Hey Yaroslav and Asaf,
From the SDC team perspective, I think it would definitely be preferable
for such a tool to include/anticipate the need for structured data on Commons, or default to filling in Depicts and/or other structure data fields. Building more tools which generate categories by default would definitely be a bit counter-productive (and hard on multilingual contributors). One option, might be designing such a tool to work with Artworks and other unique objects (like photographs) already on Wikidata, and then have it prepared to hook up with the Wikibase/Structured data features that will go live on Commons in the fall.
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Absolutely; I wanted to know if such a tool perhaps already exists. If one does not, then definitely, if we develop a tool, it should look to the future and be based on Structured Data on Commons already!
A.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:54 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do Structured Commons folks want to comment?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi, folks.
It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images
donated
en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X
collection"
or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and re-use. But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would
let a
volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a pre-fed
list
of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no categorization
by
content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like HotCat)
some
appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be added,
and
the next file shown.
(Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous
volunteers'
categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only
take
place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories. I'm not at all
sure
this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it
goes.)
So, does something like this exist? If not, who wants to build it? :)
A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I'd be more concern that the game throws up very generic and vague descriptions like, person, ship, cat, dog, tree, flowers, street. Which in itself might seem helpful but may not even highlight the important aspect.
- Would a bot doing an initial keyword search of the description be more effective - descriptions should already have a language code embedded. - I would hope many of the GLAMs have embedded keywords in the meta data/camera info which could be extracted like co-ords are.
On 7 June 2018 at 02:07, Alex Stinson via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey Yaroslav and Asaf,
From the SDC team perspective, I think it would definitely be preferable for such a tool to include/anticipate the need for structured data on Commons, or default to filling in Depicts and/or other structure data fields. Building more tools which generate categories by default would definitely be a bit counter-productive (and hard on multilingual contributors). One option, might be designing such a tool to work with Artworks and other unique objects (like photographs) already on Wikidata, and then have it prepared to hook up with the Wikibase/Structured data features that will go live on Commons in the fall.
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Absolutely; I wanted to know if such a tool perhaps already exists. If one does not, then definitely, if we develop a tool, it should look to the future and be based on Structured Data on Commons already!
A.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:54 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do Structured Commons folks want to comment?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi, folks.
It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images
donated
en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X
collection"
or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and re-use. But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would
let a
volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a pre-fed
list
of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no
categorization
by
content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like HotCat)
some
appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be
added,
and
the next file shown.
(Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous
volunteers'
categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only
take
place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories. I'm not at all
sure
this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it
goes.)
So, does something like this exist? If not, who wants to build it? :)
A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Alex Stinson GLAM-Wiki Strategist Wikimedia Foundation Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Two thoughts directly to this:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be more concern that the game throws up very generic and vague descriptions like, person, ship, cat, dog, tree, flowers, street. Which in itself might seem helpful but may not even highlight the important aspect.
Pushing images into narrower, but still generic, topic areas allows folks who know more about, for example, ships or dog species or whatever, to narrow the topic into something specific. We already do this in many ways within the way folks use the category system on Commons -- it could be done with structured data as well.
We would also want some type of confidence factor, I would think, especially if we want the tool to appeal to newer folks in the community -- with less depth of experience working in our information structure. Zooniverse and other similar visual-identification crowdsourcing projects, usually have 2-3 volunteers confirm something before adding it directly to the record.
- I would hope many of the GLAMs have embedded keywords in the meta
data/camera info which could be extracted like co-ords are.
You would be surprised at how bad the metadata is in most collections --
only the most high profile collections will have good metadata (and one perceived benefit of sharing GLAM content in public venues is the chance to enrich metadata, by discovering details about the objects, that previously the staff didn't know how to recognize). Wikimedia projects are really good places to get mildly obscure collections (such as archival photos, or under-researched museum objects) into the context of Wikimedia content. Moreover, it's really hard to assess how to map these metadata concepts to Wikimedia categories. We actually saw this come up again and again in the GLAM stakeholder research for commons: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Supporting_Commons_contribution_by_...
On 7 June 2018 at 02:07, Alex Stinson via Commons-l < commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey Yaroslav and Asaf,
From the SDC team perspective, I think it would definitely be preferable for such a tool to include/anticipate the need for structured data on Commons, or default to filling in Depicts and/or other structure data fields. Building more tools which generate categories by default would definitely be a bit counter-productive (and hard on multilingual contributors). One option, might be designing such a tool to work with Artworks and other unique objects (like photographs) already on Wikidata, and then have it prepared to hook up with the Wikibase/Structured data features that will go live on Commons in the fall.
Cheers,
Alex
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Absolutely; I wanted to know if such a tool perhaps already exists. If one does not, then definitely, if we develop a tool, it should look to the future and be based on Structured Data on Commons already!
A.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:54 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is pretty similar to what we have built in Wikidata, Do Structured Commons folks want to comment?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi, folks.
It occurs to me there are tens or hundreds of thousands of images
donated
en masse (GLAM etc.) that are only categorized as "image from X
collection"
or "Files donated by X", i.e. essentially uncategorized by content.
This obviously greatly reduces the likelihood of discoverability and re-use. But it's hard to find such files, and the massive categories (thousands of files, often) don't make organizing the work easy.
I'm think of a gamified interface -- à la Wikidata Game -- that would
let a
volunteer (after OAuth identification) pick a category (from a
pre-fed
list
of massive categories of donated files) and show one photo from the category that has only that category listed (i.e. has no
categorization
by
content), and let the volunteer type (with auto-complete, like
HotCat)
some
appropriate categories and hit Save, and the categories would be
added,
and
the next file shown.
(Optionally, a second layer of verification could be added, where volunteers would [also] be invited to vet or change previous
volunteers'
categorization, and actual change to categories on Commons would only
take
place after 2 (or N) users approved the categories. I'm not at all
sure
this is needed, and I think we can start without it and see how it
goes.)
So, does something like this exist? If not, who wants to build it?
:)
A. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Alex Stinson GLAM-Wiki Strategist Wikimedia Foundation Twitter:@glamwiki/@sadads
Learn more about how the communities behind Wikipedia, Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects partner with cultural heritage organizations: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- GN. Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never Again: Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, 2017. Order here https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 .