Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form, that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is) from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed with get arguments e.g http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki
of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that happening a long time form now (If it ever happens) -bawolff
On 11/10/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
could set up welcome notices which include asking people to provide a link to thier home project in a certian format.
-- geni
Won't work. You find there's no user page, probably a new user on commons, and you don't even have babel templates. If they don't read their talk page, they won't also read that they are asked to provide their project. This restrictions (like providing an email) were talked to add as restrictions to create the account. Otherwise, they're quite useless.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/11/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form, that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is) from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed with get arguments e.g http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki
of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that happening a long time form now (If it ever happens) -bawolff
OK, that would be brilliant, but I see SUL being implemented before I see specialised signup pages being written just for Commons!
Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505 - well, if they do it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it for all).
Anyway, one problem (again) is the technical, of getting Enotif, the second is the social problem of training people to actually turn it on and use it. (Unless we turn it on by default for new accounts, that would be awesome...)
From the other discussion -- I am not to keen on the idea of switching
warnings to email only. For one thing, they're /invisible/ to the wiki. No one else can tell if a person has already been warned or not. For another, I don't really feel the need to reveal my email address to every jerk copyright ignorer on the planet :P although I could get a Wikimedia only one, but eh... hassle!
cheers, Brianna
Your right, There's probably not going to be any technical enhancements anytime soon. So basically what of this can be implemented without software changes?
for the make I'm on another wiki messages standardized you could do:
A redirection template, could be included in the editintro for all new user pages (i think its something like mediawiki:userpageintro ). something along the lines of:
just writing here, to go to other wikis to talk to you? please just use <charinsert>{{redirMessage|wikiquote:fr:user:foo}}</charinsert>.
This way its in a standardized format, and if someone comes along to make a bot to copy *important* messages over there, it'd make it way easier for them.
-bawolff
On 11/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/06, bawolff bawolff+wn@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps have some sort of optional field in the registration form, that says: I come from this wiki project. and if they fill it out, a bot will copy automatic deletion notices over there too. If they come to commons:special:userlogin/create_account (or whatever the link is) from another wiki well logged in, this part of the form can be passed with get arguments e.g http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:userlogin?from=user:enwiki
of course single user login is a better solution, but I see that happening a long time form now (If it ever happens) -bawolff
OK, that would be brilliant, but I see SUL being implemented before I see specialised signup pages being written just for Commons!
Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505 - well, if they do it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it for all).
Anyway, one problem (again) is the technical, of getting Enotif, the second is the social problem of training people to actually turn it on and use it. (Unless we turn it on by default for new accounts, that would be awesome...)
From the other discussion -- I am not to keen on the idea of switching warnings to email only. For one thing, they're /invisible/ to the wiki. No one else can tell if a person has already been warned or not. For another, I don't really feel the need to reveal my email address to every jerk copyright ignorer on the planet :P although I could get a Wikimedia only one, but eh... hassle!
cheers, Brianna
Brion, Tim,
We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons. Can one of you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?
---
On 11/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I made a bug request that Commons get email notification ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7870 ). I also notice there is an open request to enable it on basically all the wikis ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5505 - well, if they do it for the "major wikis", I don't understand why they wouldn't do it for all).
"Brion made statistics last year, and even in en-wiki, there were only 1.500 user-talk-page changes per day, about 80% of it were foreign changes, which would trigger exactly one e-mail. Thus about 1.200 e-mails per day for en-wiki" (from the earlier bug request)
That was in April, and I don't see any reply as to why it hasn't been turned on. I'm gonna BCC Brion and Tim Starling. Hopefully one of them can respond.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
Brion, Tim,
We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons. Can one of you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?
Woops, probably should have done it along with meta. On now.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
"Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com wrote on Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM:
Anthony wrote:
Brion, Tim,
We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons. Can one of you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?
Woops, probably should have done it along with meta. On now.
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Regards,
Flo
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com wrote on Saturday, November 11, 2006 2:20 PM:
Anthony wrote:
Brion, Tim,
We are having a discussion on commons-l about why email notification of one's own talk page hasn't been enabled for commons. Can one of you please respond and let us know if there is a technical or other reason not to enable it, or can one of you turn it on?
Woops, probably should have done it along with meta. On now.
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
(I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing dramatically.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
(I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing dramatically.)
I've just talked to Elian. She said that if it was a consensus between the commons people it would be ok.
What do we do? Poll?
Regards,
Flo
On 11/13/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
I've just talked to Elian. She said that if it was a consensus between the commons people it would be ok.
What do we do? Poll?
I'm not seeing any oposition.
Florian Straub wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
(I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing dramatically.)
I've just talked to Elian. She said that if it was a consensus between the commons people it would be ok.
No disrespect to Elian, but since when does she set Wikimedia-wide policy singlehandedly?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
"Brion Vibber" brion@pobox.com wrote On Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:24 AM
Florian Straub wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
(I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing dramatically.)
I've just talked to Elian. She said that if it was a consensus between the commons people it would be ok.
No disrespect to Elian, but since when does she set Wikimedia-wide policy singlehandedly?
She wasn't setting wikimedia-wide policies, she just mentioned her opinion.. But it's at least a small tendency. What about casting a vote for this, then we'll see what the rest of us thinks.
Best regards,
Flo
On 13/11/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
(I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing dramatically.)
Of course, I understand. I am not totally sold on it myself, but it has been floated as an idea in the past. Good to know that it is technically feasible if there is community support. There would be a poll, foundation-l announcement, a long time would pass, etc.
Thanks,
Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
Anonymous text with the release "I wrote this" is one thing. Anonymous images are another.
On 11/13/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 12/11/06, Florian Straub flominator@gmx.net wrote:
Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new registrations on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
Anonymous text with the release "I wrote this" is one thing. Anonymous images are another.
Umm, why?
I never understood putting unnecessary barriers into place before people are allowed to voluntarily contribute something. It's one of the reasons I haven't yet participated in the Citizendium project.
By the way, I've uploaded maybe around 100 images to commons, some of which are used on multiple projects, and just about all of which are anonymous. Better get to work deleting them all. Here's a link: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wiki...
Anthony
On 11/13/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
I oppose this on Commons, for the reasons I have given in this thread when this was previously brought up: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044555.html
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 11/13/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
I oppose this on Commons, for the reasons I have given in this thread when this was previously brought up: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044555.html
Commons != Wikipedia. Commons is a special case. We've got Enotif enabled, we have globally visible media. I don't think that the arguments made in a thread on a list for a different project, 4-5 months ago, are equally valid when applied to Commons at this point in time.
On 14/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Commons != Wikipedia. Commons is a special case.
Yes, Commons = Wikipedia + Wikinews + Wikibooks + Wikisource + Wiktionary + Wikispecies + Wikiversity + Meta + ...
Let's just be clear that this is a decision that will potentially affect the entire Wikimedia community and therefore their opinions are of the utmost importance and relevance... (...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)
Brianna
On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
(...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)
I recall that when en:wp was having problems with vandalism of the Main Page featured article image, Commons admins were remarkably difficult to find. So some asked "could we have an admin on en: made an admin on Commons for this reason?" and got back "well, why don't you make all Commons admins admins on en: first."
Some people in the Commons community seem to want it both ways. Is Commons an entirely independent project or does it, as a service project, need to open itself up to administration by people from other projects to keep up with its actual original purpose?
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
(...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)
I recall that when en:wp was having problems with vandalism of the Main Page featured article image, Commons admins were remarkably difficult to find. So some asked "could we have an admin on en: made an admin on Commons for this reason?" and got back "well, why don't you make all Commons admins admins on en: first."
We've had an administrator's noticeboard for a while now; all you need to do is ask. I don't know who made that other comment.
Some people in the Commons community seem to want it both ways. Is Commons an entirely independent project or does it, as a service project, need to open itself up to administration by people from other projects to keep up with its actual original purpose?
Ahh, but people from other projects want it both ways too: you want our images but jump up and down when we delete them. Yes, we need people from other projects, mainly for language diversity.
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
We've currently got ONE applicant.
On 11/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
We've had an administrator's noticeboard for a while now; all you need to do is ask. I don't know who made that other comment.
It might be posible to ask but quicker and safer to copy the iiomage to en and protect it.
Ahh, but people from other projects want it both ways too: you want our images
Not really. If en.pedia stoped switching images over to commons and copied the ones we use back to en.pedia we could walk away from you in less than a month.
We've currently got ONE applicant.
And what are you doing about that? Try dropping the "200 edits (uploads or texts) minimum and should be interested towards the Wikimedia Commons community" requirement for admins from other porjects.
Let's stop bitching at each other and start being more constructive, could we?
Commons is the way to go and it saves a lot of work on and distraction from other wiki's main goals. It's image policies are great - only _free_ media in the broadest sense of the word. The admins do great work and yes, we could use more of them. How can we archieve that?
Getting people inexperienced with image maintenance as admins on Commons is not a good idea. Requiring only a few hundred edits and a few months of activity is rather normal for admin bits on any Wikimedia wiki. There is absolutely no reason to dispute it. Challenges are in the volume of the content and the diversity of the languages. If _you_ want to help, make the admins that do a lot of image maintenance on your local wiki aware of the challenges Commons has and get them to chip in. If possible, change your wiki policy so that it's image policy will start to be equal to that of Commons, so that ultimately, it will be _the_ central image repository aiding the creation of great free encyclopedias, free books, free source material, free and illustrated taxonomies and much more.
In short: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." [1]
Do not forget the higher goals and build bikesheds [2] that distract us from it.
Cheers! Siebrand
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikeshed
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] Namens geni Verzonden: dinsdag 14 november 2006 13:33 Aan: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?
<snip>
Not really. If en.pedia stoped switching images over to commons and copied the ones we use back to en.pedia we could walk away from you in less than a month.
<snip> -- geni _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/14/06, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
Let's stop bitching at each other and start being more constructive, could we?
Commons is the way to go and it saves a lot of work on and distraction from other wiki's main goals.
How?
Getting people inexperienced with image maintenance as admins on Commons is not a good idea. Requiring only a few hundred edits and a few months of activity is rather normal for admin bits on any Wikimedia wiki.
Commons is not normal. I'm an en and wikispecies admin. I've probably got at least as much experence dealing with images as all but your most experenced admins. And now I have to mess around makeing 200 edits.
There is absolutely no reason to dispute it. Challenges are in the volume of the content and the diversity of the languages. If _you_ want to help, make the admins that do a lot of image maintenance on your local wiki aware of the challenges Commons has and get them to chip in.
Can't see since we don't have those 200 edits.
If possible, change your wiki policy so that it's image policy will start to be equal to that of Commons,
No.
so that ultimately, it will be _the_ central image repository aiding the creation of great free encyclopedias, free books, free source material, free and illustrated taxonomies and much more.
Alreadly got that we call it en.pedia and de.pedia. Sure en only has 627,071 media files at the moment but a conserted drive could probably overtake commons. Particularly if we stoped moveing images across. the images also tend to be better organised (although more by happy acident rather than deliberate policy.)
In short: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." [1]
Do not forget the higher goals and build bikesheds [2] that distract us from it.
In order to build castles in the sky you need to keep your feet firmly on the ground.
geni wrote:
On 11/14/06, Siebrand Mazeland s.mazeland@xs4all.nl wrote:
Let's stop bitching at each other and start being more constructive, could we?
Commons is the way to go and it saves a lot of work on and distraction from other wiki's main goals.
How?
We don't have to worry about as much vandalism or what we're saying about people. Or border disputes.
Getting people inexperienced with image maintenance as admins on Commons is not a good idea. Requiring only a few hundred edits and a few months of activity is rather normal for admin bits on any Wikimedia wiki.
Commons is not normal. I'm an en and wikispecies admin. I've probably got at least as much experence dealing with images as all but your most experenced admins. And now I have to mess around makeing 200 edits.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_classification_system should keep you busy then.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:42:51 +0200, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not normal. I'm an en and wikispecies admin. I've probably got at least as much experence dealing with images as all but your most experenced admins. And now I have to mess around makeing 200 edits.
I would like to introduce you to CommonTasks URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CommonTasks.
It isn't ready but the talk page has a list of maintenance work people can do even without being admins. It also has some instructions. Like I said, it isn't ready, and I'm sorry I have lately been too busy to push it forward even though other people liked the idea. But in time...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:23:52 +0200, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
There isn't anyone advocating that; this discussion started with a Commons admin threatening to block all es:wp users from Commons to stop copyvios from es:wp, because the Commons admins can't keep up, evidently because their admin process is strict enough that pretty much no-one even bothers trying.
I'm sorry to say, but such claim doesn't give a very good picture of your knowledge of Commons. The admin process in Commons is the laxest one I know. 200 edits! I didn't know that much when I applied for adminship. I hadn't done much maintenance work. And I was elected.
The reason Commons has few active admins is that - for many people - the work in Commons isn't rewarding. It's much more fun to write your own book, than to keep other people's books in alphabetical order on the library shelves.
On 11/14/06, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:42:51 +0200, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is not normal. I'm an en and wikispecies admin. I've probably got at least as much experence dealing with images as all but your most experenced admins. And now I have to mess around makeing 200 edits.
I would like to introduce you to CommonTasks URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CommonTasks.
It isn't ready but the talk page has a list of maintenance work people can do even without being admins. It also has some instructions. Like I said, it isn't ready, and I'm sorry I have lately been too busy to push it forward even though other people liked the idea. But in time...
You want experenced and active admins. Something everyone is short of to do non admin maintenance tasks includeing adding welcome templates? This does not seem to be a reasonable use of rescourses.
I'm sorry to say, but such claim doesn't give a very good picture of your knowledge of Commons. The admin process in Commons is the laxest one I know. 200 edits! I didn't know that much when I applied for adminship. I hadn't done much maintenance work. And I was elected.
I know other porjects with more relaxed standards. We are not however looking at candidates with nor previous background
You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them quickly is from the spanish wikipedia. Rather than haveing them make 200 edits which are less critial it would be mnore effective to provide links to crash courses in commons adminship policy and then basicaly rubber stamp their aplications.
The reason Commons has few active admins is that - for many people - the work in Commons isn't rewarding. It's much more fun to write your own book, than to keep other people's books in alphabetical order on the library shelves.
-- Ystävällisin terveisin, Samuli Lintula _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 14/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You want experenced and active admins. Something everyone is short of to do non admin maintenance tasks includeing adding welcome templates? This does not seem to be a reasonable use of rescourses.
Call it "admin and patrolling" - a lot of tagging work can be done by non-admins.
I'm sorry to say, but such claim doesn't give a very good picture of your knowledge of Commons. The admin process in Commons is the laxest one I know. 200 edits! I didn't know that much when I applied for adminship. I hadn't done much maintenance work. And I was elected.
I know other porjects with more relaxed standards. We are not however looking at candidates with nor previous background You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them quickly is from the spanish wikipedia. Rather than haveing them make 200 edits which are less critial it would be mnore effective to provide links to crash courses in commons adminship policy and then basicaly rubber stamp their aplications.
If we can find good admin candidates for commons that people can vouch for, that'd be great. But a mere call for admins in the first instance would be the first thing to do, on the es: equivalent of [[WP:AN]] on en:.
- d.
On 11/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
You want experenced and active admins. Something everyone is short of to do non admin maintenance tasks includeing adding welcome templates? This does not seem to be a reasonable use of rescourses.
Call it "admin and patrolling" - a lot of tagging work can be done by non-admins.
I'm sorry to say, but such claim doesn't give a very good picture of your knowledge of Commons. The admin process in Commons is the laxest one I know. 200 edits! I didn't know that much when I applied for adminship. I hadn't done much maintenance work. And I was elected.
I know other porjects with more relaxed standards. We are not however looking at candidates with nor previous background You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them quickly is from the spanish wikipedia. Rather than haveing them make 200 edits which are less critial it would be mnore effective to provide links to crash courses in commons adminship policy and then basicaly rubber stamp their aplications.
If we can find good admin candidates for commons that people can vouch for, that'd be great. But a mere call for admins in the first instance would be the first thing to do, on the es: equivalent of [[WP:AN]] on en:.
- d.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Except that people on es: will knock down admin requests for admins coming from commons, no matter how experienced, since "admiship is not granted by osmosis from other wikis", and you got to work a nice editcount (circa 3000 edits for what I've gathered) and being involved on the community noticeboard discussions
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidaturas_a_bibliotecario/Drini
I''m not doing bad, but the percentage of opposes for the reasons above concerns me a bit (let be recalled that es: has a culture of "voting" for many things like adminship, deletions, etc (blank voting for anybody over100 edits, no discussion in order to reach for consensus))
Pedro Sanchez-2 wrote:
On 11/14/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
If we can find good admin candidates for commons that people can vouch for, that'd be great. But a mere call for admins in the first instance would be the first thing to do, on the es: equivalent of [[WP:AN]] on en:.
Except that people on es: will knock down admin requests for admins coming from commons, no matter how experienced, since "admiship is not granted by osmosis from other wikis", and you got to work a nice editcount (circa 3000 edits for what I've gathered) and being involved on the community noticeboard discussions
Actually, if I understood David's suggestion correctly, he was saying that someone from Commons should advertise on eswiki for people to volunteer to be admins at commons.
HTH HAND
geni wrote: <snip>
You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them quickly is from the spanish wikipedia.
Admin != knowledgable about copyright. We learnt that on enwiki.
On 15/11/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
You need people who can speak spanish. You need admins with image experence who can speak spanish. The only place you can get them quickly is from the spanish wikipedia.
Admin != knowledgable about copyright. We learnt that on enwiki.
Which is why geni suggests getting those who are.
- d.
On 11/14/06, Samuli Lintula samuli@samulilintula.net wrote:
I would like to introduce you to CommonTasks URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:CommonTasks.
It isn't ready but the talk page has a list of maintenance work people can do even without being admins. It also has some instructions. Like I said, it isn't ready, and I'm sorry I have lately been too busy to push it forward even though other people liked the idea. But in time...
You want experenced and active admins. Something everyone is short of to do non admin maintenance tasks includeing adding welcome templates? This does not seem to be a reasonable use of rescourses.
Bots add welcome templates.
People check that new users make their uploads properly (licenses, information, categories). 80 % on new users do it wrong. 80 % of "bad images" come from new users.
On 14/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
(...and perhaps we can make the pertinent point, without whining too much, which led some people to consider this option: overwhelming copyvios and underwhelming supply of labour.)
Some people in the Commons community seem to want it both ways. Is Commons an entirely independent project or does it, as a service project, need to open itself up to administration by people from other projects to keep up with its actual original purpose?
Who ever proposed Commons as an "entirely independent project"? All of our admins come from other Wikimedia projects. You are the only one I ever see say this.
If you're suggesting that Commons start allowing anyone with adminship on any Wikimedia project to become an admin on Commons, dream on. Being knowledgable about image copyright is not an important consideration on many (most?) RfA processes. It might be one factor, but not a deciding one. Many of our projects don't even have image use policies. It's not so long ago that even English Wikipedia was far more lax about image use.
This discussion appears to demonstrate Commons simply isn't making admins through its own processes anywhere near fast enough and its processes need radical revision.
Sysopping is a tricky business. We already have, IIRC, the third largest number of admins (after en.wp and de.wp).
The problem is not that our standards are too high. Our standards are remarkably low, given the impact our actions can have, in fact. The problem is a lack of interest. I don't know why you find this hard to believe. But when you figure out how to get people interested in glory-free, thankless tasks that most users will never see or have any idea even go on, then feel free to let us know. Piece of cake, right...
regards, Brianna
On 14/11/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Who ever proposed Commons as an "entirely independent project"? All of our admins come from other Wikimedia projects. You are the only one I ever see say this.
I'm describing the apparent attitude of many Commons habitues.
- d.
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: 14 November 2006 08:25 To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?
On 11/13/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk page email notifications as default setting.
I oppose this on Commons, for the reasons I have given in this thread when this was previously brought up: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044555.html
what would imo be more sensible though more work to implement would be to require new users on commons to
1: specify thier username and password for thier home project 2: have built a good status on that project (i'm thinking account at least 14 days old, no blocks in last 14 days, edits on 7 distinct days since account creation/last block)
sure the determined will get arround this but it should help keep both the inexperianced and casual troublemakers at bay.
On 11/14/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I oppose this on Commons, for the reasons I have given in this thread when this was previously brought up: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-June/044555.html
But I think it's OK for Commons to be "harsh", because it follows a very strict standard of freedom and it's important for people to learn that.
But does the fact that some wikis are now disabling local upload change the rules at all? If no, then I suppose we can go on being harsh... but will we always have to endure David telling us that we are a failure because we've decided to be harsh? :)
Given that there's currently not central user database, having to confirm an e-mail address again for Commons strikes me as an unnecessary barrier to entry, particularly since our practice is generally to simply delete files without a clear source.
I agree. SUL will reduce this barrier substantially.
I expect with SUL a user which confirms their email on any wiki where they have an account will have a confirmed email once they arrive at commons.
Would you consider the confirmed email requirement to be more acceptable once SUL is implemented?
There is a lot of pressure on commons to not 'simply delete' except in the most obvious cases, even more than I felt on enwiki... because on commons the media is often used on dozens of Wikis and multiple languages create communications barriers. None single person on commons us speaks all the languages we serve.
On Commons, I'd rather wish for special processes to educate new users about the meaning of "free content" (see the discussion on commons-l about a licensing tutorial as a mandatory sign-up step).
I've agreed with these proposals for a copyright quiz ... but it's not there.
Do we need to make a push to complete these? What is in the way?