Hi,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Jarek :)
Le vendredi 12 décembre 2014, 03:44:54 Tuszynski, Jarek W. a écrit :
So all the files in Category:Files with no machine-readable licensehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Files_with_no_machine-r eadable_license need work to be done with licenses, not files. I do not know what machine-readable metadata is needed but I can help with adding them.
Yes, many of those are tricky because there isn't necessarily a "real" license attached to them (example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: %22A_Basket_full_of_Wool%22_(6360159381).jpg ) or the license isn't specific enough.
There are similar discussions at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_metadata_cleanup_drive#How_to_hand... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:File_metadata_cleanup_drive#.22Presumed... and the best we might be able to do is to come up with a list of such cases and ask our wonderful lawyers how to handle them :)
Your number of files missing machine-readable metadata on Commons:~533,000, seems a bit low. According to Special:MostTranscludedPageshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Mos tTranscludedPages there are 24,136,218 files with licenses ({{License template taghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:License_template_tag}}), and 23,452,741 files with infobox templates ({{Information}} or {{Infobox template taghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_template_tag}}, so I would expect 683,477 files without any infobox templates.
There are currently ~677,674 files* without any of the following templates:
'Information','Painting', 'Blason-fr-en', 'Blason-fr-en-it', 'Blason-xx', 'COAInformation', 'Artwork', 'Art_Photo','Photograph', 'Book', 'Map', 'Musical_work', 'Specimen'
If this list in incomplete (it probably is) or incorrect, let me know.
*Source: https://tools.wmflabs.org/mrmetadata/commons_list.txt (warning, 18MB text file).
But some of those do have machine-readable metadata picked up by CommonsMetadata even if they don't have an infobox, which brings the number down to ~533,000. It can be that they have templates we're not listing yet, or that they have MR metadata in their EXIF data. Some of the latter are false positives, per https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T73719
As I mentioned onCommons:Bots/Work_requests#An_example_patternhttps://commons.wikimedia.org /wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests#An_example_pattern I would like to first give the original uploaders a chance to fix the files. We can do that by writing a standard message, which without any threat of deletion, ask for help with bringing their files up to current standards.
I'm not opposed to this in principle, but I'm not sure I see the value. We're not going to delete files, or change attribution, or anything like that; we're only going to take the existing information and put it into a template so it's easier to access.
My assumption is that most uploaders wouldn't care about such a change in formatting, and that it would entail more work for them to figure out how to do it themselves, than for a few bot owners to do it on a wider scale.
Is this assumption unreasonable?
At some point I started adding such files to [[Category:Mediamissing infobox templatehttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_missing_infobox_ template]] for better tracking and started sub-categorizing them into
a. Files with OTRS
b. Files with {{information}} template which have some parsing issues
c. Files with {{PD-Art}} which should use {{Artwork}} template and where the name of the uploader, upload date, and even source might not be relevant
d. Files using PD license, like PD-old (except PD-Author or PD-User): for those files it might also the name of the uploader, upload date, and even source might not be relevant
It might be easier to add infoboxes for different groups of files. For example Magnus' add_information.phphttp://toolserver.org/%7Emagnus/add_information.php tool does not work well for artworks. We also seem to have users that specialize in different subjects and it might be easier to get their attention with smaller groups of files of one type.
Thank you for doing this! I think these will be great starting points for specific bot runs :)