http://searchengineland.com/071009-084922.php
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes.
I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
- d.
On 10/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://searchengineland.com/071009-084922.php
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes.
I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
David, I cringe whenever you post one of these Durova messages.
When a person contributes content for the express purpose of getting us to link to something or mention something we are being abused. It may often be that the benefits of accepting their mis-motivated contributions far exceed the harm of being used as a promotional tool but it still makes me very uncomfortable.
To me it seems that we are possibly incubating a class of use which our long term survivability demand we be able to reject categorically. Our openness is our greatest strength, but it's also our biggest weakness: If the world starts seeing Wiki(p|m)edia as a resource for promotion rather than a resource for learning and selflessly sharing knowledge then we will have failed.
Durova clearly good for the size of commons in the sort term, but long term it might result in quite a tragedy, .. ego gets in our way enough, more private interest can't help.
I'd much rather hear about people's efforts to bring in other clasesses of photographers... people who have missions more in common with ours, rather than marketers whos mission is often so orthogonal. Other non-profits, governments, educators, etc..
Why don't you forward news of that instead? ... Probably because it isn't happening. How do we fix that?
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I'd much rather hear about people's efforts to bring in other clasesses of photographers... people who have missions more in common with ours, rather than marketers whos mission is often so orthogonal. Other non-profits, governments, educators, etc..
Why don't you forward news of that instead? ... Probably because it isn't happening. How do we fix that?
The problem is that most of the groups that might be interested in that sense are well traditional. Online marketers already understand the web to a degree and even wikipedia to a degree but how would you go about explaining it to a local history group?. Sure the icommons thing in South Africa probably had some effect but even that was relying on an existing web savy community.
While the 1% rule doesn't hold for wikipedia to the same extent as other projects it is still a major hurdle to overcome and even harder to overcome in the case of those with more traditional ideas of information flow. Markets at least already think in terms of trying to get information to as many people as possible. The traditional gatekeepers of information?
On 09/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that most of the groups that might be interested in that sense are well traditional. Online marketers already understand the web to a degree and even wikipedia to a degree but how would you go about explaining it to a local history group?
The fact that Wikipedia (at least en:wp) is pretty much mainstream - news stories now tend to be about something happening on Wikipedia, rather than the mere dancing-bear fact of its existence - actually works for us to a great extent. "Release your stuff! If you hate Wikipedia, it's still available for Citizendium." etc.
While the 1% rule doesn't hold for wikipedia to the same extent as other projects it is still a major hurdle to overcome and even harder to overcome in the case of those with more traditional ideas of information flow. Markets at least already think in terms of trying to get information to as many people as possible. The traditional gatekeepers of information?
This is why getting those people to think of releasing material as proper free content (rather than free-as-in-beer, the equivalent of CC-by-nc-nd) would be such a win. Corruption from within with the FREE virus!
- d.
On 09/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that most of the groups that might be interested in that sense are well traditional. Online marketers already understand the web to a degree and even wikipedia to a degree but how would you go about explaining it to a local history group?
The fact that Wikipedia (at least en:wp) is pretty much mainstream - news stories now tend to be about something happening on Wikipedia, rather than the mere dancing-bear fact of its existence - actually works for us to a great extent. "Release your stuff! If you hate Wikipedia, it's still available for Citizendium." etc.
Those stories are still in the IT/technology section.
While the 1% rule doesn't hold for wikipedia to the same extent as other projects it is still a major hurdle to overcome and even harder to overcome in the case of those with more traditional ideas of information flow. Markets at least already think in terms of trying to get information to as many people as possible. The traditional gatekeepers of information?
This is why getting those people to think of releasing material as proper free content (rather than free-as-in-beer, the equivalent of CC-by-nc-nd) would be such a win. Corruption from within with the FREE virus!
This involves getting the average person to think about copyright. Not really going to work.
Getting them to help with access to PD stuff is more reasonable but well lets have a look at some of the traditional groups:
Local Libraries. Getting better more of them have scanners. But then they put them on a different floor to the archives. A start I suppose.
The British library. Waste of time. Insist on doing any scanning themselves and charge a fortune.
Imperial war museum. Same as the British library.
British museum. If it is on display fine otherwise well. You might be able to take photos of some stuff in the reserve collect by appointment but anything else you have to pay them to take a photo which they release to you under a very limited license.
National trust. If you want to take photos inside you have to contact the one person who appears to have permission to allow that and they don't appear to be set up to deal with anyone below the level of a film company.
English Heritage helpful but a lot of the collections that would be useful appear to have been broken up and spread around the country.
The owners of Conditionally Exempt Works of Art only have to allow viewing not photography: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/rights.htm
University libraries vary.
On 09/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that Wikipedia (at least en:wp) is pretty much mainstream - news stories now tend to be about something happening on Wikipedia, rather than the mere dancing-bear fact of its existence - actually works for us to a great extent. "Release your stuff! If you hate Wikipedia, it's still available for Citizendium." etc.
Those stories are still in the IT/technology section.
Or the educational section. Or, in the Guardian, the main editorial.
This is why getting those people to think of releasing material as proper free content (rather than free-as-in-beer, the equivalent of CC-by-nc-nd) would be such a win. Corruption from within with the FREE virus!
This involves getting the average person to think about copyright. Not really going to work.
I was talking about the culture industries. Turning them around will involve exploding many, many heads, one by one ...
Getting them to help with access to PD stuff is more reasonable but well lets have a look at some of the traditional groups: Local Libraries. Getting better more of them have scanners. But then they put them on a different floor to the archives. A start I suppose. The British library. Waste of time. Insist on doing any scanning themselves and charge a fortune. Imperial war museum. Same as the British library. British museum. If it is on display fine otherwise well. You might be able to take photos of some stuff in the reserve collect by appointment but anything else you have to pay them to take a photo which they release to you under a very limited license. National trust. If you want to take photos inside you have to contact the one person who appears to have permission to allow that and they don't appear to be set up to deal with anyone below the level of a film company. English Heritage helpful but a lot of the collections that would be useful appear to have been broken up and spread around the country. The owners of Conditionally Exempt Works of Art only have to allow viewing not photography: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/heritage/rights.htm University libraries vary.
Yeah. We're attempting to turn around a whole way of thinking here. Which is why I think getting publicists to think that properly free-licensed content is normal for any purpose whatsoever would be a major win.
- d.
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
When a person contributes content for the express purpose of getting us to link to something or mention something we are being abused. It may often be that the benefits of accepting their mis-motivated contributions far exceed the harm of being used as a promotional tool but it still makes me very uncomfortable.
I think the basic motivation is to turn SEO's and publicists' boundless energy to something resembling *good* use. Because you know, while Wikipedia's both mainstream-popular and easily user-contributable, it's not like they'll ever stop.
With rampant conflict-of-interest editors on en:wp, do we work with them and calmly block them if we have to, or do we work to publicly vilify them? The first, and most certainly *not* the second - because we have public oppobrium to work for us. Look at the WikiScanner stories - the COI editors got the bad public and media reaction; we were seen as imperfect but basically good.
If people push the promotional thing too far, that will piss the public off. If they do it right, they can in fact do well by doing good.
To me it seems that we are possibly incubating a class of use which our long term survivability demand we be able to reject categorically. Our openness is our greatest strength, but it's also our biggest weakness: If the world starts seeing Wiki(p|m)edia as a resource for promotion rather than a resource for learning and selflessly sharing knowledge then we will have failed.
I believe the people this is directed to already think of it in those terms; if we can get them to see how to do well by doing good, at least they're not attempting to do well by doing bad.
Furthermore, I think it's of immense value to encourage an environment where releasing commercial content under a proper free license is *normal* and the obvious thing for a publicist to do. I think that would do a tremendous amount to further our mission in the wider world. Much as open source software makes proprietary software largely obsolete (per your analogy in [[:en:Wikipedia:Keyspam]]).
If we eventually have the problem of *too much* freely licensed high-quality popular commercial content ... then we've won.
Durova clearly good for the size of commons in the sort term, but long term it might result in quite a tragedy, .. ego gets in our way enough, more private interest can't help.
I know en:wp is outpacing Moore's law - how's Commons doing compared to Moore's law for bandwidth and disk space?
I'd much rather hear about people's efforts to bring in other clasesses of photographers... people who have missions more in common with ours, rather than marketers whos mission is often so orthogonal. Other non-profits, governments, educators, etc.. Why don't you forward news of that instead? ... Probably because it isn't happening. How do we fix that?
Possibly by some of us (e.g. you) pushing Commons to those people the way others of us have been hitting the publicists. I wonder if we're at a stage to go to the governments who fund the European Space Agency and ask them to ask the ESA to use a free license, rather than just complain that we use NASA images by preference; if their funding sources ask for it, that should make it more politically viable for them to do so.
- d.
On 10/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think the basic motivation is to turn SEO's and publicists' boundless energy to something resembling *good* use. Because you know, while Wikipedia's both mainstream-popular and easily user-contributable, it's not like they'll ever stop.
[snip]
If people push the promotional thing too far, that will piss the public off. If they do it right, they can in fact do well by doing good.
I don't disagree. Which is why I said it makes me feel uncomfortable rather than saying "we must stop this!".
I believe the people this is directed to already think of it in those terms; if we can get them to see how to do well by doing good, at least they're not attempting to do well by doing bad.
Good/bad is too simple a characterization. Marketers provide a service that some people value, and not just on the sending side. If we judge it we risk misjudging it. I'd rather try not to fall into that trap.
There is some overlap between their mission and ours. In some cases there is an agreeable overlap (give us images of your product), in some cases there is opposing overlap (promotion can be the enemy of neutrality, private interest are often the enemy of the common good in the absence of the right controls).
Durova's work is mostly to encourage the agreeable overlap, which I agree with strongly, and a little bit to convert the opposing overlap into a more subtle form which is less objectionable (i.e. you can put links on image pages!), which I feel less comfortable with. .. but what makes me feel more uneasy is knowing that you can't take the good without the bad.
You counter that they would be here anyways... and you're right. But in the same numbers and with as much finesse? I suppose it's pointless to discuss it because I have no solutions.
Furthermore, I think it's of immense value to encourage an environment where releasing commercial content under a proper free license is *normal* and the obvious thing for a publicist to do. I think that would do a tremendous amount to further our mission in the wider world. Much as open source software makes proprietary software largely obsolete (per your analogy in [[:en:Wikipedia:Keyspam]]).
It's true.. oh it's so true.. but gah.. there are just .. better groups out there. Who are we befrending? .. online marketers. Who else? ...?... It's a start but gah. I can't shake this bitter taste.
If we eventually have the problem of *too much* freely licensed high-quality popular commercial content ... then we've won.
You forgot the words "useful", but perhaps considered them implied in high-quality.
I know en:wp is outpacing Moore's law - how's Commons doing compared to Moore's law for bandwidth and disk space?
Wikimedia is reaching a point where increases in bandwidth usage *may* actually result in reductions the total bandwidth costs. I'm not too concerned there. Certainly, Commons itself isn't a major bandwidth user.
Disk size growth is somewhat faster than moore's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.png). Disk speed isn't... but disk speed isn't an issue for us.
Nor is capacity... Common's growth over this year looks mostly linear, with an average growth rate of 27960 bytes per second.
If we assume best price per meg storage for read mostly access (whitebox 3u systems with 16*750 GB disks in RAID6) the equipment cost of disk space is roughly US$0.0000000005137 per byte, or US$0.000014363/second in terms of commons current upload rate. Add whatever random factors you want for operating costs and additional redundancy (write every image twice, OK), even assume a doubling of the growth.. As long as it doesn't go exponential it's not scary at all.
I currently mirror commons (and all WMF images) at home. At the current rates have space for a couple of years. Perhaps we'll have a nice growth spike? that would be good: I'd rather outgrow my storage before it starts failing on it.
Video should only up the rate by a constant factor. .. none of this is hard. To make it hard we need the increasing returns that can only come from increased adoption. Commons storage isn't hard but the mission of the commoners should be to make it hard.
Possibly by some of us (e.g. you) pushing Commons to those people the way others of us have been hitting the publicists. I wonder if we're at a stage to go to the governments who fund the European Space Agency and ask them to ask the ESA to use a free license, rather than just complain that we use NASA images by preference; if their funding sources ask for it, that should make it more politically viable for them to do so.
Oy. Do I have stories to tell you...
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly by some of us (e.g. you) pushing Commons to those people the way others of us have been hitting the publicists. I wonder if we're at a stage to go to the governments who fund the European Space Agency and ask them to ask the ESA to use a free license, rather than just complain that we use NASA images by preference; if their funding sources ask for it, that should make it more politically viable for them to do so.
Oy. Do I have stories to tell you...
Any that can be publicly told, please do so. The more stories about getting stuff freed, the better.
- d.
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia is reaching a point where increases in bandwidth usage *may* actually result in reductions the total bandwidth costs. I'm not too concerned there. Certainly, Commons itself isn't a major bandwidth user.
I'm surprised, given images are large. I suppose thumbnails would be counted against the wiki they're generated on.
Nor is capacity... Common's growth over this year looks mostly linear, with an average growth rate of 27960 bytes per second.
[...]
redundancy (write every image twice, OK), even assume a doubling of the growth.. As long as it doesn't go exponential it's not scary at all.
You mean like en:wp's popularity? Imagine a popular Commons. (Assuming we can work out how to deal with the floods of crappy uploads that will result in.)
I currently mirror commons (and all WMF images) at home. At the current rates have space for a couple of years. Perhaps we'll have a nice growth spike? that would be good: I'd rather outgrow my storage before it starts failing on it.
Heh. You realise you have one of the few mirrors of Commons, then. You may wish to put some tarballs up on download.wikimedia.org.
Video should only up the rate by a constant factor. .. none of this is hard. To make it hard we need the increasing returns that can only come from increased adoption. Commons storage isn't hard but the mission of the commoners should be to make it hard.
Precisely :-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikimedia is reaching a point where increases in bandwidth usage *may* actually result in reductions the total bandwidth costs. I'm not too concerned there. Certainly, Commons itself isn't a major bandwidth user.
I'm surprised, given images are large. I suppose thumbnails would be counted against the wiki they're generated on.
I also was when i knew. Almost every image is cached on the squids. The thumbnails are per image, unique when the image is at commons.
Such speculation. When I said commons dosen't account for much I was including only traffic from users visiting "commons.wikimedia.org" not project images.
... And I was using numbers sourced from the squid logs, so caching isn't an issue. ;)
On 10/10/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 09/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Wikimedia is reaching a point where increases in bandwidth usage *may* actually result in reductions the total bandwidth costs. I'm not too concerned there. Certainly, Commons itself isn't a major bandwidth user.
I'm surprised, given images are large. I suppose thumbnails would be counted against the wiki they're generated on.
I also was when i knew. Almost every image is cached on the squids. The thumbnails are per image, unique when the image is at commons.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 10/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://searchengineland.com/071009-084922.php
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes.
I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
I seriously hate that FP. I hope it's not just soft porn stars that pay attention. urg.
cheers, Brianna
On 10/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes. I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
I seriously hate that FP. I hope it's not just soft porn stars that pay attention. urg.
Obviously this is Wikimedia getting back to our Bomis roots.
- d.
On 10/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://searchengineland.com/071009-084922.php
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes.
I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
I seriously hate that FP. I hope it's not just soft porn stars that pay attention. urg.
cheers, Brianna
No we have hard core porn stars as well.
Looking at what we get through fromowner politicians seem to be a group that are slightly more prepared than others to release pics.
On 10/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://searchengineland.com/071009-084922.php
This is not the dazzling polished work of wonder she wanted it to be, as her hard disk went BANG on the weekend and she had to rewrite the whole thing from scratch yesterday. I added ideas and some quotes.
I think the Richard Schiff vs Michele Merkin appproach might make the point clear!
I seriously hate that FP. I hope it's not just soft porn stars that pay attention. urg.
cheers, Brianna
No we have hard core porn stars as well.
Looking at what we get through fromowner politicians seem to be a group that are slightly more prepared than others to release pics.
Porn stars (with whom I have had a few encounters, in the "you deleted my picture, put it back" sense), politicians, second-tier actors, and authors (to a lesser degree) are eager to get their pictures up, especially if there's a "No Free Image" placeholder up on their bio. Ugly "NO FREE IMAGE" grey thing = bad for publicity, while professional headshots = good for publicity.
I think we need a special help page for portrait pictures that we can send such people to, as they are generally rather unaware of copyrights. There was a case on en.wp where a very famous author "released" a picture of herself for her biography to replace the placeholder image, but after I inquired as to who took and owns copyright to the photo she admitted it was by another photographer who hadn't released the rights. People often don't realise that just because a picture is OF them and they got hold of a copy, the copyright still belongs to the photographer (unless another arrangement was made), and the *subject* of the picture can't release the image under a free license without permission.