Hello,
I've been interested for some time in the idea that Wikimedia project could
offer technical support to our contributors, in the form of specific
tutorials, small events with crash courses, and similar things.
To illustrate the concept, I have set up a small tutorial on Museum
Photography, which is available here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/Museum_photography
The red links in the box above are an illustration of the various other
subjects that I can think of from the top of my hat (and to which I could
contribute to some extend), I am sure that there are lots of others. The
idea is not to re-write the Photography Wikibook, but to write to-the-point
checklists.
I'd be glad to have comments on this, and maybe contributions to make it
truely worthwhile.
Cheers !
-- Rama
All,
I won't realistically be able to continue to maintain the FlickrLickr bot:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr
The bot consists essentially of two components:
- a Perl command-line script to fill a MySQL database with information
from Flickr about freely licensed (CC-BY) photos;
- a Perl CGI script to let users choose photos they want to see
uploaded to Commons.
Both these scripts are PD code.
I'll note that I haven't run the database updater for a while, and if
the Flickr API has changed, it may need some fixes.
I'd be happy to provide some initial assistance with setup & use, but
you'd have to find your own hosting, or migrate it to the toolserver.
The script doesn't cause terrible load, but it does create local
copies of the images downloaded from Flickr.
FlickrLickr doesn't currently have a user registration process; I add
new reviewers by hand to the MySQL database. It would probably be wise
to change that, since much of my time was spent authorizing users &
reviewing their work.
It's a pretty powerful tool: Some 10K images have been uploaded
through the FlickrLickr review process.
Is anyone interested in running & maintaining the script?
Best,
Erik
>From commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> Earlier: "... When I read this article [0]
> on "Telegraph", I knew I have seen the
> image before, somewhere [1]... I know
> this is not the first time nor the last this
> happens, I just wanted to highlight it,
> as I think it is one of the biggest
> newspapers in the UK. I see no way
> to contact them *. I suppose that, for
> some people, we are a just bunch of
> PD images... :-(
> [0]
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/19/scisc
issors119.xml>
> [1]
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rock_paper_scissors.jpg>
Peter Blaise responds:
I concur - the telegraph.co.uk web site seems to crap out when trying to
make contact:
* "Contact us" at the bottom of the quoted web page returns:
* Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
Please try again later
* This error message may occur for a number of reasons:
We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
* The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date
* You may have followed a link from another web site that contains an
incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
* You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
* There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.
!!!
But I found on OTHER web sites the mention them:
"...contact the Telegraph via 020 7931 2076 or email:
photographs(a)telegraph.co.uk..."
so I imagine ANY name(a)telegraph.co.uk will work, such as
editor(a)telegraph.co.uk or webmaster(a)telegraph.co.uk and so on. Try it.
The image in question has no identifying markers on it, or in it, that
indicate origin - EXIF and IPTC are empty. So, if the image lands in
somebody's browser cache on their own PC, then it will be brought up in
their (free) Picasa / Google drive self-search with nothing more
identifying it than this type of location:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary
Internet Files\Content.IE5\RICPZFAU\Rock_paper_scissors[1].jpg
Where did it come from? The computer doesn't know! But, that's where
the image is on MY hard drive, and that's where my Picasa found it after
I browsed, and maybe the contributor to the Commons found it in THEIR
Picasa web cache display before they uploaded it?!? No origin. No
source identifier. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Until we learn to mark the Commons image files internally, and on their
face, with at least a source identifier, Commons (and ANY image on the
Internet) is acting like a free-for-all PD Public Domain farm.
Also, unless the image contains something that actively engages the
image in a copyright management system (DRM Digital Rights Management),
then there is also no chance of successfully prosecuting anyone for
tampering with it to remove source and copyright information.
What's the problem here? What's the goal? What's your point? Do we
want them to credit Commons as the source? Do we want them to not use
the image if there is a profit transaction? Do we want them to
negotiate republishing rights with the original copyright holder? Do we
want them to explicitly state the image source and that it is free for
anyone else to redistribute, and it is NOT part of their own copyright
on the rest of their publication? What? What is your point, what do
you want the telegraph.co.uk to have done?
What do we want the Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/ to do? Auto
EXIF / IPTC / DRM / watermark anyone?
We're collecting a boatload of resources to freely share with the world.
I'm not sure I understand if there was even a problem pointed to in the
original post.
More reading to do at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikime
dia
... which illustrates TEXT reuse, not images.
And of course, a Google search for "GFDL":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GFDLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_Licensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrightshttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.htmlhttp://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5628http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7876http://blog.jamendo.com/index.php/2007/12/01/breaking-news-wikipedia-swi
tches-to-creative-commons/
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_updatehttp://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/some_important_news_from_wikip.html
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission
Has this been getting us any photos? How smoothly does the operation
run, if it does?
If the process (a) works (b) smoothly, I'd like to put together a
press release or something to start actively asking for these pics,
hopefully in a month or so.
(My next mission: get a decent free photo of [[:en:Stephen Fry]] ...)
- d.
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2007 Picture of the
Year competition will be held soon. Any user who is registered at any
Wikimedia wiki and has more than 200 edits is invited to vote.
The competition is among the 514 images that became Featured Pictures
at Wikimedia Commons between 2007-01-01 and 2007-12-31. There are
literally hundreds of beautiful high quality pictures... please help
us choose the best one!
Voting will be conducted through a tool on the toolserver (to make it
easier to count compared to editing on a wiki). Users can request a
voting token on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting
. You will need to have email enabled for the user account you intend
to vote from. You can only vote once, even if you have multiple
accounts that meet the edit requirement. The voter log will be public
although the actual votes themselves will be private.
There are two rounds of voting. In the first round, you can vote for
as many images as you like, regardless of category. In the final (28),
you can only vote for one image.
Voting will open on 10 January. See
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007 for
more information.
Thanks,
Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007
