copyright then it gets deleted. I just wonder how the copyright owner feels about the article / image still being available to over a thousand (and growing) number of unidentified people - that's illegal, right? I've had this in the 'don't really care' bucket for ages - but as part of my forays into sexual content on wiki, came across this image<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brip.jpg>(now deleted) which I believe was very (very) close to being an illegal image, because it sexualised a child. Anyone reading this who's an admin at commons can view the image - isn't that a bit wrong? The fact is that wikimedia's administrators have unfettered (and apparently un-monitorable) access to a huge, and ever growing body of copyright infringing work. Doesn't seem sustainable to me. thoughts most welcome, cheers, Peter, PM.

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l