Is it by any chance possible to run cucumber tests under Safari on
Cloudbees? If not, are there alternative solution to running the Cucumber
tests on Safari automatically?
Greetings,
After a delay in updates to the Structured data on Commons[1] project, I
wanted to catch you up with what has been going on over the past three
months. In short: The project is on hold, but that doesn't mean nothing is
happening.
The meeting in Berlin[2] in October provided the engineering teams with a
lot to start on. Unfortunately the Structured Data on Commons project was
put on hold not too long after this meeting. Development of the actual
Structured data system for Commons will not begin until more resources can
be allocated to it.
The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have been working to improve
the Wikidata query process on the back-end. This is designed to be a
production-grade replacement of WikidataQuery integrated with search. The
full project is described at Mediawiki.org[3].This will benefit the
structured data project greatly since developing a high-level search for
Commons is a desired goal of this project.
The Wikidata development team is working on the arbitrary access feature.
Currently it's only possible to access items that are connected to the
current page. So for example on Vincent van Gogh you can access the
statements on Q5582, but you can't access these statements on Commons at
Category:Vincent van Gogh or Creator:Vincent van Gogh. With arbitrary
access enabled on Commons we no longer have this limitation. This opens up
the possibility to use Wikidata data on Creator, Institution, Authority
control and other templates instead of duplicating the data (what we do
now). This will greatly enhance the usefulness of Wikidata for Commons.
To use the full potential of arbitrary access the Commons community needs
to reimplement several templates in LUA. In LUA it's possible to use the
local fields and fallback to Wikidata if it's not locally available. Help
with this conversion is greatly appreciated. The different tasks are
tracked in Phabricator[4].
Volunteers are continuing to add data about artworks to Wikidata. Sometimes
an institution website is used and sometimes data is being transfered from
Commons to Wikidata. Wikidata now has almost 35.000 items about paintings.
This is done as part of the Wikidata WikiProject "Sum of All Paintings"[5].
This helps us to learn how to refine metadata structure about artworks.
Experience that will of course be very useful for Commons too.
Additionally, the metadata cleanup drive continues to produce results[6].
The drive, which is intended to identify files missing {{information}} or
the like structured data fields and to add such fields when absent, has
reduced the number of files missing information by almost 100,000 on
Commons. You can help by looking for files[7] with similarly-formatted
description pages, and listing them at Commons:Bots/Work requests[8] so
that a bot can add the {{information}} template on them.
At the Amsterdam Hackathon in November 2014, a couple of different models
were developed about how artwork can be viewed on the web using structured
data from Wikidata. You can browse two examples[9][10]. These examples can
give you an idea of the kind of data that file pages have the potential to
display on-wiki in the future.
The Structured Data project is a long-term one, and the volunteers and
staff will continue working together to provide the structure and support
in the back-end toward front-end development. There are still many things
to do to help advance the project, and I hope to have more news for you in
the near future. Contact me any time with questions, comments, concerns.
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data
2.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Berlin_bootcamp
3. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing
4. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89594
5. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_sum_of_all_paintings
6. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_metadata_cleanup_drive
7. https://tools.wmflabs.org/mrmetadata/commons/commons/index.html
8. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests
9. http://www.zone47.com/crotos/?p=1&p276=190804&y1=1600&y2=2014
10. http://sum.bykr.org/432253
--
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
I've done an update pass on the patch to TimedMediaHandler adding my ogv.js
JavaScript Ogg Theora/Vorbis playback engine for IE 10/11 and Safari 6.1+
users:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T63823
It now comes in two parts:
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/165477/ - libraries only
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/165478/ - TMH modifications for
desktop only
(I wasn't happy with the mobile video overlay in the third patch and have
abandoned it for now, will rewrite it soon but want to sync up with mobile
web team on integration issues.)
This version should pretty much "just work" on desktops/laptops, including
seeking, and the JS console spam should be gone now. If folks have strong
preferences on my plugin code, do let me know and I will tweak further. :)
I have a live wiki running at http://ogvjs-testing.wmflabs.org/ -- note
that thumbnail images of some videos there are broken due to some kind of
InstantCommons issue but the actual video plays through.
-- brion
Hi folks,
The multimedia team completed a review of Media Viewer in recent weeks, and we'd like to share a few highlights of what we learned from this project in 2014.
1. Research
Here are some key findings from our research about this product:
• Media Viewer serves a lot more images than before (17M intentional views/day)
• Most users keep Media Viewer enabled (99.5% enabled)
• Media Viewer key features were found easy to use
• Media Viewer is more useful for readers than active editors
More information can be found in this Media Viewer Research 2014 report:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Research_2014 <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Research_2014>
See also these companion slides for a visual presentation of more findings:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media_Viewer_Research_-_2014_Slides… <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Media_Viewer_Research_-_2014_Slides…>
2. Retrospective
The multimedia team also discussed lessons learned from this project in 2014, identifying what worked and what didn’t work, in order to inform future product development.
Here are some highlights of that team review.
The Media Viewer project ran from July 2013 to November 2014 and was more challenging than expected. While the product received favorable or neutral feedback on most Wikimedia sites, it was met with negative reactions from many contributors on the English and German Wikipedias, as well as on Wikimedia Commons. This caused the team to work longer than planned, to improve features based on user feedback.
What worked well:
• Detailed activity and performance metrics.
• Design research -- before and after implementing a feature.
• Working with community champions in different projects.
• Agile development process and tools.
• Unit tests to improve the code.
What didn't work well:
• Many community discussions did not effectively inform product development.
• Surveys were not representative, because they were optional.
• We lacked the tools to get productive feedback from different user groups.
• Juggling feature and platform development at the same time was hard.
• Scope creep; the workload kept growing beyond available resources.
• No clear success metric; we couldn't tell if we had met our goal.
More findings can be found in this Media Viewer Retrospective summary:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Retrospective
Please let us know if you have any questions about this research or retrospective. You’re also welcome to add your feedback on the Media Viewer talk page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About#Media_View…
I'm grateful to all the team members who worked on these documents, especially Gergő and Gilles. These findings can help us better understand how Media Viewer serves our users — and how we can improve not only this product but also our development and release process.
This will be my last post on behalf of the multimedia team, as I have now transitioned into a new role at the Wikimedia Foundation, working as Movement Communications Manager. Senior engineer Gilles Dubuc is now leading the multimedia team and can answer questions related to upcoming projects.
I’d like to thank all the community members who worked closely with us on this project, as well as my colleagues on the multimedia and product teams. We learned a lot together, and I really enjoyed creating a better product with you all. I look forward to more collaborations in coming years.
Regards as ever,
Fabrice
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin
Movement Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Quarterly review minutes and/or slides of the following teams have
been posted in recent days:
Multimedia:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarter…
Legal & Community Advocacy:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LCA_Q2_Slides.pdf (abridged slides only)
Fundraising and Fundraising Tech:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarter…
Communications:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Communications_WMF_Quarterly_Review…
(slides only, as a report - no actual meeting took place)
With this, documentation from all 20 quarterly review meetings that
took place about Q2 (October-December 2014) has been published.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
> corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
> and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
> starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
> to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
> Board [1]:
>
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
> - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
> - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity
>
> I'm proposing the following initial schedule:
>
> January:
> - Editor Engagement Experiments
>
> February:
> - Visual Editor
> - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)
>
> March:
> - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
> - Funds Dissemination Committee
>
> We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
> metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
> their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
> otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
> also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.
>
> My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
> review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
> meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
> discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
> which we can use to discuss the concept further:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r…
>
> The internal review will, at minimum, include:
>
> Sue Gardner
> myself
> Howie Fung
> Team members and relevant director(s)
> Designated minute-taker
>
> So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
> Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.
>
> I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
> duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:
>
> - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
> compared with goals
> - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
> - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
> - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
> action items
> - Buffer time, debriefing
>
> Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
> structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
> where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.
>
> In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
> to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
> a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
> may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
> to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
> engineering.
>
> As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
> help inform and support reviews across the organization.
>
> Feedback and questions are appreciated.
>
> All best,
> Erik
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89552 to keep track of this.
CCing the multimedia people, they are probably interested in this too.
Maarten
Daniel Schwen schreef op 9-2-2015 om 14:47:
> I'm generating a multiresolution TIF image for every file that is
> being requested (implicitly this is a "tile set"). There is no
> integration. The labs instance pulls the full res images via http. The
> processing is done with VIPS, which is what the WMF servers are using
> as well nowadays. I'd guess there would be non-trivial costs, but not
> orders of magnitude more than we already handle. The tool is currently
> strictly for incrementally streaming high resolution images. It might
> make sense to integrate it with the image annotator gadget and have
> the annotation appear in the zoomed view as well. I'm using the IIP
> Javascript and Flash clients. There really wasn't much to "implement"
> for me. The whole work was wrapping the downloading and processing in
> an AJAXy way.
> Daniel
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:19 AM, James Heald <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Nice!
>>
>> So how integrated is the hosting for that with the rest of Commons?
>>
>> I imagine it's managing its own tileset? But is that similar to what eg
>> MapWarper needs to do? Does it make sense to try to add an IIIF interface
>> provision layer to Commons as core functionality, for all such services?
>>
>> (Would that risk creating horrible potential additional processing costs for
>> the Commons hardware to cope with?)
>>
>> Also, how much of the IIIF spec are you implementing? Just the tileserving?
>> Or the full ability to be ableto request crops, rotations, overlays,
>> annotations, etc ?
>>
>> Really interested.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> James.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/02/2015 13:02, Daniel Schwen wrote:
>>> My zoomviewer for commons is based on IIF (check it out on File:Chicago.
>>> jpg for example)
>>> Daniel
>>> On Feb 9, 2015 4:05 AM, "James Heald" <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm increasingly seeing IIIF (International Image Interoperability
>>>> Framework) as a standard for serving images from repositories,
>>>> tileservers,
>>>> etc -- especially for maps.
>>>>
>>>> (eg Klokan offer an IIIF hosting service, and use it as part of the stack
>>>> for their Georeferencer; National Library of Wales for their map
>>>> projects,
>>>> etc.)
>>>>
>>>> Are people aware of IIIF ?
>>>>
>>>> Does it have advantages ?
>>>>
>>>> In the medium term, would aiming for an IIIF-compatible interface to the
>>>> proposed Wikimaps tileserver, or even main Commons itself, make any sense
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the Structured Data initiative for Commons now in the works, does it
>>>> make sense to make sure that there are properties baked in for everything
>>>> that would be needed to support IIIF? Also, to provide for any
>>>> functionality that could potentially be exposed through IIIF?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see that there are going to be quite a lot of Wikidata people at the
>>>> Europeana Tech meeting in Paris on Thursday and Friday this week; and
>>>> also
>>>> several presentations that will touch on IIIF.
>>>>
>>>> Is it worth trying to put together a heads-up for Wikidata people coming
>>>> to this cold, as a background briefing on IIIF, and why these
>>>> talks/posters
>>>> might be interesting to them?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As people with much more map experience than me, can I therefore ask
>>>> people on this list what they think of IIIF, and whether it is worth
>>>> getting on to our radar?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> James.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimaps mailing list
>>>> Wikimaps(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimaps
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimaps mailing list
>>> Wikimaps(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimaps
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimaps mailing list
>> Wikimaps(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimaps
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimaps mailing list
> Wikimaps(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimaps
Hello everyone,
What is your favorite image or media about love?
As millions prepare to celebrate Valentine’s Day around the world, we’d like to know how the topic of love is covered on Wikipedia and its sister projects, for a special blog post at the end of next week.
We’re looking for great wiki articles, images, sounds or videos on this topic -- from platonic to fraternal or romantic love.
Please add your suggestions on this email thread -- or on one of these pages:
On the Blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/02/06/wiki-articles-about-love/
On Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Love_on_the_wikis
Be sure to include a link, with a sentence or two about why you picked it!
We welcome your suggestions until Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015 at midnight PST.
We'll post some of your top picks next Friday on the Wikimedia Blog and social media -- just in time for Valentine’s Day.
Thanks for sharing the love :)
Fabrice
on behalf of the WMF Comms team
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin
Movement Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Hi,
Wikia have developed a thumbnailer service called vignette, and are
currently using to to serve about 50% of their thumbnail traffic:
https://github.com/Wikia/vignette
It's based on Clojure and imagemagick. License is eclipse, so pretty
liberal.
Gabriel