OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first example of something I hope will become widespread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.
Much credit goes to Editor at Large for the SVG, Gmaxwell for much of the formatting and Brion for turning on the required extension on en.
On 2/23/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first example of something I hope will become widespread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.
Much credit goes to Editor at Large for the SVG, Gmaxwell for much of the formatting and Brion for turning on the required extension on en. -- geni
One of the common concerns that image owners bring up is the potential for commercial re-use of their images. Would it be proper to make it explicit that uploading the image (and placing it under a free license) means that they would have to allow that? In a perfect world, they would read and understand the text of the license; of course, it's not a perfect world. Regardless that they *should* know, it would probably be good if we did our best to avoid the situation where uploaders get mad at us when they find out the "hard way" that their images can be used commercially by others.
-- Jonel
On 2/23/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
One of the common concerns that image owners bring up is the potential for commercial re-use of their images. Would it be proper to make it explicit that uploading the image (and placing it under a free license) means that they would have to allow that? In a perfect world, they would read and understand the text of the license; of course, it's not a perfect world. Regardless that they *should* know, it would probably be good if we did our best to avoid the situation where uploaders get mad at us when they find out the "hard way" that their images can be used commercially by others.
-- Jonel
I think "allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose" covers that but there is still space on [[Wikipedia:Fromowner]] if you want to mention it again.
On 2/24/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
One of the common concerns that image owners bring up is the potential for commercial re-use of their images. Would it be proper to make it explicit that uploading the image (and placing it under a free license) means that they would have to allow that? In a perfect world, they would read and understand the text of the license; of course, it's not a perfect world. Regardless that they *should* know, it would probably be good if we did our best to avoid the situation where uploaders get mad at us when they find out the "hard way" that their images can be used commercially by others.
People with those concerns should be pointed to this essay written by Eloquence and now hosted at the Definition of Free Cultural Works site:
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
Or give them the extremely quick summary: the viral nature of copyleft licences (the "share-alike" provisions) prevents commercial exploitation while allowing commercial innovation.
Whether it's appropriate stuff to mention on the upload form, I don't know.
On 2/23/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Or give them the extremely quick summary: the viral nature of copyleft licences (the "share-alike" provisions) prevents commercial exploitation while allowing commercial innovation.
That is, unfortunately, not quite true. For images in particular, CC-BY-SA provides no meaningful protection from commercial exploitation. An article using a CC-BY-SA picture is _not_ considered a derivative; only any direct modifications to the picture trigger the share-alike clause.
We are currently discussing alternatives on the cc-licenses list that would trigger share-alike on strongly semantically linked combinations as well -- but the current license does not do that.
Strangely enough, the existing CC-BY-SA license _does_ consider the combination of music and a film a derivative work that would require the whole film to be copyleft -- but not the embedding of images into an article.
geni wrote:
OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first example of something I hope will become widespread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.
Much credit goes to Editor at Large for the SVG, Gmaxwell for much of the formatting and Brion for turning on the required extension on en.
Can you direct to the commons upload page, instead? We should really encourage all free images to go to commons.
On 2/23/07, Roger Dearnaley rpdearnaley@hotmail.com wrote:
Can you direct to the commons upload page, instead? We should really encourage all free images to go to commons.
I could. I'm not going to until I get some data on how clean and how big the image stream will be. Commons isn't set up to handle copyvios on the scale en is.
geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first example of something I hope will become widespread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.
Much credit goes to Editor at Large for the SVG, Gmaxwell for much of the formatting and Brion for turning on the required extension on en. -- geni
I would suggest capitalizing 'free'. There are no doubt plenty of free as in cost images which you can download without paying anything (http://images.google.com/images?q=david%20mamet&num=30&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi), but that's quite different from what we want, which are Freely-licensed images. It should be emphasized from the beginning that it's free as in speech not money. It's a hard and unusual concept for a lot of people, if all the image deletions on en are anything to go by.
On 2/23/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
I would suggest capitalizing 'free'. There are no doubt plenty of free as in cost images which you can download without paying anything (http://images.google.com/images?q=david%20mamet&num=30&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi), but that's quite different from what we want, which are Freely-licensed images. It should be emphasized from the beginning that it's free as in speech not money. It's a hard and unusual concept for a lot of people, if all the image deletions on en are anything to go by.
capitalizing free is unlikely to help with that since most people won't know what that means either. that is the reason I''m focusing on ownership.
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:59:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
OK there is still some fiddling to be done but You can see the first example of something I hope will become widespread here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
As I said it isn't quite finished and suggestions are welcome.
I'm really happy that someone started working on improving the image upload.
The logo is nice and easy to understand. But after clicking it, I arrive at a page that has 4 lines of text in 4 different sizes. The average user will read the biggest text first, and that's a text ending in "click here". The next thing I get after "clicking here" is a "Not logged in" message - without a returnto link taking me back to the image upload.
Ok, back to the page I got after clicking the image. The line with the smalles font has a notice telling me to register an account.
From a usability POV, a user who is not logged in should be asked to
register an account, then go to a page asking him whether the photo he's going to upload was shot by himself or found on the net, and then he should be sent to the appropriate upload page.
Regards,
jens
On 2/24/07, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
From a usability POV, a user who is not logged in should be asked to register an account,
I don't think there is any way to do that without a software change.
then go to a page asking him whether the photo he's going to upload was shot by himself or found on the net, and then he should be sent to the appropriate upload page.
The closest I could get to that is controlling what happens once you click the upload link when you are not logged in. However that would require admin powers which I don't have at this point so it will have to wait.
Jens Frank wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:59:42PM +0000, geni wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet
be sure to click the image to look around the stuff behind it (mostly a new separate image upload page but there are other things)
The logo is nice and easy to understand. But after clicking it, I arrive at a page that has 4 lines of text in 4 different sizes. The average user will read the biggest text first, and that's a text ending in "click here". The next thing I get after "clicking here" is a "Not logged in" message - without a returnto link taking me back to the image upload.
Agreed, it was awful. I tried to make it a little better by putting it in a pretty box, fixing the (lack of) vertical whitespace and reducing it to only three different font sizes. The text remains the same.
It could still be a lot better. I know we have Wikipedians who are really good at this stuff, can we find one and let them have at it?