Dear All,
We have a severe problem with some of the photos uploaded during Russian WLM. As some of you may know, Russia has Freedom of Panorama (FOP) for architecture, but not for sculptures. Therefore, photos of recent (post-WWII) sculptures are not eligible for Commons, although they are OK for Russian Wikipedia and Wikivoyage where they are stored under fair use. From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. For example, they consider a small sculpture on a building (which is part of an architectural monument) as a separate object that is not covered by FOP. This has been a matter of debate and contention for long time, because the majority of Russian-speaking users tend to go for a softer interpretation and treat such things as architecture (i.e., eligible for Commons), while the minority of Russian-speaking users sitting on Commons is generally hostile to other Russian-speaking projects and tries to create us as many problems as possible.
Last year we found a reasonable procedure that was agreed upon by several Commons admins. Out of 23700 photos uploaded in Russian WLM 2015, about 1900 photos were identified as "no-FOP". We reviewed these images, linked many of them in other projects, and eventually transferred 1280 images to other Russian-speaking projects under fair use. Subsequently, nobody bothered to delete these photos from Commons, one year passed, and of course no legal problems appeared, but from our side we did everything we could do and we spent an enormous amount of time on doing this.
The only request from our side was that no WLM photos are deleted before October 31, 2015, because image transfer is a slow process and it should be done carefully. Last year several Commons admins supported this strategy and closed the most outrageous deletion request:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
which was submitted by a guy previously expelled from Russian Wikipedia. He wanted to delete about 200 photos all at the same time, and he tried to covertly delete some photos of 18th-century monuments as being "not covered by FOP in Russia"...
So this year a similar story happens again:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%...
Another user - now the one who published defamatory articles about Russian WLM organizers last year - accuses us in severe copyright violations and writes nonsense that we have not done anything about no-FOP photos from 2015. You can check my response to him in the same thread, where I write explicitly how images were sorted and transferred. Once again, we spent days and hours of our time on doing this.
What we need now is the general support of the community against such freaks and assholes who spoil our life and try to undermine the WLM process. The strategy of the Russian team is that all cultural heritage monuments are important for the project. We do not encourage people to upload "no-FOP" photos, but of course people upload them, and our goal is to use these images in the best possible way. Last year we did a lot of work to achieve this goal, and we are ready to do the same this year unless all relevant photos are deleted from Commons immediately, as some of the Commons users suggest. If this happens, I am afraid that WLM will not make any sense for us, at least not on Commons.
Sorry for the long e-mail, and I am looking forward to your support.
Sincerely, Alexander
Hey Alexander,
I'm sure you've put numerous effort and hard works on the WLM but calling other community members "freaks and assholes" just because they disagree with you is not a good idea. And certainly not a polite way to approach others.
In my understanding, you want problematic FoP images uploaded on commons as part of WLM during Sept and then you & other organizers will move the images to local projects under fair use, right? If so, while this is a good and reasonable idea but it gives the impression that Commons community is well aware of the violations and intentionally doing it even though just for a month.
In another part of your mail you've mentioned that "From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. " In this case, I think it's best to open a request for comment on commons to sort out the clear defination of the Russian law regarding FoP.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 4:00 PM To: wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Dear All,
We have a severe problem with some of the photos uploaded during Russian WLM. As some of you may know, Russia has Freedom of Panorama (FOP) for architecture, but not for sculptures. Therefore, photos of recent (post-WWII) sculptures are not eligible for Commons, although they are OK for Russian Wikipedia and Wikivoyage where they are stored under fair use. From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. For example, they consider a small sculpture on a building (which is part of an architectural monument) as a separate object that is not covered by FOP. This has been a matter of debate and contention for long time, because the majority of Russian-speaking users tend to go for a softer interpretation and treat such things as architecture (i.e., eligible for Commons), while the minority of Russian-speaking users sitting on Commons is generally hostile to other Russian-speaking projects and tries to create us as many problems as possible.
Last year we found a reasonable procedure that was agreed upon by several Commons admins. Out of 23700 photos uploaded in Russian WLM 2015, about 1900 photos were identified as "no-FOP". We reviewed these images, linked many of them in other projects, and eventually transferred 1280 images to other Russian-speaking projects under fair use. Subsequently, nobody bothered to delete these photos from Commons, one year passed, and of course no legal problems appeared, but from our side we did everything we could do and we spent an enormous amount of time on doing this.
The only request from our side was that no WLM photos are deleted before October 31, 2015, because image transfer is a slow process and it should be done carefully. Last year several Commons admins supported this strategy and closed the most outrageous deletion request:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
which was submitted by a guy previously expelled from Russian Wikipedia. He wanted to delete about 200 photos all at the same time, and he tried to covertly delete some photos of 18th-century monuments as being "not covered by FOP in Russia"...
So this year a similar story happens again:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%...
Another user - now the one who published defamatory articles about Russian WLM organizers last year - accuses us in severe copyright violations and writes nonsense that we have not done anything about no-FOP photos from 2015. You can check my response to him in the same thread, where I write explicitly how images were sorted and transferred. Once again, we spent days and hours of our time on doing this.
What we need now is the general support of the community against such freaks and assholes who spoil our life and try to undermine the WLM process. The strategy of the Russian team is that all cultural heritage monuments are important for the project. We do not encourage people to upload "no-FOP" photos, but of course people upload them, and our goal is to use these images in the best possible way. Last year we did a lot of work to achieve this goal, and we are ready to do the same this year unless all relevant photos are deleted from Commons immediately, as some of the Commons users suggest. If this happens, I am afraid that WLM will not make any sense for us, at least not on Commons.
Sorry for the long e-mail, and I am looking forward to your support.
Sincerely, Alexander
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Dear Nahid,
I'm sure you've put numerous effort and hard works on the WLM but calling other community members "freaks and assholes" just because they disagree with you is not a good idea. And certainly not a polite way to approach others.
Sorry, but I have no other words for people who systematically undermine our work and spread lies about us and our activities.
In my understanding, you want problematic FoP images uploaded on commons as part of WLM during Sept and then you & other organizers will move the images to local projects under fair use, right? If so, while this is a good and reasonable idea but it gives the impression that Commons community is well aware of the violations and intentionally doing it even though just for a month.
If the Commons community is a responsible community, it will know that all such images should be at least reviewed, and this review takes time. I have quoted the deletion request from last year: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego... where photos of 18th-century monuments were going to be deleted. Is that the way you want to proceed?
The responsible approach to this problem is that the no-FOP images are sorted and, when possible, transferred to other projects, so that no useful content is lost. I don't see how this responsible approach can be considered as an "intentional copyright violation", perhaps only in the eyes of those freaks and assholes whom I already mentioned.
If you want to speed up the review and transfer process, please, come and help us with that. Unsurprisingly, no Commons users has ever assisted us in this work.
I would also like to remind you that there are about 1900 no-FOP images from the year 2015. The fact that these images are still on Commons and nobody bothered to delete them, whereas images from 2016 face imminent deletion, makes me believe that some people on Commons deliberately act against WLM, in particular WLM-Russia. This is the main message of my e-mail.
In another part of your mail you've mentioned that "From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. " In this case, I think it's best to open a request for comment on commons to sort out the clear defination of the Russian law regarding FoP.
I have neither time nor intention for doing that. Commons has the so-called "Precautionary principle" that can be used to justify the deletion of any file and that is sometimes used for exactly this purpose. As long as Commons works this way, transferring files to other projects is a more viable approach.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 08.09.2016 13:14, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Hey Alexander,
I'm sure you've put numerous effort and hard works on the WLM but calling other community members "freaks and assholes" just because they disagree with you is not a good idea. And certainly not a polite way to approach others.
In my understanding, you want problematic FoP images uploaded on commons as part of WLM during Sept and then you & other organizers will move the images to local projects under fair use, right? If so, while this is a good and reasonable idea but it gives the impression that Commons community is well aware of the violations and intentionally doing it even though just for a month.
In another part of your mail you've mentioned that "From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. " In this case, I think it's best to open a request for comment on commons to sort out the clear defination of the Russian law regarding FoP.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultanon all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, September 8, 2016 4:00 PM *To:* wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons Dear All,
We have a severe problem with some of the photos uploaded during Russian WLM. As some of you may know, Russia has Freedom of Panorama (FOP) for architecture, but not for sculptures. Therefore, photos of recent (post-WWII) sculptures are not eligible for Commons, although they are OK for Russian Wikipedia and Wikivoyage where they are stored under fair use. From technical point of view, it is difficult to separate no-FOP monuments from the rest of the monuments, because Commons follows a very strict policy about no-FOP images. For example, they consider a small sculpture on a building (which is part of an architectural monument) as a separate object that is not covered by FOP. This has been a matter of debate and contention for long time, because the majority of Russian-speaking users tend to go for a softer interpretation and treat such things as architecture (i.e., eligible for Commons), while the minority of Russian-speaking users sitting on Commons is generally hostile to other Russian-speaking projects and tries to create us as many problems as possible.
Last year we found a reasonable procedure that was agreed upon by several Commons admins. Out of 23700 photos uploaded in Russian WLM 2015, about 1900 photos were identified as "no-FOP". We reviewed these images, linked many of them in other projects, and eventually transferred 1280 images to other Russian-speaking projects under fair use. Subsequently, nobody bothered to delete these photos from Commons, one year passed, and of course no legal problems appeared, but from our side we did everything we could do and we spent an enormous amount of time on doing this.
The only request from our side was that no WLM photos are deleted before October 31, 2015, because image transfer is a slow process and it should be done carefully. Last year several Commons admins supported this strategy and closed the most outrageous deletion request:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
which was submitted by a guy previously expelled from Russian Wikipedia. He wanted to delete about 200 photos all at the same time, and he tried to covertly delete some photos of 18th-century monuments as being "not covered by FOP in Russia"...
So this year a similar story happens again:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B295_2
Another user - now the one who published defamatory articles about Russian WLM organizers last year - accuses us in severe copyright violations and writes nonsense that we have not done anything about no-FOP photos from 2015. You can check my response to him in the same thread, where I write explicitly how images were sorted and transferred. Once again, we spent days and hours of our time on doing this.
What we need now is the general support of the community against such freaks and assholes who spoil our life and try to undermine the WLM process. The strategy of the Russian team is that all cultural heritage monuments are important for the project. We do not encourage people to upload "no-FOP" photos, but of course people upload them, and our goal is to use these images in the best possible way. Last year we did a lot of work to achieve this goal, and we are ready to do the same this year unless all relevant photos are deleted from Commons immediately, as some of the Commons users suggest. If this happens, I am afraid that WLM will not make any sense for us, at least not on Commons.
Sorry for the long e-mail, and I am looking forward to your support.
Sincerely, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2016-09-08 14:45 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Dear Nahid,
I'm sure you've put numerous effort and hard works on the WLM but calling other community members "freaks and assholes" just because they disagree with you is not a good idea. And certainly not a polite way to approach others.
Sorry, but I have no other words for people who systematically undermine our work and spread lies about us and our activities.
This kind of langage is not acceptable, nor on Commons, nor on this list. Please stop using it right now, you not helping yourself.
Deletion requests are usual on Commons, WLM depend on Commons, so deletion of WLM files are to be expected (in France, the WLM team even create the deletion request themselves). For this particular request, it's a bit messy but it seems totally legit to me and I don't see the problem who lead you to write this mail. The files are not deleted yet, you could still move them to local projects (and even if they were deleted, a Commons sysop can still transfer the files to local projects).
I'm very surprised to hear that you don't have Commons users to help you, how and why is that? (for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
For this particular request, it's a bit messy but it seems totally legit to me and I don't see the problem who lead you to write this mail. The files are not deleted yet, you could still move them to local projects (and even if they were deleted, a Commons sysop can still transfer the files to local projects).
There are many technical reasons why I can't transfer files on a daily basis. If you want to discuss details or propose a better way of file transfer, you are welcome to contact me off-list. When I say that I need time until October 31, 2016, it really means that I need this time to do things properly.
I'm very surprised to hear that you don't have Commons users to help you, how and why is that? (for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?).
A short answer is that the majority of Russian-speaking users on Commons are either not interested in WLM or not suitable for any useful and systematic work (the latest example being one Commons user who botched the work of the WLE jury this year by not doing anything and not even replying to e-mails, while remaining active on Commons). Remarkably, these Commons users are still very good in submitting deletion requests and making damage to other projects. I know I should assume good faith, but that's a bit too much of it over the years...
Sincerely, Alexander
On 08.09.2016 15:22, Nicolas VIGNERON wrote:
2016-09-08 14:45 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com>:
Dear Nahid,I'm sure you've put numerous effort and hard works on the WLM but calling other community members "freaks and assholes" just because they disagree with you is not a good idea. And certainly not a polite way to approach others.Sorry, but I have no other words for people who systematically undermine our work and spread lies about us and our activities.This kind of langage is not acceptable, nor on Commons, nor on this list. Please stop using it right now, you not helping yourself.
Deletion requests are usual on Commons, WLM depend on Commons, so deletion of WLM files are to be expected (in France, the WLM team even create the deletion request themselves). For this particular request, it's a bit messy but it seems totally legit to me and I don't see the problem who lead you to write this mail. The files are not deleted yet, you could still move them to local projects (and even if they were deleted, a Commons sysop can still transfer the files to local projects).
I'm very surprised to hear that you don't have Commons users to help you, how and why is that? (for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?).
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
2016-09-08 15:41 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
For this particular request, it's a bit messy but it seems totally legit to me and I don't see the problem who lead you to write this mail. The files are not deleted yet, you could still move them to local projects (and even if they were deleted, a Commons sysop can still transfer the files to local projects).
There are many technical reasons why I can't transfer files on a daily basis. If you want to discuss details or propose a better way of file transfer, you are welcome to contact me off-list. When I say that I need time until October 31, 2016, it really means that I need this time to do things properly.
I understand and I didn't ask for transfer on daily basis (in fact, I even pointed that it can be done any time by a sysop), that why I support the « keep on hold » on the deletion request. I'd like to help but I'm quite busy with WLM FR and other wiki-stuff ; plus, I don't know at all russian law or ruwp, so I'm afraid I won't be of much help).
I'm very surprised to hear that you don't have Commons users to help you,
how and why is that? (for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?).
A short answer is that the majority of Russian-speaking users on Commons are either not interested in WLM or not suitable for any useful and systematic work (the latest example being one Commons user who botched the work of the WLE jury this year by not doing anything and not even replying to e-mails, while remaining active on Commons). Remarkably, these Commons users are still very good in submitting deletion requests and making damage to other projects. I know I should assume good faith, but that's a bit too much of it over the years...
Thanks for this very strange but illuminating answer. Sorry to hear about you bad experience. I still think that having Commons users on the WLM is useful (and maybe even mandatory for a succesful WLM), but it seems indeed that your context is quite peculiar.
Cdlt, ~nicolas
Nicolas VIGNERON, 08/09/2016 15:22:
for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?
Yes, it's probably unusual. With 43 countries participating, I'd expect a majority of them don't even have a Commons administrator speaking their native language.
Nemo
On 08.09.2016 15:57, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Nicolas VIGNERON, 08/09/2016 15:22:
for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?
Yes, it's probably unusual. With 43 countries participating, I'd expect a majority of them don't even have a Commons administrator speaking their native language.
Nemo
We have several (four or five I believe) Russian-speaking Commons admins. This year I am the only one of them who is involved in WLM. If we have a solution which would spare me of undeleting 2000 files and transferring them to Wikivoyage I would appreciate it.
Cheers Yaroslav
2016-09-08 16:06 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
On 08.09.2016 15:57, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Nicolas VIGNERON, 08/09/2016 15:22:
for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?
Yes, it's probably unusual. With 43 countries participating, I'd expect a majority of them don't even have a Commons administrator speaking their native language.
Nemo
There is 237 human sysops on Commons speaking more than 70 languages. I find that rather unexpected... And having a sysop is just a bonus, having a Commons user would be already very useful and helpful.
We have several (four or five I believe) Russian-speaking Commons admins.
There is 24 sysops with various level of russian (and probably various level of activity), 11 seems to be native according to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators Maybe you can reach them for help...
This year I am the only one of them who is involved in WLM. If we have a solution which would spare me of undeleting 2000 files and transferring them to Wikivoyage I would appreciate it.
Thank you for your work ! Indeed and again, that's why I support to keep the deletion request on hold ;)
Cdlt, ~nicolas
On 08.09.2016 16:39, Nicolas VIGNERON wrote:
2016-09-08 16:06 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
On 08.09.2016 15:57, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Nicolas VIGNERON, 08/09/2016 15:22: for WLM France, except for WMfr staff, nearly all members of the team are Commons users or Commons sysop; is this unusual?
Yes, it's probably unusual. With 43 countries participating, I'd expect a majority of them don't even have a Commons administrator speaking their native language.
Nemo
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
Hi Yaroslav and others,
I'm sorry that we are going through these current events. As a WLM organizer, I feel the pain of organizing a contest, encouraging people to participate, but then seeing or imagining their disappointment. The one thing that gives the most motivation to me is to see people succeed in doing the upload, not to see them fail. From what I read at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%... I also see some of the difficulties that the Commons community are facing. This is not a pleasant situation for anyone. We are all in this for helping people share in the sum of all knowledge. At the moment, we are distracted.
We are seeing a failure of potentially more than one part of our system. As a team of people working towards the same goal, we should investigate what has happened from the beginning to the end, understand what has gone wrong and where (no blaming of each other, simply understanding), and come up with processes for fixing the broken parts. This will help us not have to visit a similar problem again and move forward together and more efficiently.
I will reach out to some of you involved in this discussion off-list to start a (postmortem) discussion. In the mean time, I ask all of you to consider the other side and treat each other with humility, trust, and respect.
Best, Leila
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not
to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Dear Leila,
I can also repeat my point on list. Russian WLM organizers need the time until October 31 in order to identify and properly transfer no-FOP files. The Russian organizers really need this time. They are unable and they will not work in a different time frame. If Commons community accepts this, we are all fine. If they do not accept it, we have to say good-bye to Commons.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 14.09.2016 21:38, Lily wrote:
Hi Yaroslav and others,
I'm sorry that we are going through these current events. As a WLM organizer, I feel the pain of organizing a contest, encouraging people to participate, but then seeing or imagining their disappointment. The one thing that gives the most motivation to me is to see people succeed in doing the upload, not to see them fail. From what I read at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B295_2#Comment_from_the_WLM_organizers I also see some of the difficulties that the Commons community are facing. This is not a pleasant situation for anyone. We are all in this for helping people share in the sum of all knowledge. At the moment, we are distracted.
We are seeing a failure of potentially more than one part of our system. As a team of people working towards the same goal, we should investigate what has happened from the beginning to the end, understand what has gone wrong and where (no blaming of each other, simply understanding), and come up with processes for fixing the broken parts. This will help us not have to visit a similar problem again and move forward together and more efficiently.
I will reach out to some of you involved in this discussion off-list to start a (postmortem) discussion. In the mean time, I ask all of you to consider the other side and treat each other with humility, trust, and respect.
Best, Leila
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru mailto:putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru <mailto:putevod@mccme.ru>> wrote: The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore. By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia). Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>-- User: LilyOfTheWest
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
For the specific case of Russia, I confirm that I have heard your point.
I also would like to encourage you to be open to listening to other lines of arguments and be more flexible with considering other solutions. Remember that at the end of the day, the Commons community is also operating based on the same basic principles and motivations as the rest of the Wikimedia community. We are in this together, and to move forward efficiently we should work together.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Leila,
I can also repeat my point on list. Russian WLM organizers need the time until October 31 in order to identify and properly transfer no-FOP files. The Russian organizers really need this time. They are unable and they will not work in a different time frame. If Commons community accepts this, we are all fine. If they do not accept it, we have to say good-bye to Commons.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 14.09.2016 21:38, Lily wrote:
Hi Yaroslav and others,
I'm sorry that we are going through these current events. As a WLM organizer, I feel the pain of organizing a contest, encouraging people to participate, but then seeing or imagining their disappointment. The one thing that gives the most motivation to me is to see people succeed in doing the upload, not to see them fail. From what I read at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_of_User:Лавров95_2#Comment_from_the_WLM_organizers I also see some of the difficulties that the Commons community are facing. This is not a pleasant situation for anyone. We are all in this for helping people share in the sum of all knowledge. At the moment, we are distracted.
We are seeing a failure of potentially more than one part of our system. As a team of people working towards the same goal, we should investigate what has happened from the beginning to the end, understand what has gone wrong and where (no blaming of each other, simply understanding), and come up with processes for fixing the broken parts. This will help us not have to visit a similar problem again and move forward together and more efficiently.
I will reach out to some of you involved in this discussion off-list to start a (postmortem) discussion. In the mean time, I ask all of you to consider the other side and treat each other with humility, trust, and respect.
Best, Leila
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not
to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- User: LilyOfTheWest
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I am not a lawyer and I know nothing about copyright in Russia, but IMHO a Wikimedia organization should not promote fair use images, nor on Commons or by other means. Such images can not be published as winning photos, this is not a fair use, and a Wikimedia organization should not assume any legal risk on behalf of photographers. It seems to me an extension of the problem it had Wiki Loves Public Art at heart.
Vicenç
________________________________ De: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de part de Lily lilyofthewest.wikimedia@gmail.com Enviat el: dimecres, 14 de setembre de 2016 21:58 Per a: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Tema: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
For the specific case of Russia, I confirm that I have heard your point.
I also would like to encourage you to be open to listening to other lines of arguments and be more flexible with considering other solutions. Remember that at the end of the day, the Commons community is also operating based on the same basic principles and motivations as the rest of the Wikimedia community. We are in this together, and to move forward efficiently we should work together.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Leila,
I can also repeat my point on list. Russian WLM organizers need the time until October 31 in order to identify and properly transfer no-FOP files. The Russian organizers really need this time. They are unable and they will not work in a different time frame. If Commons community accepts this, we are all fine. If they do not accept it, we have to say good-bye to Commons.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 14.09.2016 21:38, Lily wrote: Hi Yaroslav and others,
I'm sorry that we are going through these current events. As a WLM organizer, I feel the pain of organizing a contest, encouraging people to participate, but then seeing or imagining their disappointment. The one thing that gives the most motivation to me is to see people succeed in doing the upload, not to see them fail. From what I read at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%...https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B295_2#Comment_from_the_WLM_organizers I also see some of the difficulties that the Commons community are facing. This is not a pleasant situation for anyone. We are all in this for helping people share in the sum of all knowledge. At the moment, we are distracted.
We are seeing a failure of potentially more than one part of our system. As a team of people working towards the same goal, we should investigate what has happened from the beginning to the end, understand what has gone wrong and where (no blaming of each other, simply understanding), and come up with processes for fixing the broken parts. This will help us not have to visit a similar problem again and move forward together and more efficiently.
I will reach out to some of you involved in this discussion off-list to start a (postmortem) discussion. In the mean time, I ask all of you to consider the other side and treat each other with humility, trust, and respect.
Best, Leila
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.rumailto:putevod@mccme.ru> wrote: On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.rumailto:putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- User: LilyOfTheWest
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
-- User: LilyOfTheWest
We do not promote fair-use images, but we try to make good use of all images that are uploaded during WLM.
Best, Alexander
On 15.09.2016 13:07, Vicenç wrote:
I am not a lawyer and I know nothing about copyright in Russia, but IMHO a Wikimedia organization should not promote fair use images, nor on Commons or by other means. Such images can not be published as winning photos, this is not a fair use, and a Wikimedia organization should not assume any legal risk on behalf of photographers. It seems to me an extension of the problem it had Wiki Loves Public Art at heart.
Vicenç
*De:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org de part de Lily lilyofthewest.wikimedia@gmail.com *Enviat el:* dimecres, 14 de setembre de 2016 21:58 *Per a:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Tema:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons For the specific case of Russia, I confirm that I have heard your point.
I also would like to encourage you to be open to listening to other lines of arguments and be more flexible with considering other solutions. Remember that at the end of the day, the Commons community is also operating based on the same basic principles and motivations as the rest of the Wikimedia community. We are in this together, and to move forward efficiently we should work together.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Leila, I can also repeat my point on list. Russian WLM organizers need the time until October 31 in order to identify and properly transfer no-FOP files. The Russian organizers really need this time. They are unable and they will not work in a different time frame. If Commons community accepts this, we are all fine. If they do not accept it, we have to say good-bye to Commons. Sincerely, Alexander On 14.09.2016 21:38, Lily wrote:Hi Yaroslav and others, I'm sorry that we are going through these current events. As a WLM organizer, I feel the pain of organizing a contest, encouraging people to participate, but then seeing or imagining their disappointment. The one thing that gives the most motivation to me is to see people succeed in doing the upload, not to see them fail. From what I read at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Лавров95_2#Comment_from_the_WLM_organizers <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B295_2#Comment_from_the_WLM_organizers> I also see some of the difficulties that the Commons community are facing. This is not a pleasant situation for anyone. We are all in this for helping people share in the sum of all knowledge. At the moment, we are distracted. We are seeing a failure of potentially more than one part of our system. As a team of people working towards the same goal, we should investigate what has happened from the beginning to the end, understand what has gone wrong and where (no blaming of each other, simply understanding), and come up with processes for fixing the broken parts. This will help us not have to visit a similar problem again and move forward together and more efficiently. I will reach out to some of you involved in this discussion off-list to start a (postmortem) discussion. In the mean time, I ask all of you to consider the other side and treat each other with humility, trust, and respect. Best, Leila On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru <mailto:putevod@mccme.ru>> wrote: On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru <mailto:putevod@mccme.ru>> wrote: The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore. By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> I know. The problems are demotivation of new users and excess work for Commons admins (in this case, most likely, me) to undelete these images for transfer to the Russian Wikivoyage (and, possibly, Wikipedia). Cheers Yaroslav _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> -- User: LilyOfTheWest _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>-- User: LilyOfTheWest
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios.
Such files are not copyvios. They are distributed under free license, and the only exception is that they should not be used commercially. These photos are actively used outside Commons, as you can see from the fact that we have transferred to other projects as many as 1280 photos last year and already 300 photos this year. Most of these photos are of very high quality, and we are really proud that we got them. The copyright on art objects will expire in 5-10-20 years (fair-use rules apply during this period). We will still have these photos when copyright expires, while on Commons the files are lost forever.
We struggle to collect and keep free and useful knowledge, while Commons users actively struggle against it. This situation illustrates very clearly what our goals are and what Commons goals are. I believe that we should try to avoid any interaction with this deeply corrupted project.
An immediate repercussion of this situation is that I am not going to spend any more of my time on anything related to Commons. In the last 3 years, I have put a lot of effort into writing categorization scripts that processed about 10000 uncategorized images uploaded during WLM every year. Now I will let User:Jcb, Nahid Sultan and other advocates of file deletions to do this dirty and tedious job. Enough is enough.
On a longer run, we will try to organize Russian WLM completely outside Commons. It is not imperative to collect free images on Commons. We will find better place for them in other projects.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 14.09.2016 20:50, Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
The files have been deleted, meaning we will advise WLM participants not to use Commons anymore.
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios. Cruccone
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 14/09/16 21:31, Alexander Tsirlin wrote:
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios.
Such files are not copyvios. They are distributed under free license, and the only exception is that they should not be used commercially. These photos are actively used outside Commons, as you can see from the fact that we have transferred to other projects as many as 1280 photos last year and already 300 photos this year. Most of these photos are of very high quality, and we are really proud that we got them. The copyright on art objects will expire in 5-10-20 years (fair-use rules apply during this period). We will still have these photos when copyright expires, while on Commons the files are lost forever.
Note that on commons if you know when is the © going to expire, you can list the images on the [[Category:Undelete in 20XX]] pages, so that they can be undeleted (assuming the rest of the licensing is ok) when the time comes.
You could alternatively create an undelete request in 20 years, but you might forget about those photos by then 😉
Regards
Dear Platonides,
I know about this option, but it is a horrible amount of work to add such "Undelete in XXXX" categories. Why would I do it if I can transfer files to other projects, where they are available immediately?
It could be possible to add "Undelete in XXXX" categories, sometimes even automatically, if the Commons community would be willing to find compromise regarding no-FOP images and the procedures for their deletion. But they are not willing to do that, and then obviously I will not help them with anything.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 20.09.2016 02:09, Platonides wrote:
On 14/09/16 21:31, Alexander Tsirlin wrote:
By the way, such images would not qualify for WLM anyway, since they are copyvios.
Such files are not copyvios. They are distributed under free license, and the only exception is that they should not be used commercially. These photos are actively used outside Commons, as you can see from the fact that we have transferred to other projects as many as 1280 photos last year and already 300 photos this year. Most of these photos are of very high quality, and we are really proud that we got them. The copyright on art objects will expire in 5-10-20 years (fair-use rules apply during this period). We will still have these photos when copyright expires, while on Commons the files are lost forever.
Note that on commons if you know when is the © going to expire, you can list the images on the [[Category:Undelete in 20XX]] pages, so that they can be undeleted (assuming the rest of the licensing is ok) when the time comes.
You could alternatively create an undelete request in 20 years, but you might forget about those photos by then 😉
Regards
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
---------------------------------------
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
---------------------------------------
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultanon all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@ lists.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hey Alexander
TL:DR. Please, bare in mind that Common community have policies regarding copyright which they will never ignore for a contest like this. Thus, you need not lose your cool and make personal remarks in accusing reviewers of intimidating WLM participants. Such assertion is untrue because we are in this together. We should not pretend that what we are experiencing now is expected. I agree with Lodewijk that Wikimedia Commons community is not always easy or fun to work with but we just have to deal with it. There are thousands of files waiting for review and there are few regular users patrolling new files or reviewing them. If a reviewer nominate a file for deletion in a way you consider inappropriate, try to discuss with the user. The reviewer could be under stress as at the time they were reviewing the files. BTW, it's a red flag when username don't seem to match with copyright information on metadata, thus reviewer may decide to nominate such files for deletion per our precautionary principle. This is not uncommon and such actions are usually not considered destructive or attacks on participant. Alexander, your username is "User:Atsrlin" and if on your camera metadata, the author is "Merlin" for example, reviewer may not assume that your real name is Merlin unless you already state it on your user page or elsewhere because Atsrlin could mean something totally different in your country and may be unconnected with Merlin. In reality, you're Alexander and Merlin is a different person who may probably come around to raise concerns about infringement of their copyright in the future.
Here is another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". Should a reviewer simply assume that "James John Borg" is the same person as "Joshua Schembri"? In most cases uploaders are not always sincere when it comes to copyright issues if you merely ask them. This is why we usually advice them to send evidence to our support team (COM:OTRS) after taking the files to DR.
However, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate User:James John Borg's files for deletion but I don't have enough time to investigate it now, maybe someone familiar with the user can take it up.
Best,
Isaac (User:Wikicology)
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.o rg/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@li sts.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
On 17.09.2016 21:52, olatunde olalekan isaac wrote:
Hey Alexander
TL:DR. Please, bare in mind that Common community have policies regarding copyright which they will never ignore for a contest like this. Thus, you need not lose your cool and make personal remarks in accusing reviewers of intimidating WLM participants. Such assertion is untrue because we are in this together. We should not pretend that what we are experiencing now is expected. I agree with Lodewijk that Wikimedia Commons community is not always easy or fun to work with but we just have to deal with it. There are thousands of files waiting for review and there are few regular users patrolling new files or reviewing them. If a reviewer nominate a file for deletion in a way you consider inappropriate, try to discuss with the user. The reviewer could be under stress as at the time they were reviewing the files. BTW, it's a red flag when username don't seem to match with copyright information on metadata, thus reviewer may decide to nominate such files for deletion per our precautionary principle. This is not uncommon and such actions are usually not considered destructive or attacks on participant. Alexander, your username is "User:Atsrlin" and if on your camera metadata, the author is "Merlin" for example, reviewer may not assume that your real name is Merlin unless you already state it on your user page or elsewhere because Atsrlin could mean something totally different in your country and may be unconnected with Merlin. In reality, you're Alexander and Merlin is a different person who may probably come around to raise concerns about infringement of their copyright in the future.
In our case, the copyright holder was Vera Kalyuzhnaya, and the user was VekaSpb, which any Russian speaker would immediately recognize as "Veka" from Saint Petersburg, and then see that "Veka" is a likely abbreviation from Vera Kalyuzhnaya. Just one question on a Village Pump would be sufficient to establish this.
Cheers Yaroslav
Dear Isaac,
First, I would kindly ask that you stop mingling my name, unless you want me to do the same with yours.
Second, I regret, but I don't see much logic in what you are saying. If you need the OTRS permission, you should have asked for it in the first turn. But you did not ask for it. You just asked the user to confirm that the name in EXIF is her real name, and she confirmed. Why was a deletion request necessary? It acted simply as the knife at the throat and it was an intimidation (which, by the way, the uploader felt indeed - she was quite frustrated when she wrote me about this whole situation).
Third, I hope you realized that there are people who take care of the Russian WLM photos and that next time when you stumble upon such a photo, you will ask me or Yaroslav before taking any serious action. This should help us to avoid any further misunderstanding.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 18.09.2016 00:52, olatunde olalekan isaac wrote:
Hey Alexander
TL:DR. Please, bare in mind that Common community have policies regarding copyright which they will never ignore for a contest like this. Thus, you need not lose your cool and make personal remarks in accusing reviewers of intimidating WLM participants. Such assertion is untrue because we are in this together. We should not pretend that what we are experiencing now is expected. I agree with Lodewijk that Wikimedia Commons community is not always easy or fun to work with but we just have to deal with it. There are thousands of files waiting for review and there are few regular users patrolling new files or reviewing them. If a reviewer nominate a file for deletion in a way you consider inappropriate, try to discuss with the user. The reviewer could be under stress as at the time they were reviewing the files. BTW, it's a red flag when username don't seem to match with copyright information on metadata, thus reviewer may decide to nominate such files for deletion per our precautionary principle. This is not uncommon and such actions are usually not considered destructive or attacks on participant. Alexander, your username is "User:Atsrlin" and if on your camera metadata, the author is "Merlin" for example, reviewer may not assume that your real name is Merlin unless you already state it on your user page or elsewhere because Atsrlin could mean something totally different in your country and may be unconnected with Merlin. In reality, you're Alexander and Merlin is a different person who may probably come around to raise concerns about infringement of their copyright in the future.
Here is another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "*Joshua Schembri*". Should a reviewer simply assume that "James John Borg" is the same person as "Joshua Schembri"? In most cases uploaders are not always sincere when it comes to copyright issues if you merely ask them. This is why we usually advice them to send evidence to our support team (COM:OTRS) after taking the files to DR.
However, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate User:James John Borg's files for deletion but I don't have enough time to investigate it now, maybe someone familiar with the user can take it up.
Best,
Isaac (User:Wikicology)
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org mailto:lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> wrote:
Hey Alexander, Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response. The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected. I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too. Best, Lodewijk 2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com <mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com>>:Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves. Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible. Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment. Sincerely, Alexander On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together? We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM>). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem>. It works for us. Best, Nahid Sultan User:NahidSultan <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan>on all Wikimedia Foundation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation>'s public wikis Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh> Twitter: @nahidunlimited <https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited> http://blog.nahidsultan.xyz/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com> <mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb> Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn> Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???! --------------------------------------- That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here. Best, Alexander _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com>:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves. Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible. Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment. Sincerely, Alexander On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together? We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM>). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem>. It works for us. Best, Nahid Sultan User:NahidSultan <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan>on all Wikimedia Foundation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation>'s public wikis Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh> Twitter: @nahidunlimited <https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited> http://blog.nahidsultan.xyz/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> <mailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com> <mailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb> Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn> Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???! --------------------------------------- That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here. Best, Alexander _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org> _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org>
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Alexander,
When walking in a kitchen, it should not be surprising that many people walk toward you with a knife - they are maybe not following security protocol (leave the knife at the cutting station etc), but you should still assume good faith. Luckily, the results of their actions are mostly extra work, and not fatal here.
You're correct that a more civil approach would be welcome. The same goes for WLM-russia, by the way (while you have good intentions and are clearly trying to focus on the arguments, you come across as quite agressive). We will still need to work together.
Please don't assume that admins actually will read your guidelines. They won't. If they read the templates, that would already be a big surprise - there are simply too many of them, and it would cost them too much time. They typically process high quantities of images in short amounts of time. Then things go wrong. So you'll still have to go in there and discuss the issue patiently probably.
If you want these collaborations to work more smoothly: don't wetten your knife unless you're prepared to help cutting the vegetables. But stay civil, and remain patient. Annoying, but more effective.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-18 3:23 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.o rg/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@li sts.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.o rg/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@li sts.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests /Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org wrote:
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@ lists.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Isaac, all,
Just a quick follow up on the User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg issue. I have spoken to James John Borg and he informed me that he bought his camera off a person called Joshua Schembri and he doesn't know how to edit the metadata from the camera settings. This would explain why the metadata is crediting the photo to Joshua Schembri.
In this case, I have no doubt that he has taken the photos himself - he had reached out to us prior to submitting any photos asking various questions related to editing photos, what kind of photos are eligible etc., and he seems to be genuinely engaged with the WLM contest. I think we need to assume good faith in this situation. For what it's worth, he may be attending a workshop we are organising later this week, in which case he will be bringing his camera along and I will try to fix his camera's metadata settings myself.
Best regards, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:48 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org wrote:
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hello Neville,
The info you've just provided is enough IMO (all we actually needed to know what the user himself just said to you). If you're convinced then it's fine. Now, to avoid any further confusion you should forward the user's mail to, permissions-commons{{@}}wikimedia.org
I can personally handle the otrs ticket if you send the the ticket id to me after sending it.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:21 PM To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Hi Isaac, all,
Just a quick follow up on the User:James John Borghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg issue. I have spoken to James John Borg and he informed me that he bought his camera off a person called Joshua Schembri and he doesn't know how to edit the metadata from the camera settings. This would explain why the metadata is crediting the photo to Joshua Schembri.
In this case, I have no doubt that he has taken the photos himself - he had reached out to us prior to submitting any photos asking various questions related to editing photos, what kind of photos are eligible etc., and he seems to be genuinely engaged with the WLM contest. I think we need to assume good faith in this situation. For what it's worth, he may be attending a workshop we are organising later this week, in which case he will be bringing his camera along and I will try to fix his camera's metadata settings myself.
Best regards, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:48 olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.commailto:reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg <neville.borg@wikimalta.orgmailto:neville.borg@wikimalta.org> wrote: Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.commailto:reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploadshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is " Joshua Schembri". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying: Please read the guidelineshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database! If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following: If you see a potential candidate for deletion, inform us in the first place. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals. All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote: Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com>: Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together? It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
---------------------------------------
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Hi Neville,
Thanks for making the extra effort to verify this. I think the information provided by the user is fine with me. Cases like this are not uncommon. Nahid's suggestion is good and I'm glad he would personally handle the OTRS ticket himself.
Best,
Isaac
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Nahid Sultan nahid@wikimedia.org.bd wrote:
Hello Neville,
The info you've just provided is enough IMO (all we actually needed to know what the user himself just said to you). If you're convinced then it's fine. Now, to avoid any further confusion you should forward the user's mail to, permissions-commons{{@}}wikimedia.org
I can personally handle the otrs ticket if you send the the ticket id to me after sending it.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 7:21 PM
*To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Hi Isaac, all,
Just a quick follow up on the User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg issue. I have spoken to James John Borg and he informed me that he bought his camera off a person called Joshua Schembri and he doesn't know how to edit the metadata from the camera settings. This would explain why the metadata is crediting the photo to Joshua Schembri.
In this case, I have no doubt that he has taken the photos himself - he had reached out to us prior to submitting any photos asking various questions related to editing photos, what kind of photos are eligible etc., and he seems to be genuinely engaged with the WLM contest. I think we need to assume good faith in this situation. For what it's worth, he may be attending a workshop we are organising later this week, in which case he will be bringing his camera along and I will try to fix his camera's metadata settings myself.
Best regards, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:48 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg <neville.borg@wikimalta.org
wrote:
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_problem. It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@ lists.wikimedia.org> wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_VekaSpb Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_uploaded_by_PhotoJinn Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Thanks Nahid & Isaac.
My conversation with him was held on Facebook, so I can't forward his mail (nor do I have his email address, for that matter). I can ask him to send me a mail stating the above, alternatively I could screenshot the section of our Facebook conversation where he informed me of this and send the screenshots. Your guidance on this is appreciated.
Best regards, Neville
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 17:34 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Neville,
Thanks for making the extra effort to verify this. I think the information provided by the user is fine with me. Cases like this are not uncommon. Nahid's suggestion is good and I'm glad he would personally handle the OTRS ticket himself.
Best,
Isaac
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Nahid Sultan nahid@wikimedia.org.bd wrote:
Hello Neville,
The info you've just provided is enough IMO (all we actually needed to know what the user himself just said to you). If you're convinced then it's fine. Now, to avoid any further confusion you should forward the user's mail to, permissions-commons{{@}}wikimedia.org
I can personally handle the otrs ticket if you send the the ticket id to me after sending it.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
*From:* WikiLovesMonuments < wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 7:21 PM
*To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Hi Isaac, all,
Just a quick follow up on the User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg issue. I have spoken to James John Borg and he informed me that he bought his camera off a person called Joshua Schembri and he doesn't know how to edit the metadata from the camera settings. This would explain why the metadata is crediting the photo to Joshua Schembri.
In this case, I have no doubt that he has taken the photos himself - he had reached out to us prior to submitting any photos asking various questions related to editing photos, what kind of photos are eligible etc., and he seems to be genuinely engaged with the WLM contest. I think we need to assume good faith in this situation. For what it's worth, he may be attending a workshop we are organising later this week, in which case he will be bringing his camera along and I will try to fix his camera's metadata settings myself.
Best regards, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:48 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg < neville.borg@wikimalta.org> wrote:
Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploads https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is "* Joshua Schembri*". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin < altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying:
Please read the guidelines https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!
If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following:
If you see a potential candidate for deletion, *inform us in the first place*. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals.
All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote:
Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com:
> Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once > think that this is your project too and everyone in this together? > > It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it > as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As > you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own > image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better > organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their > rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that > we have carefully collected ourselves. > > Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are > also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is > in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and > well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But > it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible. > > Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be > interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend > most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion > requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a > wonderful working environment. > > Sincerely, > Alexander > > > > On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote: > > Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a > normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images > online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors > on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually > have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS > system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could > you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in > this together? > > > We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such > users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on > other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even > created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review > (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, > every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if > they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or > talk page and list them on > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... > It works for us. > > Best, > > Nahid Sultan > > User:NahidSultan https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan > on all Wikimedia Foundation > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis > > Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh > > Twitter: @nahidunlimited https://twitter.com/nahidunlimited > > http://blog.nahidsultan.xyz/ > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* WikiLovesMonuments > wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org > wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of > Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.com altsirlin@gmail.com > *Sent:* Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM > *To:* Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition > *Subject:* Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on > Commons > > Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images. > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... > Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for > deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in > EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. > This > deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a > lot > of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried > to > convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was > only > a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really... > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... > Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th > century > cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???! > > --------------------------------------- > > That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on > Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here. > > Best, > Alexander > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi... > > _______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments > mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing listWikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonumentshttp://www.wi...
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
Neville, Proof of Facebook conversation is generally discouraged on OTRS. It'd be appreciated if you could manage email communications. Best,
Nahid
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Neville Borg neville.borg@wikimalta.org Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:18 PM To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Thanks Nahid & Isaac.
My conversation with him was held on Facebook, so I can't forward his mail (nor do I have his email address, for that matter). I can ask him to send me a mail stating the above, alternatively I could screenshot the section of our Facebook conversation where he informed me of this and send the screenshots. Your guidance on this is appreciated.
Best regards, Neville
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 17:34 olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.commailto:reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Neville,
Thanks for making the extra effort to verify this. I think the information provided by the user is fine with me. Cases like this are not uncommon. Nahid's suggestion is good and I'm glad he would personally handle the OTRS ticket himself.
Best,
Isaac
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Nahid Sultan <nahid@wikimedia.org.bdmailto:nahid@wikimedia.org.bd> wrote:
Hello Neville,
The info you've just provided is enough IMO (all we actually needed to know what the user himself just said to you). If you're convinced then it's fine. Now, to avoid any further confusion you should forward the user's mail to, permissions-commons{{@}}wikimedia.orghttp://wikimedia.org
I can personally handle the otrs ticket if you send the the ticket id to me after sending it.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments <wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Neville Borg <neville.borg@wikimalta.orgmailto:neville.borg@wikimalta.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 7:21 PM
To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Hi Isaac, all,
Just a quick follow up on the User:James John Borghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg issue. I have spoken to James John Borg and he informed me that he bought his camera off a person called Joshua Schembri and he doesn't know how to edit the metadata from the camera settings. This would explain why the metadata is crediting the photo to Joshua Schembri.
In this case, I have no doubt that he has taken the photos himself - he had reached out to us prior to submitting any photos asking various questions related to editing photos, what kind of photos are eligible etc., and he seems to be genuinely engaged with the WLM contest. I think we need to assume good faith in this situation. For what it's worth, he may be attending a workshop we are organising later this week, in which case he will be bringing his camera along and I will try to fix his camera's metadata settings myself.
Best regards, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:48 olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.commailto:reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nevile,
Thank you. I'm glad you will step into the breach. I will take a look in another 2 days.
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Neville Borg <neville.borg@wikimalta.orgmailto:neville.borg@wikimalta.org> wrote: Hi Isaac,
Thanks for pointing this out. I'm the WLM organiser for Malta, so I will try to clarify this with User:James John Borg. I don't know this user personally (despite our shared last name!), but I will try to find a way to contact them. For what it's worth, both James John Borg and Joshua Schembri are fairly common names in Malta, so I would assume that they are two different people, but that wouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of James John Borg having taken the photos.
Best, Neville
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 at 09:26 olatunde olalekan isaac <reachout2isaac@gmail.commailto:reachout2isaac@gmail.com> wrote: Dear all,
I stumbled across another participant, User:James John Borghttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/James_John_Borg. Looking at the metadata of their uploadshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/James_John_Borg, it shows that the copyright holder of the files is " Joshua Schembri". I think the user is a participant from Malta. Do we have WLM organizer from Malta willing to take this up?
Best,
Isaac.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Lodewijk,
I find it a bit difficult to assume good faith when someone approaches me with a knife. I find it more natural to defend, and that's what we have to do now.
I truly regret that Commons did not develop a more civil approach than submitting deletion requests on every possible occasion. Even if we assume that this is the reasonable course of action, it hardly makes sense for WLM, because only uploaders receive notifications about possible file deletion. The organizers have no idea about it, although they should be contacted in the first turn. Most of the uploaders are new users who do not speak English. What do you expect to hear from them?
All photos related to WLM Russia contain a template saying: Please read the guidelineshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database_in_Russia before making any changes that can affect the monuments database! If you actually read the guidelines, you will see the following: If you see a potential candidate for deletion, inform us in the first place. We will organize the file transfer and you will be able to delete the photo afterwards. Should you do it differently and nominate a WLM/WLE photo for deletion without informing us, this will be highly detrimental and disrespectful to our work. We don't like vandals. All these deletion requests are indeed highly disrespectful to our work. But they happen, and we have no other choice but to fight against that. And whet our knives, because we will likely need them.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 12:17, Lodewijk wrote: Hey Alexander,
Assuming good faith is always good - even if you have to work harder for it. It makes the interactions more pleasant and the work more fun. So I will always recommend to keep doing it - even if it goes against your natural response.
The case where the names don't seem to match seems like a valid case to me to ask questions, and this process is (unfortunately) the process being used for that at Wikimedia Commons. It is uncomfortable, but it is what we have to deal with. Because there are so many pictures, there is a bunch to be expected.
I'm not going to pretend that the Wikimedia Commons community is always easy or fun to work with - but their intentions are usually good. They are very tough on copyright, and very suspicious. While these are some disadvantages, it does allow us to use a lot of shared infrastructure, and makes competitions like this one possible on an international scale. Please do realise that the number of uploads typically raises with 30-100% during Wiki Loves Monuments, and this puts some stress/strain on the reviewers too.
Best, Lodewijk
2016-09-17 8:58 GMT+02:00 Alexander Tsirlin <altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com>: Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together? It is not my project. Like many other people, I am forced to use it as a common image repository, even though I emphatically do not want to. As you probably know, before migrating to WMF servers Wikivoyage had its own image repository, and we wanted to keep it, because it was much better organized than Commons, and we did not want other people to impose their rules and practices of "nominating everything for deletion" on images that we have carefully collected ourselves.
Unfortunately, our request was ignored by the WMF, so yes, we are also in this strange thing that was supposed to be a common project, but is in fact run by a handful of people who believe that unjustified and well-hidden deletion requests are the best way to solve all problems. But it stinks, and we try to be as far from it as possible.
Your experience of license review for WLM Bangladesh might be interesting if we would ever have time to do this. At the moment, I spend most of my free time on finding and fighting these well-hidden deletion requests. Thank you, my dear Commons community, for creating such a wonderful working environment.
Sincerely, Alexander
On 17.09.2016 11:32, Nahid Sultan wrote:
Though it seems a bit odd but on a commons perspective it is also a normal procedure. Commons has a huge issue with people finding images online and then uploading them as their own work, so regular contributors on commons can sometimes be overzealous in making sure that people actually have the right to release what they are releasing. That is where the OTRS system comes in. Rather than complaining to the process could you please for once think that this is your project too and everyone in this together?
We, from WLM Bangladesh team have created a work-board/list for such users who have problem with metadata, previously published same image on other media to make sure that they are actually own the copyright. we even created a hand book for reviewers explaining what to look during the review (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM). So, every reviewer check for those mistakes when reviewing an image then if they found such problematic user they immediately contact them via email or talk page and list them on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan/WLM/possible_copyright_p.... It works for us.
Best,
Nahid Sultan
User:NahidSultanhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan on all Wikimedia Foundationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation's public wikis
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladeshhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Bangladesh
Twitter: @nahidunlimitedhttps://twitter.com/nahidunlimited
________________________________ From: WikiLovesMonuments wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikilovesmonuments-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alexander Tsirlin altsirlin@gmail.commailto:altsirlin@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:09 AM To: Wiki Loves Monuments Photograph Competition Subject: Re: [Wiki Loves Monuments] WLM photos are deleted on Commons
Now it is not only about Freedom of Panorama and non-free images.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, one Commons user nominates a bunch of excellent photos for deletion after he sees that the user name does not match the name in EXIF, even though the connection between the two is pretty obvious. This deletion request has been closed yesterday, but it still costed me a lot of time and a long e-mail exchange with the uploader, where I tried to convince her that everything is fine, and this deletion request was only a mistake. Yes, just a small mistake, really...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_... Here, the same user nominates for deletion some photos of a 13th century cathedral claiming that there is no freedom of panorama. What???!
---------------------------------------
That's a very systematic course of action against us taking place on Commons. It would be silly to assume good faith here.
Best, Alexander
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.org
wikilovesmonuments@lists.wikimedia.org