Hum
I'm guessing some section of the population of this list will have a go at this BUT I do think we need to look at some PR issues. A while back there was a sharp rap on the knuckles on Meta about deleting images because it was "better to have them locally as Commons just delete things without warning". That one I think was pacified in part & I cannot put my finger on a link.
However...
I have recently spent rather more time on en wp (please don't get me started, I'm not keen on the place or indeed the interactions that go on there).
I felt folks should be aware of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden.... There are some pretty strong views aired there & I would ask that folks think before they are tempted to join in (removal of previously licensed material will get some folks hot under the collar!).
To me this is a wider PR thing. When I was on en wp I knew next to nothing about commons. On this list recently we were equated with a "service" to Wikipedia. Elsewhere (I forget again where) I mentioned that I changed an upload warning template on Meta that suggested uploading material to en wp. I really do not think that we (our function & us) are well understood and I think this is worth some thought.
I'm off to sit quietly somewhere and not go back to my mailbox for a while!! Just thought people should know.
Me :-)
On 23/08/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
To me this is a wider PR thing. When I was on en wp I knew next to nothing about commons. On this list recently we were equated with a "service" to Wikipedia.
Commons was created as a service project to avoid having the same image uploaded to multiple Wikipedias. Its function as a general free media repository for the public good came later.
Elsewhere (I forget again where) I mentioned that I changed an upload warning template on Meta that suggested uploading material to en wp. I really do not think that we (our function & us) are well understood and I think this is worth some thought.
The trouble is making sure both work well.
We really need the cross-wiki links to where images are used. That's what pisses people off - having stuff just vanish.
- d.
On 8/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble is making sure both work well.
We really need the cross-wiki links to where images are used. That's what pisses people off - having stuff just vanish.
It's true. ... plus the ability to see historical data. We could do a lot better in that regard. We should. We must.. and in time, we will.
But in this case it won't help: the people who are being very negative in that thread are people who are mad at commons because we deleted images which were permitted for Wiki(p|m)edia use only, or with other clear copyright related problems. (They don't state that on the WP:ANI, but it's clear from their histories on commons). Since our unwillingness to accept Wik(p|m)edia use only image is completely non-negotiable, we're just not going to make those people happy.
I spent a considerable amount of time talking to the person on enwp who didn't want his images on commons. He was only ever to substantiate his position with two arguments:
(1) He can't watchlist pages on commons from Enwp so he misses changes. When it was pointed out to him that you can enable commons to email you on watchlist updates, his response was "why should I have to?".
(2) He believes that commons is nothing more than a repository of penis images. He wasn't swayed by people pointing out that there are plenty of penis images on enwp too, and that commons has 1.75 millon images quite a few of which aren't penises.
I won't comment on (2)... but (1) is a real, if exceptionally minor point, We should add cross-projcet watchlists to our feature wishlist... to be completely sometime between SUL and the first snowstorm in hell. ;)
On 23/08/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I spent a considerable amount of time talking to the person on enwp who didn't want his images on commons. He was only ever to substantiate his position with two arguments: (1) He can't watchlist pages on commons from Enwp so he misses changes. When it was pointed out to him that you can enable commons to email you on watchlist updates, his response was "why should I have to?". (2) He believes that commons is nothing more than a repository of penis images. He wasn't swayed by people pointing out that there are plenty of penis images on enwp too, and that commons has 1.75 millon images quite a few of which aren't penises.
Problem (3) is his clear lack of understanding of what "free content" means. And problem (4) is he somehow became an admin on en:wp without this becoming apparent. And problem (5) is how many other admins on the thread agreed he should be able to do things completely contrary to the project goals. But anyway.
- d.
On 8/23/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/08/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I spent a considerable amount of time talking to the person on enwp who didn't want his images on commons. He was only ever to substantiate his position with two arguments: (1) He can't watchlist pages on commons from Enwp so he misses changes. When it was pointed out to him that you can enable commons to email you on watchlist updates, his response was "why should I have to?". (2) He believes that commons is nothing more than a repository of penis images. He wasn't swayed by people pointing out that there are plenty of penis images on enwp too, and that commons has 1.75 millon images quite a few of which aren't penises.
Problem (3) is his clear lack of understanding of what "free content" means. And problem (4) is he somehow became an admin on en:wp without this becoming apparent. And problem (5) is how many other admins on the thread agreed he should be able to do things completely contrary to the project goals. But anyway.
I was trying to be nice... It's true though.
When I talked to him on IRC he seemed to be okay with the idea of keeping the images both on commons and enwp. I don't see a problem with enwp deciding to do that for someone who really wants to, since it would address his watchlisting concern.
... but doing something because we're nice doesn't imply we should accept licensing conditions which wouldn't allow us to do otherwise.
On 8/24/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
To me this is a wider PR thing. When I was on en wp I knew next to nothing about commons. On this list recently we were equated with a "service" to Wikipedia. Elsewhere (I forget again where) I mentioned that I changed an upload warning template on Meta that suggested uploading material to en wp. I really do not think that we (our function & us) are well understood and I think this is worth some thought.
Commons is like the MediaWiki software. It's many things to many people, but fundamentally it's there to support the other Wikimedia projects.
On 24/08/07, Herby herbythyme@fmail.co.uk wrote:
I'm guessing some section of the population of this list will have a go at this BUT I do think we need to look at some PR issues. A while back there was a sharp rap on the knuckles on Meta about deleting images because it was "better to have them locally as Commons just delete things without warning". That one I think was pacified in part & I cannot put my finger on a link.
IIRC that was about the project logos, and partly *caused* by the fact that we, Commons, had no way of knowing (ie checkusage) the images were used on mainpage portals (not on any wiki). The other part of that issue was about Commons unnecessarily deleting alleged "duplicates" and I don't support that action so I won't defend us on that count... (but I haven't heard many complaints about it lately either, which is probably good...)
I felt folks should be aware of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden....
wow... full on. :o
To me this is a wider PR thing. When I was on en wp I knew next to nothing about commons. On this list recently we were equated with a "service" to Wikipedia. Elsewhere (I forget again where) I mentioned that I changed an upload warning template on Meta that suggested uploading material to en wp. I really do not think that we (our function & us) are well understood and I think this is worth some thought.
Yes. well in that discussion, it's clear there's some legitimate concerns, and some concerns we can't do anything about, like what the GFDL actually implies or means.
At any rate you prompted me to set up a project I had in the back of my head for a while...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project and specifically http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
please join, start similar pages for other projects, etc.
At the end of the day if people want to hold a grudge against us we can't stop them. But we can * be understanding about why people feel the way they do * admit when we've acted in error * act to correct mistakes brought to our attention * try to enact processes that stop the same mistakes happening again * ?
cheers, Brianna
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
At the end of the day if people want to hold a grudge against us we can't stop them. But we can
- be understanding about why people feel the way they do
- admit when we've acted in error
- act to correct mistakes brought to our attention
- try to enact processes that stop the same mistakes happening again
- ?
* Defend ourselves when their allegations are without basis.
Sometimes people are angry at commons because of well handled and correct deletions. They'll lash out with harsh language above vague problems, and if no one is around to fill in the back-story there is a risk that people will be mislead. We shouldn't allow that to happen. In my experience the people making passionate attacks almost always fall into this bucket.
People with legitimate criticisms usually join in to help rather than complaining and are dispassionate in their remarks.
Not that mistakes don't happen, but we should be clear about what is a mistake and what isn't...
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
and specifically http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
please join, start similar pages for other projects, etc.
The answer to "Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." is unhelpful. You have people in effect mass uploading copyvios and you suggest asking them to take more care?
geni wrote:
The answer to "Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." is unhelpful. You have people in effect mass uploading copyvios and you suggest asking them to take more care?
The funny thing is that they're opposing to a bot uploading to commons because "Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution", when bots are those who keep things better. If it's not done with a bot, or commonshelper, etc. it will likely end up commonised by some random guy which only wants the image on his article and is more likely to get it wrong. The moral: if you want to be sure your images are well-uploaded on commons, upload them yourself.
On 24/08/07, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
The answer to "Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." is unhelpful. You have people in effect mass uploading copyvios and you suggest asking them to take more care?
The funny thing is that they're opposing to a bot uploading to commons because "Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution", when bots are those who keep things better. If it's not done with a bot, or commonshelper, etc. it will likely end up commonised by some random guy which only wants the image on his article and is more likely to get it wrong. The moral: if you want to be sure your images are well-uploaded on commons, upload them yourself.
What Platonides said.
Geni, what do you think a more useful answer is? I could write something that's not true, but much more soothing. Isn't it kind of the same to objecting of Wikipedia "someone copied text from my website without my permission"? We can fix things when we know about them, but we can hardly promise "all edits will be reviewed, all mistakes will be corrected, within X time of being made."
cheers Brianna
On 8/24/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, what do you think a more useful answer is? I could write something that's not true, but much more soothing. Isn't it kind of the same to objecting of Wikipedia "someone copied text from my website without my permission"? We can fix things when we know about them, but we can hardly promise "all edits will be reviewed, all mistakes will be corrected, within X time of being made."
Something along the lines of "we are aware of this issue and are doing what we can to track down problem users. Please help us by informing us of offenders [[commons:wherever|here]]"
Only in slightly more flowing text.
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project and specifically http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
"* En.wp users can't keep an eye on their images once they're moved to Commons - they are not on their watchlist." I'm planning a "notify-me-of-(pending)-deletions-on-my-home-wiki" opt-in system. This should at least solve part of the problem. Don't expect it too soon though.
"* Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." It would be great if Commons admins could see the deleted history of a file on any project, so that we can check the status and fix it ourselves.
Bryan
On 8/23/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
"* Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." It would be great if Commons admins could see the deleted history of a file on any project, so that we can check the status and fix it ourselves.
Yes. It's a huge pain to have to go fishing on IRC to find an admin on project X to view the history for me.. when I just want to check something on a hunch.
On 8/23/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
"* Images get moved to Commons without the correct attribution and history being kept." It would be great if Commons admins could see the deleted history of a file on any project, so that we can check the status and fix it ourselves.
Yes. It's a huge pain to have to go fishing on IRC to find an admin on project X to view the history for me.. when I just want to check something on a hunch.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Would it be technically possible though?
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:08:52 +0200:
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project and specifically
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
"* En.wp users can't keep an eye on their images once they're moved to Commons - they are not on their watchlist." I'm planning a "notify-me-of-(pending)-deletions-on-my-home-wiki" opt-in system. This should at least solve part of the problem. Don't expect it too soon though.
I asked Duesentrieb to integrate {{notify me}} (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me) in CommonsTicker, but he doesn't have the time to do it. Maybe you could help him ...
Regards,
Flo
On 24/08/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:08:52 +0200:
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project and specifically
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
"* En.wp users can't keep an eye on their images once they're moved to Commons - they are not on their watchlist." I'm planning a "notify-me-of-(pending)-deletions-on-my-home-wiki" opt-in system. This should at least solve part of the problem. Don't expect it too soon though.
I asked Duesentrieb to integrate {{notify me}} (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me) in CommonsTicker, but he doesn't have the time to do it. Maybe you could help him ...
I am not sure that would help, because I am pretty sure CT only looks at the uploader, doesn't try to figure out from the text who the author actually is. So for transwikied images I don't see that this would solve the problem talked about.
Maybe it would be interesting to have a tool to track pages in the image: namespace that linked to a Wikimedian's user page elsewhere. Not everyone links the name, so it wouldn't be foolproof.
I tried to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch for this but evidently it only indexes [external style links] not [[w:interwiki links]].
cheers Brianna
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/08/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Bryan Tong Minh" bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 23 Aug 2007
21:08:52 +0200:
On 8/23/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
"* En.wp users can't keep an eye on their images once they're moved to Commons - they are not on their watchlist." I'm planning a "notify-me-of-(pending)-deletions-on-my-home-wiki" opt-in system. This should at least solve part of the problem. Don't expect it too soon though.
I asked Duesentrieb to integrate {{notify me}}
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me) in CommonsTicker, but he doesn't have the time to do it. Maybe you could help him ...
I am not sure that would help, because I am pretty sure CT only looks at the uploader, doesn't try to figure out from the text who the author actually is. So for transwikied images I don't see that this would solve the problem talked about.
Maybe it would be interesting to have a tool to track pages in the image: namespace that linked to a Wikimedian's user page elsewhere. Not everyone links the name, so it wouldn't be foolproof.
I tried to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch for this but evidently it only indexes [external style links] not [[w:interwiki links]].
CT could maybe read {{information}} for that purpose.
Regards,
Flo
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:33:44 +1000:
At any rate you prompted me to set up a project I had in the back of my head for a while...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project and specifically http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/enwikip...
please join, start similar pages for other projects, etc.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Outreach_Project/dewikip... up and running.
Regards,
Flo