Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under a PD license with basically the same information about the photos (description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but their description and other information is not as good as could have been if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 E-mail: wossink@wikimedia.nl
*Post/bezoekadres:* Mariaplaats 3 3511 LH Utrecht
Hi,
Do the already uploaded pictures have a unique id (or some metadata that could be used as such) that would allow for an easy matching between the images on Commons and the entries in the database?
Cheers, Beat
From: GLAM [mailto:glam-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Arne Wossink Sent: Montag, 11. Juni 2018 11:02 To: Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] glam@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under a PD license with basically the same information about the photos (description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but their description and other information is not as good as could have been if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 E-mail: wossink@wikimedia.nlmailto:wossink@wikimedia.nl
Post/bezoekadres: Mariaplaats 3 3511 LH Utrecht
Yes. The catalogue ID is provided as part of the general description field.
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 E-mail: wossink@wikimedia.nl
*Post/bezoekadres:* Mariaplaats 3 3511 LH Utrecht
2018-06-11 11:07 GMT+02:00 Estermann Beat beat.estermann@bfh.ch:
Hi,
Do the already uploaded pictures have a unique id (or some metadata that could be used as such) that would allow for an easy matching between the images on Commons and the entries in the database?
Cheers,
Beat
*From:* GLAM [mailto:glam-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Arne Wossink *Sent:* Montag, 11. Juni 2018 11:02 *To:* Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] glam@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under a PD license with basically the same information about the photos (description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but their description and other information is not as good as could have been if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505
E-mail: wossink@wikimedia.nl
*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Improving image text pages with better metadata and templates falls under good housekeeping. Approaching the uploader and seeing if the improvements can be done collegiately and agreeing an approach would be the best way forward.
If there are several hundred or thousands of files, it may be worth asking for advice or volunteers to help with automation.
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests
Fae
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, 10:01 Arne Wossink, wossink@wikimedia.nl wrote:
Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under a PD license with basically the same information about the photos (description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but their description and other information is not as good as could have been if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)*
Tel. +31 (0)6 11000505 E-mail: wossink@wikimedia.nl
*Post/bezoekadres:* Mariaplaats 3 3511 LH Utrecht _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam