I hear many time that people think this is a great project, but in fact the Commons' administrators were quite hostile towards it from its very beginning. Like in many other issues, most of the complaints were technical, but I cannot believe that technicalities are the problem here. None of the images lack source. The person who contributed the images and relinquished his/her copyrights is always mentioned, but not in the field where the administrators expect it. The fact that the "description" template is produced automatically makes this minor error very easy to ignore or fix. An administrator merely needs to look two lines below, and if it is really disturbing, an automated process can fix the error in the future. Many people upload images manually and the risk of error there is much higher. The fact that these technicalities were enough to block the project (not the bot, but the whole project, as this bot is actually the door between the localized interface and the Commons) makes me wonder whether these technicalities are just an excuse.
The Commons, the Wikipedias, the Foundation and the chapters are all part of one structure. The Commons' administrators have more privileges than any other element in this structure. They are entrusted with a huge international project, seen by people from five continents, they are selected for indefinite period of time, and they don't have to reveal their identity. It is also unclear who they are accountable to. These privileges mean that the administrators need to be extremely careful and cooperative. The fact that none of the administrators ever thought of contacting a chapter to consult it about local copyright arrangements or to suggest project related to the Commons is an indication that most administrators are not aware of the structure within which they operate, and don't understand the way Wikimedia works.
Being an administrator at the Commons doesn't necessarily mean deleting images whose source is unclear or approving controversial material on the account that it is "educational". Being an administrator also, and most importantly, means knowing the way the Wikimedia movement works, being interested in new projects, offering help, and being fully cooperative with new initiatives. Think about it - had one of the administrators sent a template code to the email of the Pikiwiki project, the whole "source issue" would have been resolved. However, the administrators chose to take a passive approach, complain about the minor error without explaining it properly, and blocking the project eventually. This is not how things should work. The administrators also must remember that the rules are there to serve the community. It is not the community that need to serve the rules. The spirit of the project always comes before the technical rules. If obeying the rules becomes more important than the spirit of the project, then it's a sign that the project is decaying.
Dror K
Hi Dror
Why not discuss this on wiki?
Michael
Dror Kamir wrote:
I hear many time that people think this is a great project, but in fact the Commons' administrators were quite hostile towards it from its very beginning. Like in many other issues, most of the complaints were technical, but I cannot believe that technicalities are the problem here. None of the images lack source. The person who contributed the images and relinquished his/her copyrights is always mentioned, but not in the field where the administrators expect it. The fact that the "description" template is produced automatically makes this minor error very easy to ignore or fix. An administrator merely needs to look two lines below, and if it is really disturbing, an automated process can fix the error in the future. Many people upload images manually and the risk of error there is much higher. The fact that these technicalities were enough to block the project (not the bot, but the whole project, as this bot is actually the door between the localized interface and the Commons) makes me wonder whether these technicalities are just an excuse.
The Commons, the Wikipedias, the Foundation and the chapters are all part of one structure. The Commons' administrators have more privileges than any other element in this structure. They are entrusted with a huge international project, seen by people from five continents, they are selected for indefinite period of time, and they don't have to reveal their identity. It is also unclear who they are accountable to. These privileges mean that the administrators need to be extremely careful and cooperative. The fact that none of the administrators ever thought of contacting a chapter to consult it about local copyright arrangements or to suggest project related to the Commons is an indication that most administrators are not aware of the structure within which they operate, and don't understand the way Wikimedia works.
Being an administrator at the Commons doesn't necessarily mean deleting images whose source is unclear or approving controversial material on the account that it is "educational". Being an administrator also, and most importantly, means knowing the way the Wikimedia movement works, being interested in new projects, offering help, and being fully cooperative with new initiatives. Think about it - had one of the administrators sent a template code to the email of the Pikiwiki project, the whole "source issue" would have been resolved. However, the administrators chose to take a passive approach, complain about the minor error without explaining it properly, and blocking the project eventually. This is not how things should work. The administrators also must remember that the rules are there to serve the community. It is not the community that need to serve the rules. The spirit of the project always comes before the technical rules. If obeying the rules becomes more important than the spirit of the project, then it's a sign that the project is decaying.
Dror K
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Dror Kamir wrote:
I hear many time that people think this is a great project, but in fact the Commons' administrators were quite hostile towards it from its very beginning. Like in many other issues, most of the complaints were technical, but I cannot believe that technicalities are the problem here. None of the images lack source. The person who contributed the images and relinquished his/her copyrights is always mentioned, but not in the field where the administrators expect it.
The fact that the "description" template is produced automatically makes this minor error very easy to ignore or fix. An administrator merely needs to look two lines below, and if it is really disturbing, an automated process can fix the error in the future
The automated uploading process should upload it right the first time. It should be a two line fix in the bot code. Making a second bot to fix it is harder and well, it's quite stupid to have two bots, one for uploading it wrongly and a second one to fix its mess.
Many people upload images manually and the risk of error there is much higher. The fact that these technicalities were enough to block the project (not the bot, but the whole project, as this bot is actually the door between the localized interface and the Commons) makes me wonder whether these technicalities are just an excuse.
Blocking a bot is never to block its operator or whatever the bot is doing, it's just a way to force it to stop until the operator can fix the problem it has. When the problems are fixed, it will be unblocked.
Think about it - had one of the administrators sent a template code to the email of the Pikiwiki project, the whole "source issue" would have been resolved.
Are you accompaning this with a template of where the source is? Are you providing the code so an administrator can fix your bot? Are you providing the bot to fix the description of your uploaded images? It's easy to rant against the administrators. But you must also do the things right in order to be able to. A bot uploads hundred of images, which mean a lot of work if something goes wrong. That's why there's much more important to get things right the first time.
And no, your bot is not the only case. We didn't take a dislike on you or pikiwiki. Simply, we -the people at commons- want things done RIGHT. You ranted about what being an administrator meant. Perhaps we should rant now about what is needed to create a project. Not just making an upload bot. Would that be nice? I don't think so. Measure your words and calm down, please.
Perhaps there shouldn't be a single person going back and forth between Pikiwiki and Commons. Perhaps the programmer should come here to learn what is expected from him, and so on.
We the people of the Commos? And what am I? A stranger? By this saying alone you prove my point that there is a serious problem with the way this project is perceived by its administrators.
- The upload bot uses a standard Commons' template. I didn't see any rigid rules about how this template should be filled in. We did our best to fill it in properly. In any case, all the information needed is there. Some amendments can and will be made, but blocking the project for placing the "source" information two lines below where expected?? Having a bot which will fix minor errors in previously uploaded template is not as hard as you suggest.
- People who upload images to the Pikiwiki interface sign a legally binding statement in Hebrew. There is no use showing you the statement unless you speak Hebrew. I can translate it, but why on earth don't you trust the word of a recognized Wikimedia chapter, and two known Israeli NGOs that all they do is legal? Especially as the names of the contributors are available to you.
- The images contributed are saved on the Commons. They are saved temporarily before they are uploaded and then deleted from the temporary server. By blocking the upload bot you caused a jam at the temporary server, and quite soon the whole project will freeze, as people won't be able to keep loading images.
Dror K
I haven't been involved in this, but I'll add my 2 Eurocent...
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Dror Kamirdqamir@bezeqint.net wrote:
- The upload bot uses a standard Commons' template. I didn't see any
rigid rules about how this template should be filled in. We did our best to fill it in properly. In any case, all the information needed is there. Some amendments can and will be made, but blocking the project for placing the "source" information two lines below where expected??
Sounds like it will take only a minute to fix in the upload bot. Is that done by now?
- People who upload images to the Pikiwiki interface sign a legally
binding statement in Hebrew. There is no use showing you the statement unless you speak Hebrew. I can translate it, but why on earth don't you trust the word of a recognized Wikimedia chapter, and two known Israeli NGOs that all they do is legal? Especially as the names of the contributors are available to you.
Could a (low-res) scan of each of these statements be automatically mailed (or otherwise transfered) to OTRS?
- The images contributed are saved on the Commons. They are saved
temporarily before they are uploaded and then deleted from the temporary server. By blocking the upload bot you caused a jam at the temporary server, and quite soon the whole project will freeze, as people won't be able to keep loading images.
Is the temporary server running out of disk space? Hard to imagine these days. If it's not cheap disk space, then what is causing the "jam"?
Cheers, Magnus
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Dror Kamirdqamir@bezeqint.net wrote: [snip]
- Yes, but it still takes some time, and I don't see why the project should
be halted in the meantime. Furthermore, if the administrators want to be cooperative about this project, they might as well provide the code for a template which will satisfy them. Why take the risk of further misunderstandings?
"What do I need to do to satisfy your request?" is a most reasonable response.
And when this crisis is resolved, can we have a guarantee that sudden blocks will not happen again?
Of course not. Your access to the site is provided without warranty. :) Design your workflow accordingly.
If the software malfunctions it may be necessary to block it. It is possible that it could get blocked as collateral damage in an attempt to block a trouble maker. The site can go down. People can make mistakes.
Increased understanding and awareness is justified, but that a tool is automated is more justification to use blocking as an early remedy rather than justification to avoid blocking it. After all, a non-automated task can be almost instantly interrupted and corrected with a polite talk page note. There is little point to warning something that can't read. You shouldn't take offence at the blocking of an automated process, it doesn't have the same significance as blocking does against human accounts.
Generally when your bot is blocked the blocking actually saves you work: Rather than finding yourself obligated to correct potentially hundreds or thousands of problematic edits (often requiring the creation of another automated task) you can usually just fix the forward working behaviour and hand correct a couple problematic edits that were made before the bot was stopped.
Hello,
Dror Kamir wrote:
- People who upload images to the Pikiwiki interface sign a legally
binding statement in Hebrew. There is no use showing you the statement unless you speak Hebrew. I can translate it, but why on earth don't you trust the word of a recognized Wikimedia chapter, and two known Israeli NGOs that all they do is legal? Especially as the names of the contributors are available to you.
Could a (low-res) scan of each of these statements be automatically mailed (or otherwise transfered) to OTRS?
- We have the statement in Hebrew and a list of people who signed it.
The interface is built in a way that prevents uploads unless the statement is signed. What exactly should I send the OTRS?
I would say, send a copy of the statement in Hebrew and a list of people who signed it. Then the bot can include the OTRS permission in the description. That is how other upload projects work, and all what people demand.
Regards,
Yann
Hello,
Is it really needed to keep making new topic's?
I mean all the discussion about pikiwiki could stay in one place and will be easy to find when the are archived. Now we already have 3 topics about pikiwiki and 2 about latuff.
I would prefer to keep them togheter.
Huib
The problem is the interface of the mailing list. Unless you get every single message to your email address (an option which I had to choose eventually), you keep creating new subjects. I had to subscribe to several mailing lists, and my mailbox is quite loaded. If I want to read the messages through the archive and send responses there, new subjects are created. If you choose to receive a daily digest - the same problem occurs.
Dror
ציטוט Huib!:
Hello,
Is it really needed to keep making new topic's?
I mean all the discussion about pikiwiki could stay in one place and will be easy to find when the are archived. Now we already have 3 topics about pikiwiki and 2 about latuff.
I would prefer to keep them togheter.
Huib
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Dror Kamir wrote:
We the people of the Commos? And what am I? A stranger? By this saying alone you prove my point that there is a serious problem with the way this project is perceived by its administrators.
Commons is atypical in the sense that it has much more people in the boundary of its community, using commons to host the files but not staying enough to understand how it works. If you were so integrated into the community, you wouldn't probably have had so much templating problems. That doesn't mean it's your fault, Images is one of the most complex tasks at our wikis. How much maintenance have you done at commons?
- The upload bot uses a standard Commons' template. I didn't see any
rigid rules about how this template should be filled in. We did our best to fill it in properly. In any case, all the information needed is there. Some amendments can and will be made, but blocking the project for placing the "source" information two lines below where expected?? Having a bot which will fix minor errors in previously uploaded template is not as hard as you suggest.
Then I expect you to make it in a couple of hours and either provide it to us or run it yourself. :) Glad you see it that way, having it available and running before resuming uploads shouldn't then be a problem for you.
- The images contributed are saved on the Commons. They are saved
temporarily before they are uploaded and then deleted from the temporary server. By blocking the upload bot you caused a jam at the temporary server, and quite soon the whole project will freeze, as people won't be able to keep loading images.
Dror K
I understood that it was kept *both* at pikiwiki and commons. I now understand why you considered it so important and didn't stop the bot when problems arose.
2009/6/8 Platonides Platonides@gmail.com
Dror Kamir wrote:
- The images contributed are saved on the Commons. They are saved
temporarily before they are uploaded and then deleted from the temporary server. By blocking the upload bot you caused a jam at the temporary server, and quite soon the whole project will freeze, as people won't be able to keep loading images.
Dror K
I understood that it was kept *both* at pikiwiki and commons. I now understand why you considered it so important and didn't stop the bot when problems arose.
I'm following this talk with increasing uncomfortableness. Please tell me: why aren't Pikiwiki users simply strongly encouraged to post their images into Commons directly by themselves? Why this intermediate step?
Alex
I don't know if this message will be placed in the right thread. I didn't get it to my email, so I had to read it through the archive. Anyway, this is a response to Alex Brollo's question.
The fact is that people are reluctant to contribute images to the Commons. This is our observation for Israel, and I think other chapters around the world have similar observations about their countries.
The Hebrew interface of the Commons is not easy to handle, and English is a foreign language to most Israelis. The number of license tags is huge, most of them are irrelevant to the Israeli user. Communication with the Commons' administrators is often impossible due to the language barrier, and the need to place a description template, which is actually a code, is quite frightening to most technophobic people, and there are plenty of them.
An localized interface makes uploading images much more friendly. The users can see only the the licenses relevant to them, read them in Hebrew, communicate with a Hebrew speaking team etc. The fact that the localized interface is dedicated to Israeli history and to the region's views is very helpful for PR. It is easier to convince people to contribute by saying: "your country needs you - contribute to the heritage of your own country" or something like that. We often limit it even further, and call upon people to contribute to their city's or village's heritage, because this gives a lot of motivation to contributors.
Teachers and instructors feel more comfortable to view the images with their pupils via a localized Israeli interface in Hebrew, so this way we can have better exposure to the Wikimedia projects.
I think I've brought here quite a lot of reasons, but I could probably think of some more.
Dror K
2009/6/8 Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net:
English is a foreign language to most Israelis. The number of license tags is huge, most of them are irrelevant to the Israeli user. […] the need to place a description template, which is actually a code […] An localized interface makes uploading images much more friendly.
I wonder, when did you see the Commons interface the last time? On http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=he, you get localized interface, asking the user to fill a form (no template code required), with a selection of the basic licenses etc. It might not be perfect, but we are trying.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
2009/6/8 Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net:
The Hebrew interface of the Commons is not easy to handle, and English is a foreign language to most Israelis. The number of license tags is huge, most of them are irrelevant to the Israeli user. Communication with the Commons' administrators is often impossible due to the language barrier, and the need to place a description template, which is actually a code, is quite frightening to most technophobic people, and there are plenty of them.
Yes, the interface is horrible even in English.
(And the resulting File: page. Have you ever tried to explain over the phone to someone where the licensing information is on a web page? Fun!)
Has anything the WMF usability initiative has done seem helpful to you? That concentrated on English, but horrible interfaces cross language boundaries ...
- d.
Hello,
This could be a long shot but it is just a idea..
Isn't it a idea to create a uploadform special made for the pikiwiki-projekt?
If the Hebrew crew gives the info what needs to come on the form we could create a easy one..
If the crew also makes sure the needed templates are translated we will be half way there.
I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm trying to help...
P.S Could you change your settings for this list untill we are done with all the discussions.. Its no big deal but it helps
Huib
That is a very good idea, in fact.
About the settings - I've changed them and it still doesn't work properly. I'll check again.
Dror K
ציטוט Huib!:
Hello,
This could be a long shot but it is just a idea..
Isn't it a idea to create a uploadform special made for the pikiwiki-projekt?
If the Hebrew crew gives the info what needs to come on the form we could create a easy one..
If the crew also makes sure the needed templates are translated we will be half way there.
I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm trying to help...
P.S Could you change your settings for this list untill we are done with all the discussions.. Its no big deal but it helps
Huib
2009/6/8 Dror Kamir dqamir@bezeqint.net
I don't know if this message will be placed in the right thread. I didn't get it to my email, so I had to read it through the archive. Anyway, this is a response to Alex Brollo's question.
[...]
Thanks Dror
Alex