Could anyone help us draft a blog post about this?
I've started a page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/Geograph_images
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net To: "board@wikimedia.org.uk WMUK Board" board@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 11:58:22 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WMUK Board] Geograph images
Hi all,
I've just been given a heads-up that 250,000 images of the UK that people have released on Geograph.org.uk are currently being mass- uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project
We should probably do a blog post about this sometime soon; next week perhaps?
Mike
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@wikimedia.org.uk http://wikimedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/board_wikimedia.org.uk
Why suddenly? This had been discussed before and found to be a bad idea. First of all we already have tons of geograph images where they are needed, and secondly there is tons of trash on geograph. The project aims are not the same. The image quality is low.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Could anyone help us draft a blog post about this?
I've started a page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/Geograph_images
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net To: "board@wikimedia.org.uk WMUK Board" board@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 11:58:22 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WMUK Board] Geograph images
Hi all,
I've just been given a heads-up that 250,000 images of the UK that people have released on Geograph.org.uk are currently being mass- uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project
We should probably do a blog post about this sometime soon; next week perhaps?
Mike
Board mailing list Board@wikimedia.org.uk http://wikimedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/board_wikimedia.org.uk
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I spent an afternoon uploading geograph images last week. Loads we didn't have and were better than our coverage.
Caroline
Sent from a mobile device.
On 30 Jan 2010, at 22:01, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Why suddenly? This had been discussed before and found to be a bad idea. First of all we already have tons of geograph images where they are needed, and secondly there is tons of trash on geograph. The project aims are not the same. The image quality is low.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com wrote:
Could anyone help us draft a blog post about this?
I've started a page at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Press_releases/Geograph_images
----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Michael Peel" email@mikepeel.net To: "board@wikimedia.org.uk WMUK Board" board@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 11:58:22 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WMUK Board] Geograph images
Hi all,
I've just been given a heads-up that 250,000 images of the UK that people have released on Geograph.org.uk are currently being mass- uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project
We should probably do a blog post about this sometime soon; next week perhaps?
Mike
Board mailing list Board@wikimedia.org.uk http://wikimedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/board_wikimedia.org.uk
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I spent an afternoon uploading geograph images last week. Loads we didn't have and were better than our coverage.
What do you mean by "our coverage"? As I said, the project goals are not identical. There is no requirement to have images from every geograph square on commons. Lots are encyclopaedically irrelevant. I'm sure it was discussed here before and decided against. Unfortunately the ml archives are not searchable.
2010/1/30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
I spent an afternoon uploading geograph images last week. Loads we didn't have and were better than our coverage.
What do you mean by "our coverage"? As I said, the project goals are not identical. There is no requirement to have images from every geograph square on commons.
Questionable. If you really start hitting local history and geography the density of articles within the UK can get pretty high.
Just dug through the ML archives. This is the thread I had in mind http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-October/004235.html
The image quality, which was unimpressive back then, is by todays standards even more ridiculous. The images are on the level of sub-stubs. Flooding commons with hundreds of thousands of low quality images, just because a few hundred maybe even a few thousand are potentially interesting for articles is a _waste_ of resources. And by resources I do _not_ mean disk space, I mean valuable resources like contributor time (all that stuff will have to be categorized too). We are not doing a service to our users either if we essentially spam our category pages with tons of those images, drowning the good stuff that we have.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I've had a look at the category and while a lot of them are probably of limited use for an encyclopaedia article, we must remember that Commons is more than an image hosting solution for Wikipedia. Then again, I'm one of those "if you don't think it's worth it, then don't bother working on it" people. People who do think this has some value will do it.
Cheers, Craig
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Schwen Sent: Sunday, 31 January 2010 8:54 AM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Geograph images
Just dug through the ML archives. This is the thread I had in mind http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2008-October/004235.html
The image quality, which was unimpressive back then, is by todays standards even more ridiculous. The images are on the level of sub-stubs. Flooding commons with hundreds of thousands of low quality images, just because a few hundred maybe even a few thousand are potentially interesting for articles is a _waste_ of resources. And by resources I do _not_ mean disk space, I mean valuable resources like contributor time (all that stuff will have to be categorized too). We are not doing a service to our users either if we essentially spam our category pages with tons of those images, drowning the good stuff that we have.
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Universities in this case.
Sent from a mobile device.
On 30 Jan 2010, at 22:30, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
I spent an afternoon uploading geograph images last week. Loads we didn't have and were better than our coverage.
What do you mean by "our coverage"? As I said, the project goals are not identical. There is no requirement to have images from every geograph square on commons. Lots are encyclopaedically irrelevant. I'm sure it was discussed here before and decided against. Unfortunately the ml archives are not searchable.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
2010/1/30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
Why suddenly? This had been discussed before and found to be a bad idea. First of all we already have tons of geograph images where they are needed, and secondly there is tons of trash on geograph. The project aims are not the same. The image quality is low.
Basically we tripled the size of the image server a few days back.
Basically we tripled the size of the image server a few days back.
So you are saying the bytes on the disk array are feeling lonely and need company? Sorry but you can only stretch the "space is not an issue" argument so far. See [[:commons:Template:Nopenis]], pretty much the same logic applies here ;-)
2010/1/30 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de:
Basically we tripled the size of the image server a few days back.
So you are saying the bytes on the disk array are feeling lonely and need company? Sorry but you can only stretch the "space is not an issue" argument so far. See [[:commons:Template:Nopenis]], pretty much the same logic applies here ;-)
That was the answer in terms of timing. I haven't followed any debate as to why at all.