My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.
Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on "missing images" as well.
You can also call the commonshelper with GET parameters (in the URL). This might assist an organized effort to copy GFDL/PD/CC images to the commons.
Magnus
Magnus Manske <magnus.manske@...> writes:
My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.
Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on "missing images" as well.
Can this be extended to also copy images from other Wikimedia projects, particularily Wikibooks and Wikisource?
Actually I have hacked Eloquence's script to go in reverse, downloading images instead of uploading them. I have not made the script public yet, but basically I download files, edit files.txt, and reupload them to a different wiki.
-- [[User:Kernigh]] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
Kernigh schrieb:
Magnus Manske <magnus.manske@...> writes:
My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.
Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on "missing images" as well.
Can this be extended to also copy images from other Wikimedia projects, particularily Wikibooks and Wikisource?
Should work now (as well as UTF8 names). Didn't try it, though.
Actually I have hacked Eloquence's script to go in reverse, downloading images instead of uploading them. I have not made the script public yet, but basically I download files, edit files.txt, and reupload them to a different wiki.
That's what I do :-)
I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet. These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
Magnus
I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet. These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever, do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no. Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet. These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever, do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no. Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
I put a version of what I imagined earlier live at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php
I have disabeled the upload part, so it is currently only usable as a "bad license hunter". The image name leads to the description page, the image links to its "big" version. An image on commons with the same name (so it exists) is displayed in the "commons" column; also, a note is "commons" is mentioned in the description, indicating that the image is on commons under another name.
Magnus
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever, do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no. Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
I agree very strongly with Brianna on this. Commons should be extremely hardcore about sourcing and license checking... this is a great point in the overall workflow to do a rigorous second check on anything being brought from individual projects.
- ####################################################################### # Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world # #######################################################################
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Brianna Laugher wrote:
Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever, do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no. Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
I agree very strongly with Brianna on this. Commons should be extremely hardcore about sourcing and license checking... this is a great point in the overall workflow to do a rigorous second check on anything being brought from individual projects.
As someone also working on de.wikipedia, which is quite strict on license issues itself, I totally agree. The decision about an image being suitable for the commons has to be made on a case-by-case basis.
However, in the light of hundreds of thousands (didn't count them all) of suitable images "trapped" on local wikipedias, I merely strive to provide a means to easily assess the states of images, then take appropriate action. The tool in question can be used to identify images without suitable information for the given wikipedia, something which does not involve commons at all.
On the other hand, an image tagged with "{{GFDL-self}}", a text like "made this myself", and a good-but-non-professionally looking image - who would go back to the user and say "Well, I want to upload this on commons, but you have convince me you took this yourself first!"? At most, one would check for consumer-type camera EXIF data, and then copy it to commons in good faith, right?
Try [1] (will take a minute or so to load fully), and you will see that there are some cases clearly *not* destined for the commons, some doubtful cases, and some that are (maybe with a little additional checking) clearly suited to be copied to the commons.
With the demands for making commons the default upload site, the tendency is clear: put all multimedia content that is suitable for commons there, so all wikimedia projects (and others) can benefit from them. I merely try to ease that effort.
Magnus
[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=20
2006/5/4, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de:
I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet. These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
I suppose 'compatible' here means 'under a commons-approved license'?
I would add an option to add categories - a picture on Commons that neither has categories nor is on a subject page is of little use, at least much less than one that is.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
It can't habdle unicode... can't be used for non-latin wikis. can something be done about that? thanks Felagund ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Manske" magnus.manske@web.de To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:27 PM Subject: [Commons-l] Direct copy to commons
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I tested this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:00448r.jpg&oldid=18... Felagund ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Manske" magnus.manske@web.de To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" commons-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Direct copy to commons
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l