We currently have a lot of images without the information tag. Without it the authorship of an image may be unclear. (Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Olive-tree-fruit-august...)
Would it be a bad idea to have a campaign to get the {{Information}} template used on *all* our images?
On 06/09/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We currently have a lot of images without the information tag. Without it the authorship of an image may be unclear. (Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Olive-tree-fruit-august...) Would it be a bad idea to have a campaign to get the {{Information}} template used on *all* our images?
No, it'd be a fantastic idea. The more machine-readable our metadata is, the better. {{information}}-templating could be a useful bit of goldfarming for prospective admins to get on with ;-)
- d.
On 9/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We currently have a lot of images without the information tag. Without it the authorship of an image may be unclear. (Example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Olive-tree-fruit-august... )
Would it be a bad idea to have a campaign to get the {{Information}} template used on *all* our images?
Definitely a good idea. There should be an announcement on the village pump and maybe a sitenotice with a link to the thread, even. Remind people that all their uploads should use the template, that they should go through old uploads and add it, etc...
On 9/6/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely a good idea. There should be an announcement on the village pump and maybe a sitenotice with a link to the thread, even. Remind people that all their uploads should use the template, that they should go through old uploads and add it, etc...
I think we're doing okay on new uploads.. it's mostly old things (especially things transferred from other projects) which are problematic.
Before we begin the great campaign we should produce a list of best practices.
Does anyone disagree with these:
*Copy descriptive text into the description field. **Wrap it with a language template like {{en|this is a description}}. This encourages translation. **Be sure to wikilink useful words in the description back to the Wikipedia articles for that languages.
*Make sure the author field indicates the actual author and not just the uploader. Try to provide a link to the author if possible. For authors who are Wikimedians you should always be able to link to their userpage. **If you can't determine who the author is the image should probably be tagged for deletion.
*Never leave an image without one or more appropriate categories. An image without categorization is lost.
*If there is detailed enough location data consider [[Commons:Geocoding|geocoding]] the image.
*If the image has EXIF it may contain useful information, such as a creation date.
*May bad images and copyright violations are lurking in our old images. Apply good judgement: If something looks bad do something about it, don't just mindlessly update the page and move on. You are not a bot.
We have a nice message in a template for this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Please_tag_images
Cheers!
Siebrand
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Namens Gregory Maxwell Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2007 19:19 Aan: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] The great {{Information}} campaign
On 9/6/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely a good idea. There should be an announcement on the village pump and maybe a sitenotice with a link to the thread, even. Remind people that all their uploads should use the template, that they should go through old uploads and add it, etc...
I think we're doing okay on new uploads.. it's mostly old things (especially things transferred from other projects) which are problematic.
Before we begin the great campaign we should produce a list of best practices.
Does anyone disagree with these:
*Copy descriptive text into the description field. **Wrap it with a language template like {{en|this is a description}}. This encourages translation. **Be sure to wikilink useful words in the description back to the Wikipedia articles for that languages.
*Make sure the author field indicates the actual author and not just the uploader. Try to provide a link to the author if possible. For authors who are Wikimedians you should always be able to link to their userpage. **If you can't determine who the author is the image should probably be tagged for deletion.
*Never leave an image without one or more appropriate categories. An image without categorization is lost.
*If there is detailed enough location data consider [[Commons:Geocoding|geocoding]] the image.
*If the image has EXIF it may contain useful information, such as a creation date.
*May bad images and copyright violations are lurking in our old images. Apply good judgement: If something looks bad do something about it, don't just mindlessly update the page and move on. You are not a bot.
On 9/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
Definitely a good idea. There should be an announcement on the village pump and maybe a sitenotice with a link to the thread, even. Remind people that all their uploads should use the template, that they should go through old uploads and add it, etc...
I think we're doing okay on new uploads.. it's mostly old things (especially things transferred from other projects) which are problematic.
For completeness's sake:
Transfers done using my CommonsHelper will have {{information}}, filled with appropriate values from the source, or some (good!) guesswork if the source does not use {{Information}}.
To add {{Information}} to an existing image, try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/add_information.php (well, once the toolserver is working again;-)
Also, I just created [[MediaWiki:AddInformation.js]], which displays "Add {{Information}}" link in the toolbox, linking to above toolserver page. Only if the image doesn't contain {{Information}}, of course. And yes, will work as advertised, when the stars^W toolserver is right again ;-)
To find all YOUR images that lack {{Information}} (or any user), try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/mynoinfo.php (again, toolserver is broken)
'nuf said.
Magnus
"Magnus Manske" magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:10:46 +0100:
[...]
To add {{Information}} to an existing image, try http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/add_information.php (well, once the toolserver is working again;-)
A few requests about that one:
* What about linking to the meta page in the summary instead of the long link?
* Mark the edits as minor ones
* Give the opportunity to watch the pictures by default
Also, I just created [[MediaWiki:AddInformation.js]], which displays "Add {{Information}}" link in the toolbox, linking to above toolserver page. Only if the image doesn't contain {{Information}}, of course. And yes, will work as advertised, when the stars^W toolserver is right again ;-)
Maybe you want to include a link that inserts {{information}} into the textarea without using your script. See [[User:Flominator/monobook.js]] for suggestions ;)
Best regards,
Flo
"Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote on Thursday, September 06, 2007 7:18 PM:
Does anyone disagree with these:
*Copy descriptive text into the description field. **Wrap it with a language template like {{en|this is a description}}. This encourages translation. **Be sure to wikilink useful words in the description back to the Wikipedia articles for that languages.
What about linking to gallery pages insteadt of Wikipedia articles?
**If you can't determine who the author is the image should probably be tagged for deletion.
... except it is old enough!
Regards,
Flo
Le 9/6/07 5:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
Would it be a bad idea to have a campaign to get the {{Information}} template used on *all* our images?
As is, yes, it is. 'Information' doesn't structure very well the information. I don't understand why we need both 'source' and 'author' fields. 'Author' is confusing: a lot of people (I used to count amongst them), when describing an artwork, think that the field pertains to the author of the said artwork. Ditto with 'Date'. 'Permission' is redundant with the 'licensing' section: the default value is 'see below'... 'Description' turns into a mess when the description is long.
There are better description templates on Commons, such as {{Painting}} or the ones derived from {{Meta information museum}}. These are specific templates, which means the information structure is tailored to the content. {{Meta information museum}} for instance was modelled after real museum captions.
If {{Information}} is truly to become our standard template, it needs serious rethinking. It could be the union of all the specialized fields ('credit line' for a museum exhibit, 'right ascension' and 'declination' for an astronomical image, etc.). This meta-template would be instantiated for specialized cases. The basic instance of this meta-template would just contain a few fields, as is the case now for {{Information}}. Very specialized templates, such as {{Information Glyptothek Munich}}, would contain a dozen fields, maybe more, and could be customized (colour schemes, nicely formatted titles, etc.). This way, a newbie can upload an image and use the default basic instance. Power users can migrate easily to a more sophisticated template, because all fields are the same.
Another possibility is to have a single template which contains all possible fields for all users, very few of them being mandatory and all others being optional. By default, the template would appear with only the mandatory fields. A power user could add as many fields as needed. It's mostly equivalent, except that you loose nice customization possibilities.
Jastrow
On 9/6/07, Jastrow jastrow@pip-pip.org wrote:
If {{Information}} is truly to become our standard template, it needs serious rethinking.
[snip]
You're a bit late: It already is the standard.. it's use is directed by the upload forms and it is used on most images.
Not that there isn't room for improvement. .. the completely unstructured data on a lot of our older images and imports from other projects is simply terrible.
"Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:55:30 -0400:
On 9/6/07, Jastrow jastrow@pip-pip.org wrote:
If {{Information}} is truly to become our standard template, it needs serious rethinking.
[snip]
You're a bit late: It already is the standard.. it's use is directed by the upload forms and it is used on most images.
Not that there isn't room for improvement. .. the completely unstructured data on a lot of our older images and imports from other projects is simply terrible.
Full ACK, but let's keep {{painting}} as standard for paitings. Even Magnus' tool accepts that one.
Regards,
Flo
On 9/6/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Gregory Maxwell" gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:55:30 -0400: Full ACK, but let's keep {{painting}} as standard for paitings. Even Magnus' tool accepts that one.
Right I wasn't intending to suggest any changes on images which already have an information-like template. My concern is the large number of images with no information-like template at all.. I should make that clear.
I think that ultimately all the other ones, like painting, should eventually be collapsed into information (by giving it different modes or making fields optional).. but that could be a largely automated change that we can handle later.
Le 9/6/07 10:25 PM, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
Right I wasn't intending to suggest any changes on images which already have an information-like template. My concern is the large number of images with no information-like template at all.. I should make that clear.
Turns out we agree on everything :-)
I think that ultimately all the other ones, like painting, should eventually be collapsed into information (by giving it different modes or making fields optional).. but that could be a largely automated change that we can handle later.
Why not do it now?
Jastrow
Le 9/6/07 9:55 PM, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
You're a bit late: It already is the standard.. it's use is directed by the upload forms and it is used on most images.
I know all of that. As of now, {{Information}} is not the standard in the sense as it's not supposed to be used on *all* images, even those which are already described by a better template.
Almost all pictures representing Louvre exhibits are described with {{Information Louvre}}. That means more than 2,500 pictures. I know we have more than a million files on Commons now, but we're talking about 2,500 pictures with name of the artist, description, medium, dimensions, credit line, accession number, precise location in the museum and correct author attribution. Using {{Information}} for those pictures would be a plain, simple regression.
Not that there isn't room for improvement. .. the completely unstructured data on a lot of our older images and imports from other projects is simply terrible.
Which is exactly what my precedent message was adressing.
Jastrow
On 9/6/07, Jastrow jastrow@pip-pip.org wrote:
Using {{Information}} for those pictures would be a plain, simple regression.
You misunderstood what I was suggesting. I'm sorry for not being more clear.
Jastrow wrote:
Le 9/6/07 9:55 PM, Gregory Maxwell a écrit :
You're a bit late: It already is the standard.. it's use is directed by the upload forms and it is used on most images.
I know all of that. As of now, {{Information}} is not the standard in the sense as it's not supposed to be used on *all* images, even those which are already described by a better template.
Almost all pictures representing Louvre exhibits are described with {{Information Louvre}}. That means more than 2,500 pictures. I know we have more than a million files on Commons now, but we're talking about 2,500 pictures with name of the artist, description, medium, dimensions, credit line, accession number, precise location in the museum and correct author attribution. Using {{Information}} for those pictures would be a plain, simple regression.
Not that there isn't room for improvement. .. the completely unstructured data on a lot of our older images and imports from other projects is simply terrible.
Which is exactly what my precedent message was adressing.
Jastrow
Agree. We don't need to have ONE template on ALL images, we can (and should) have a number of templates, as long as it's documented. Ie. we have a page listing all of "valid" templates and describing its arguments. If a bot knows that Information_Louvre->source is equivalent to Information->Author it can happily work with any of them being present. Just keep it documented (and a working parsing implementation).
Another example are PD books templates. They have everything about the image "Page X from book Y, by Foo on Year on public domain". Here the source & author values for the template would be hardcoded.
Agree. We don't need to have ONE template on ALL images, we can (and should) have a number of templates
[...]
If a bot knows that Information_Louvre->source is equivalent to Information->Author it can happily work with any of them being present.
But wouldn't it be smarter to split {{Information Louvre}} into {{Information}} and {{Louvre}}, and use as many of the fields in Information as possible and put additional data into the louvre template. This way even a dumb bot could harvest some data from the image page (without knowledge about tons of special purpose templates).
On 9/6/07, Dschwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
But wouldn't it be smarter to split {{Information Louvre}} into {{Information}} and {{Louvre}}, and use as many of the fields in Information as possible and put additional data into the louvre template. This way even a dumb bot could harvest some data from the image page (without knowledge about tons of special purpose templates).
Exactly! +1. Just split out the duplicate fields. At lest then there is exactly one uniform way to read the data which is common.
There would also be value in doing the same with narrower and narrower sets of data ... a {{Information painting}} which has fields which are common to all paintings but not common to all images (and optional fields common to most),.. then {{Information Louvre}} would be left with only those fields which are really unique to works in the louvre. (location/catalog information).
On 9/6/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/6/07, Dschwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
But wouldn't it be smarter to split {{Information Louvre}} into {{Information}} and {{Louvre}}, and use as many of the fields in Information as possible and put additional data into the louvre template. This way even a dumb bot could harvest some data from the image page (without knowledge about tons of special purpose templates).
Exactly! +1. Just split out the duplicate fields. At lest then there is exactly one uniform way to read the data which is common.
There would also be value in doing the same with narrower and narrower sets of data ... a {{Information painting}} which has fields which are common to all paintings but not common to all images (and optional fields common to most),.. then {{Information Louvre}} would be left with only those fields which are really unique to works in the louvre. (location/catalog information).
The way I see it, there are three possible ways for a bot to get meta information about an image from a template: 1. From the wiki text 2. From the rendered HTML 3. From some future to-be-automatically-generated page:template:variable_key:value data set
#1 is hard/impossible to do correctly (though it might work in many cases), as only the MediaWiki parser can parse this stuff correctly (mor or less...). #2 is correct (since it was done by the MediaWiki parser), but slow. #3 IMHO is the only long-term solution. I have proposed this several times, on several lists. Last thing I heard, semantic wikipedia will take care of it. As soon as it get installed, on Commons...
Maybe I will erite an extension for that. It won't get installed, as usual, but it might be fun to do. And then I can complain even more! :-)
Magnus
Why don't we start a page [[Commons:The ultimate information template]] and brainstorm all the possible fields in all the possible domains we will have, and maybe then it will be a bit clearer if we should be using a single template to cover them all, or what. (For example should audio and video have the same fields? Will they need extra fields?)
If the devs came to us today and said "OK, we're going to implement a big structured database for you, what fields do you want?", we should be prepared about how we will answer. :)
Should we have specialised templates that people subst: that become {{information}} (or whatever we call this Ultimate Template), for example?
We should also be careful to get input from lots of high-volume uploaders, since they are likely to be the most affected by any changes.
cheers, Brianna
On 07/09/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We currently have a lot of images without the information tag. Without it the authorship of an image may be unclear. (Example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Olive-tree-fruit-august...)
Would it be a bad idea to have a campaign to get the {{Information}} template used on *all* our images?
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:18:23 +1000:
Why don't we start a page [[Commons:The ultimate information template]] and brainstorm all the possible fields in all the possible domains we will have, and maybe then it will be a bit clearer if we should be using a single template to cover them all, or what. (For example should audio and video have the same fields? Will they need extra fields?)
Been there, done that ;)
Regards,
Flo
On 07/09/07, Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net wrote:
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:18:23 +1000:
Why don't we start a page [[Commons:The ultimate information template]] and brainstorm all the possible fields in all the possible domains we will have, and maybe then it will be a bit clearer if we should be using a single template to cover them all, or what. (For example should audio and video have the same fields? Will they need extra fields?)
Been there, done that ;)
Well for those of us who weren't there would you mind providing slightly more context??
This list has over 300 subscribers, so injokes without context are not much help...
regards, Brianna
"Brianna Laugher" brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:18:24 +1000:
Why don't we start a page [[Commons:The ultimate information template]] and brainstorm all the possible fields in all the possible domains we will have, and maybe then it will be a bit clearer if we should be using a single template to cover them all, or what. (For example should audio and video have the same fields? Will they need extra fields?)
Been there, done that ;)
Well for those of us who weren't there would you mind providing slightly more context??
This list has over 300 subscribers, so injokes without context are not much help...
Sorry: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:The_ultimate_information
Flo
Hi list,
---Selon Florian Straub Flominator@gmx.net:
Why don't we start a page [[Commons:The ultimate information template]] and brainstorm
Been there, done that ;)
Actually, it is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:The_ultimate_information
Somme additional thoughts were already preexisting (in French) on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Meta_information_museum They mostly are the same that we had since yesterday on this list :)
Best regards from France,