On 08/04/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
This is just what came into my head in ten minutes. There is tons of interesting stuff that could be done. Please do some if intend to come to Wikimania :]
I don't, sadly :-) but it's also interesting for Commons press releases.
Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate. But do we want that?
+ more good stuff under free licenses + awareness as a separate project - 10% copyvio rate as is; need more copyright paranoid admins ready to just go through crap allll the tiiiime - search still sucks - Commons is not Flickr - will people try to use it as their personal gallery? - what to do when people who don't quite get it realise what they've done (e.g. released pictures of selves or kids under a free content licence) and want to change their mind? - stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
More pluses and minuses please.
I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10 site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.
- d.
On 4/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- more good stuff under free licenses
Absolutely.
- awareness as a separate project
It would be good, but the reality is that Commons is merely seen as a support project than a project on its own. If I for example want to ask somebody's permission to license a file under a free license, I will say "Wikimedia Commons, the project that provides media to various Wikimedia projects, inclusive Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Why? Simply because this convinces people more easily that need to license their work freely; they are more likely to accept that there works may be used commecially and derivative if this is necessary to get a great exposure at wikipedia, than "just for storage" on Wikimedia Commons.
- 10% copyvio rate as is; need more copyright paranoid admins ready to
just go through crap allll the tiiiime
Sure, we need that. Gmaxwell has some graphs on how fast we delete images. Moreover, since we have elected 3 new checkusers, we have found several users who use sockpuppets to evade bans. We do however indeed more admins to delete the crap. Recently, odder has started a project to target all untagged images. It is somewhere near the bottom of [[Commons:Village pump]]
- search still sucks
We have Mayflower, but it needs to be improved of course.
- Commons is not Flickr - will people try to use it as their personal gallery?
Interesting question how far we want to extend our hosting services: I've had a chat with a political youth organisation, who wants to distribute podcasts over Commons, because they do not have the funding to do it themselves. The question is of course whether we want this: It is great to help the freedom of expression, but we are not a free media host. See also somewhere near the bottom of [[Commons:Village pump]].
Recently there have been a few deletion requests of users that use Commons as their personal photo album. The outcome was almost always '''delete'''. Those kind of images are also sometimes speedied if it is clear that they have no value for Commons.
- what to do when people who don't quite get it realise what they've
done (e.g. released pictures of selves or kids under a free content licence) and want to change their mind?
We recently got some of those cases. On one hand we [[don't want to be a dick]], on the other hand it is very hard whether users really were not aware that GFDL means commercial use. We are having a case, where a user cited these reason; it turned out to be that he had a conflict on his local wiki and wanted to leave all projects and have all his images deleted. What to do in such cases?
- stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
More pluses and minuses please.
I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10 site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.
I don't know whether bandwith is the real problem. I think that computing power is more of a problem (am I correct?). Better ask the Wikimedia Devs. I don't think that technical problems are the problems with the growth of Wiki[mp]edia. It is more likely that we simple can't handle the enourmous amount of (good willing) newcomers.
Bryan
On 4/8/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- what to do when people who don't quite get it realise what they've
done (e.g. released pictures of selves or kids under a free content licence) and want to change their mind?
We recently got some of those cases. On one hand we [[don't want to be a dick]], on the other hand it is very hard whether users really were not aware that GFDL means commercial use. We are having a case, where a user cited these reason; it turned out to be that he had a conflict on his local wiki and wanted to leave all projects and have all his images deleted. What to do in such cases?
If someone's a new Wikipedia user, perhaps they could be confused. If someone's been around a while on any Wikimedia project, they damn well should know the implications of GFDL. Just like if someone wants to leave Wikipedia and delete all their text contributions - we don't do it. If a newbie shows up and creates three stupid articles and then asks for them to be deleted, there's a better chance.
-Matt
On 08/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate. But do we want that?
I don't work on Commons because I like it to be my own little secret project. I work on it because I want it to be a worldwide success, as well known as Flickr and Getty Images... and English Wikipedia. :)
What is the point of working on a project if not to lead it to greater success?
...And yet, none of us can deny the major holes in technical functions that hamper our maintenance work (proper search, proper image workflow, proper usage tools). None of us can deny the major problems from the outset that make using a wiki unintuitive and painful (think categories/galleries, aliases, t10n [1]).
Of course, we have backlogs now. But we probably always will have. (If not visible ones, then invisible: check everything chronologically...) An important question is: if we're not ready now (for explosive growth), when will we be ready? How will we know? What are the visible, measurable markers that will tell us?
Otherwise you just live in fear of popularity which is... stupid. The Wikimedia mission is about sharing free knowledge with the world. See below.
- stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
Goodness. The ultimate conclusion of such a view is that we should shut all the sites down. then 0 bandwidth costs. :) I guess it depends how we measure our success. 99% certified copyvio free, or household brandname recognition? or something in between. they are not incompatible, exactly.
IMO this should not be our concern. or if it our concern, it is only a secondary one, NOT a primary one. otherwise there is some conflict, why do we ask people to upload hi-res originals?
I still think Wikipedia got way too popular way too quickly and I would be much happier if it were a Top 100 site rather than a Top 10 site. It would also be cheaper in bandwidth.
That is an interesting idea. But I wonder if it would really make a difference, or just be delaying the inevitable.
cheers, Brianna
[1] Shouldn't it be t9n? *confused*
On 4/8/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
[1] Shouldn't it be t9n? *confused*
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
And what does it mean unabbreviated ?
Brianna Laugher wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
- stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
Goodness. The ultimate conclusion of such a view is that we should shut all the sites down. then 0 bandwidth costs. :)
I thought we had bandwidth for free.
[1] Shouldn't it be t9n? *confused*
t10n, t9n, i18n i never knew what abbreviate.
On 09/04/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
- stratospheric bandwidth bills. You think it's bad now.
Goodness. The ultimate conclusion of such a view is that we should shut all the sites down. then 0 bandwidth costs. :)
I thought we had bandwidth for free.
I believe Kennisnet pay for bandwidth out of Amsterdam and Yahoo! out of Seoul, but I'm pretty sure the WMF pays for bandwidth out of Tampa.
- d.
On 4/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I thought we had bandwidth for free.
I believe Kennisnet pay for bandwidth out of Amsterdam and Yahoo! out of Seoul, but I'm pretty sure the WMF pays for bandwidth out of Tampa.
And the free bandwidth we do receive is finite.
But "reduce bandwidth" is entirely the wrong way to look at the issue. The correct way is for us to try to find ways to maximize the ratio of Wikimedia donations to commons bandwidth usage, then to *maximize* our bandwidth usage. :)
We would be ahead of the game if we found ways to turn more of Common's growing viewer (vs contributor) base into Wikimedia donors.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 4/9/07, David Gerard wrote:
I thought we had bandwidth for free.
I believe Kennisnet pay for bandwidth out of Amsterdam and Yahoo! out of Seoul, but I'm pretty sure the WMF pays for bandwidth out of Tampa.
And the free bandwidth we do receive is finite.
But "reduce bandwidth" is entirely the wrong way to look at the issue. The correct way is for us to try to find ways to maximize the ratio of Wikimedia donations to commons bandwidth usage, then to *maximize* our bandwidth usage. :)
We would be ahead of the game if we found ways to turn more of Common's growing viewer (vs contributor) base into Wikimedia donors.
We could always be tricky and move the image server to knams or seoul. Cost of sending the image commands via ssh is nothing compared with sending the images from tampa (yes, i know they already do some caching).
David Gerard a écrit :
I don't, sadly :-) but it's also interesting for Commons press releases.
Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate.
Please do tell.
As a person who answers the media as well as people from various groups in France (politicians, librarians etc.) I can say that very few people have heard of Wikimedia projects outside Wikipedia. Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons are unknown.
What's more, journalists are not interested when we tell them about these projects, in general.
I see two possible reasons: * There are "competitor" projects with massive media power, such as the French National Library's Europeana project (for Wikisource) or Flickr (for Commons).
Of course, these "competitors" are different in that they provide unfree content (the French National Library tries to claim copyright on things that they should not, in my humble opinion). But, see, discussion of "free" licenses goes waaaaay beyond what the public is supposed to be able to handle, and probably what most journalists can understand. The French public is used to the (contradictory) ideas that if it's free in practice then it's free (as in, if nobody is going to prosecute me, it's ok), or that ultra-restrictive copyright is the way to go.
* Neither of these projects is as "scandalous" as Wikipedia is. Journalists like scandal; they like Seigenthaler, Essjay etc. because it provides fodder for discussion. At least in France, they like to question "intellectuals" who will speak ill of Wikipedia (or will not, to their displeasure, as occurred during a radio debate to which I was invited).
On 10/04/07, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@free.fr wrote:
David Gerard a écrit :
I don't, sadly :-) but it's also interesting for Commons press releases. Here's a somewhat-related question: I have ideas for press releases to drag the general public to Commons at a *fantastic* rate.
Please do tell.
Start with the question and answer:
Q. What do I need to get involved with Commons? A. A camera.
(There's more to it than that. But that's a very good start.)
As a person who answers the media as well as people from various groups in France (politicians, librarians etc.) I can say that very few people have heard of Wikimedia projects outside Wikipedia. Wikisource and Wikimedia Commons are unknown.
Yep. Utterly. But I see Wikimedia Commons as the sort of idea that could catch attention. (If the search didn't suck.)
What's more, journalists are not interested when we tell them about these projects, in general.
I put the idea of Commons across to journalists as: "We're not Getty Images yet, but we aspire to be. Once the search doesn't suck." They get that instantly. Though not in a form that they could write for their readers.
(It's much like journalists generally having good will toward Wikipedia, in my experience, because it's the universal backgrounding resource, and they have the naturally sceptical mindset to get best value out of it.)
But, see, discussion of "free" licenses goes waaaaay beyond what the public is supposed to be able to handle, and probably what most journalists can understand. The French public is used to the (contradictory) ideas that if it's free in practice then it's free (as in, if nobody is going to prosecute me, it's ok), or that ultra-restrictive copyright is the way to go.
http://freedomdefined.org/ is a start on telling that story.
- Neither of these projects is as "scandalous" as Wikipedia is.
Journalists like scandal; they like Seigenthaler, Essjay etc. because it provides fodder for discussion. At least in France, they like to question "intellectuals" who will speak ill of Wikipedia (or will not, to their displeasure, as occurred during a radio debate to which I was invited).
What scandals are Commons likely to have?
* Massive copyright violation. * Questionable content (pornography, etc).
Any other good ones we can leverage when the time suits us? ;-)
- d.
David Gerard a écrit :
What scandals are Commons likely to have?
- Massive copyright violation.
- Questionable content (pornography, etc).
Any other good ones we can leverage when the time suits us? ;-)
I thought that Wikisource could be a start, because we have copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other similar texts. This could be leaked to some watchdog groups who would give us free advertisement. :-)
David Monniaux wrote:
I thought that Wikisource could be a start, because we have copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other similar texts. This could be leaked to some watchdog groups who would give us free advertisement. :-)
In French, English and Arabic... no less.
Cary
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What scandals are Commons likely to have?
- Massive copyright violation.
Doubtful. By the time Commons's copyvio level becomes noticeable high copyvios on the net will produce little media interest.
- Questionable content (pornography, etc).
I don't think "there is porn on the net" stories do to well either.
Any other good ones we can leverage when the time suits us? ;-)
Maybe if we were the first to get our hands on some images that latter became high profile or if one of our sets of historic photos became significant (remember how zombietime's traffic jumped during the whole Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy thing).
If we were able to get pics from the less popular war zones perhaps that might have an impact in time.
On 10/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe if we were the first to get our hands on some images that latter became high profile or if one of our sets of historic photos became significant (remember how zombietime's traffic jumped during the whole Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy thing). If we were able to get pics from the less popular war zones perhaps that might have an impact in time.
Oooh yeah. How's Iraq's net coverage these days?
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh yeah. How's Iraq's net coverage these days?
Good enough but there are no shortage of photo essays covering Iraq.
But Chad vs Sudan (one to watch that)? Central African Republic Civil War? [[Sa'dah conflict]] ?
On 10/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oooh yeah. How's Iraq's net coverage these days?
Good enough but there are no shortage of photo essays covering Iraq. But Chad vs Sudan (one to watch that)? Central African Republic Civil War? [[Sa'dah conflict]] ?
Get the vandals, trolls and copyright violators to have a whip-round to buy you a camera and a ticket? ;-p
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Get the vandals, trolls and copyright violators to have a whip-round to buy you a camera and a ticket? ;-p
More realistically we are probably looking at aid agencies. And perhaps people looking to use commons for propaganda (see our children can die sadder than their children).
But getting anything out of the Central African War area would be a potential coup.
Beyond that in more peaceful terms we are probably stuck with slow development. Try and find out what kind of images various school national curricular and the like are going to want.
On 10/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
More realistically we are probably looking at aid agencies. And perhaps people looking to use commons for propaganda (see our children can die sadder than their children). But getting anything out of the Central African War area would be a potential coup.
I do like that idea. Anyone got friends at aid agencies? I might ask around.
Beyond that in more peaceful terms we are probably stuck with slow development. Try and find out what kind of images various school national curricular and the like are going to want.
Yep. That'll be a good one.
- d.
On 4/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
More realistically we are probably looking at aid agencies. And perhaps people looking to use commons for propaganda (see our children can die sadder than their children). But getting anything out of the Central African War area would be a potential coup.
I do like that idea. Anyone got friends at aid agencies? I might ask around.
I've run (on my own dime) google adwords campaigns for a number of free projects (including the Wikimedia fundraiser) with pretty good success.
I just don't personally think we're ready to make the big public step yet. We're getting pretty close however.
If I were to post a list of things I think are needed for Commons 1.0, would anyone here care to comment?
On 11/04/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I just don't personally think we're ready to make the big public step yet. We're getting pretty close however. If I were to post a list of things I think are needed for Commons 1.0, would anyone here care to comment?
Hell yeah!
(Then we'll go live at 0.5 ;-)
- d.